London Bookie Refuses To Pay Bet Winner Over ‘Mistake’

January 9, 2010

U.K. (ChattahBox) – A London man is furious after a bookie service has refused to pay out almost $11 million in winnings over a bet that they says was a ‘mistake’.

He had originally bet on a white Christmas across the whole of Britain.

Ladbrokes, the largest betting company in the U.K., said that the acceptance of two accumulator bets (each with 5-pound starters) was an accident, and that they do not allow bets of that kind.

That means that Cliff Bryant, a 52-year-old graphics designer from Southampton will only be entitled to a bit under 32-pounds, a shockingly low amount in comparison to the millions he had expected.

“If I make a mistake in my work like that it costs me dearly and I think the offer should be a lot more generous than they have made,” he told a local paper.

“They are one of the leading bookmakers in the country and I think they ought to do their homework a bit better in future.”

He has a fair point. It was their mistake, not his, and they may end up finding themselves in a little legal trouble if he chooses to sue for more.

Source


Comments

5 Responses to “London Bookie Refuses To Pay Bet Winner Over ‘Mistake’”

  1. London Bookie Refuses To Pay Bet Winner Over 'Mistake … Staff on January 9th, 2010 3:43 pm

    [...] London Bookie Refuses To Pay Bet Winner Over 'Mistake … Tags: chavez, chavez-written, devil, got-some, london, pay-out, seattle, seattle-times, space-left, winnings-over Mistake in Paperback Writer? – Rock Band ForumsAm I making a mistake?Lets Not Make The Mistake Of Acting On Emotion With Endy Chavez …Christian Marketing: #1 Marketing Mistake | Anointed To Succeed Today!NC-Soccer Forum – College Soccer – Surprise at CampbellMicro Bionic: By Surprise360 Sports Blog » Blog Archive » “It will now be a surprise if …Sunday: Conversations With Gino Gionfriddo @ the Wilma Theatre …Michael Lohan: Releasing tapes was a “mistake” : Lohan Groupie …UW Political Science Advising Newsletter: Book event: Greater Equality View the Contact Powered by Staff [...]

  2. ben on January 11th, 2010 5:17 am

    Even though this is a very harsh way to start the new year, i speak fairly confidently when i say that in order to place this bet he would have entered into contract under the terms and conditions of bet acceptance. Within said terms there would be a clause covering the bookies from any palpable error(s).
    I am by know means saying its right or fair, but he wont be able to sue for anything…

  3. wayne on January 12th, 2010 6:06 pm

    Since when was Southampton in London. It’s about 85 miles away!

  4. olivia on January 13th, 2010 12:19 am

    The bookie was a London agent, the man who took it out was from Southampton. No one is saying they are the same city.

  5. jamie on January 13th, 2010 6:02 pm

    Ladbrokes are totally correct in the stance they have taken, Thier rules did clearly state only singles were accepted.
    Secondly even if they did accept multiple bets they would not accept bets on places as close together as he staked for example Leeds and Bradford.
    Third and again even if they did accep multiples they have a maximum payout and on special markets like this it would probably be about £100,000 all that being said point one is the reason no money over and above the £31 should be paid out
    Maybe infact it was Mr Brynt who should have done his homework before placing his bet or just maybe he knew exactly what he was doing but still thought he would try it on.
    There is not a chance in the world that Independant Betting Arbitration Service will find against Ladbrokes in this case and no i don’t work for Ladbrokes.

Got something to say? **Please Note** - Comments may be edited for clarity or obscenity, and all comments are published at the discretion of ChattahBox.com - Comments are the opinions of the individuals leaving them, and not of ChattahBox.com or its partners. - Please do not spam or submit comments that use copyright materials, hearsay or are based on reports where the supposed fact or quote is not a matter of public knowledge are also not permitted.