Man denied £1.7m payout by Betfred takes fight to High Court

[ghost22]

A man who was refused a payout of £1.7m after his online betting company account was credited with the money is taking his case to the High Court.

Andy Green, 53, from Lincolnshire, said he hit the jackpot in January 2018 playing a blackjack game from bookmaker Betfred on his phone.

Betfred said there was a software error and the company's terms and conditions meant it could withhold the payment.

But lawyers for Mr Green say they have been given no proof of the problem.

After a long night playing the Betfred Frankie Dettori Magic Seven Blackjack in January 2018, Mr Green's online account was credited with £1,722,923.54 which he tried to withdraw - but the request was declined.

After placing some more bets with his winnings he took a screenshot to prove what had happened.

However, a Betfred director called him to say there had been a "software error" and it was rejecting the claim.

'Hell on earth'

As a token of "goodwill" the company was willing to pay £30,000, but Mr Green would have to agree not to talk about it ever again.

Mr Green refused and the company increased its offer to £60,000, which he also rejected.

More than two years later he is heading to the High Court to sue Betfred and its parent company, Gibraltar-based Petfre for £2m, including the interest he would have earned from the win.

Mr Green said "the last two and a half years have felt like hell on earth".

"You wouldn't treat an animal like I've been treated by Betfred," he said.

"Hopefully the judge will accept the arguments put forward by my legal team and this nightmare will be over. My champagne remains on ice!"

Mr Green is in poor health and has suffered four heart attacks - one of them since the money was credited to his online account in 2018.

• Legal action over voided £1.7m game win
• Lockdown 'a disaster' for problem gamblers

The legal argument centres on 49 pages of terms and conditions, and game rules which Mr Green ticked when signing up for Betfred.

They include a clause that all "pays and plays" would be void in the event of a "malfunction", and Betfred argues that by ticking the box, Mr Green was agreeing.

However Mr Green's lawyers disagree.

His solicitor Peter Coyle said "whilst Betfred's betting terms and conditions are incredibly complicated and span across numerous different documents, we are confident that, on their proper construction, the terms simply don't allow for Betfred to withhold payment".

Mr Coyle pointed out that if "all pays and plays" were void, then Betfred would have refunded other customers, but the company had produced no evidence that had happened. It only wanted to withhold Mr Green's enormous win, he said.

Betfred licences the software for its online games from another company Playtech, which has refused to confirm the nature of the software glitch.

By law, Playtech has to notify the Gambling Commission of Great Britain of the fault, known as a "key event". Mr Coyle says the description of what happened is only four lines long and does not describe the nature of the problem.

Despite repeated requests, Mr Green's lawyers say Betfred has been unable to prove there was a software problem at all. Neither has the company attempted to drag its supplier Playtech into the case.

If the court rules in Mr Green's favour, other gamblers denied their winnings due to technical problems could be able to make similar claims.

A Betfred spokesman said "the case is currently progressing at court and it is therefore inappropriate for us to comment further".

[StopandStep]

That's interesting that they offered him 30k, then 60k. I'm not familiar with that game, is it possible to win that much money from it?

[boropeab]

They offered him more so it didnt get any publicity,now it has he wont get a penny

[ghost22]

not sure mate as i dont play roulette , if it was an error will playtech refund everybody who was playing at that time ? it will be interesting to see how it pans out 

[ghost22]

1 minute ago, boropeab said:

They offered him more so it didnt get any publicity,now it has he wont get a penny

or he will get about  2 million , im betting they offer him a substantial out of court settlement , 

[StopandStep]

3 minutes ago, boropeab said:

They offered him more so it didnt get any publicity,now it has he wont get a penny

That's what I thought when I first read it, he would have known if he genuinely hit a win like that, and if he didn't he was foolish not to take the payout. 'Hell on Earth' is a bit dramatic!

[ghost22]

i think the fact they offered him 60 grand is in his favour , why would betfred offer it if they know they are in the right ? , theres something odd going on here .

[BlindHaze]

50 minutes ago, ghost22 said:

i think the fact they offered him 60 grand is in his favour , why would betfred offer it if they know they are in the right ? , theres something odd going on here .

It could be a PR thing. Obviously they don’t want this sort of story in the public domain, especially if it diminishes customer trust and confidence in the software the games are played on. There’s hundreds of online casinos out there, it could cost them even more in lost revenue if people read this story and decide to avoid BetFred.

[ghost22]

3 minutes ago, BlindHaze said:

It could be a PR thing. Obviously they don’t want this sort of story in the public domain, especially if it diminishes customer trust and confidence in the software the games are played on. There’s hundreds of online casinos out there, it could cost them even more in lost revenue if people read this story and decide to avoid BetFred.

One fundamental question is what is the relationship between Betfred and Playtech: was the punter actually playing against Betfred, or against Playtech with Betfred as a middle-man?

In other words, scenario 1: is it that Betfred is refusing to pay out because Playtech said there was a bug in the game?
Or scenario 2: is it that Playtech is the firm refusing to pay out because of the glitch, and Betfred is refusing to pay out because they can't get the money from Playtech?

Either way, Playtech has not explained what went wrong.

 

[ghost22]

If there was a glitch as alleged by software provider/betfred (curiously after big win) then software provider is providing a game/content that's not fit-for-purpose, and betfred is complicit to it. And, I'm sure betfred must have been informed/known about it prior to this disputed mega win either eg betfred must have asked (before it was installed) what would be the worst case scenario eg max payout, and why it (a disputed win) happened? And, if betfred was still willingly peddled the game/content (with this info) in their shops would that not be considered fraudulent?

Anyway. I hope the punter gets his just reward after the legal people exercised their legal exchanges in court.

 

 

 

[Skippy888]

I was saving this but it seems appropriate to post it here 

 

I know how he feels 

Result link 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/46422266

Digne (90'+6minutes)

 

 

 

[StopandStep]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8847861/Gambler-refused-1-7m-blackjack-payout-Betfred-500m-glitch.html 

They now go in to more detail about what happened, the bonus cards weren't reseting so he was hitting 7000/1 odds more and more.

[ghost22]

if they where trying to keep it quiet they are in trouble , its all over the bbc  🙂

[BlindHaze]

2 hours ago, StopandStep said:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8847861/Gambler-refused-1-7m-blackjack-payout-Betfred-500m-glitch.html 

They now go in to more detail about what happened, the bonus cards weren't reseting so he was hitting 7000/1 odds more and more.

Urgh, these games get more and more confusing as time goes by, although I think I understand the concept.

I think BetFred will win the case, it does seem like a software glitch and it seems in their T&C (albeit confusingly like most of them are, iTunes being a prime example) that they’re covered. As this story has now hit numerous national newspapers though, who here that’s read the story will play online there now? There’s hundreds of other online casinos out there and I think this will cost them a lot more on lost business and legal expenses than the £60k they offered.

[ghost22]

1 minute ago, BlindHaze said:

Urgh, these games get more and more confusing as time goes by, although I think I understand the concept.

I think BetFred will win the case, it does seem like a software glitch and it seems in their T&C (albeit confusingly like most of them are, iTunes being a prime example) that they’re covered. As this story has now hit numerous national newspapers though, who here that’s read the story will play online there now? There’s hundreds of other online casinos out there and I think this will cost them a lot more on lost business and legal expenses than the £60k they offered.

yes , but who is at fault ? is it fred or playtech ? if they offered half a million now he could buy a nice house somewhere and retire , all freds problems would go away . also is anybody who played that game that night and lost cash entitled to a refund ?  i can see a class action lawsuit on the horizon .....