Punter who thought he’d won £15,000 on a £10 World Cup bet went into a rage after bookmakers refused to pay out

0
1

Coral bookmakers refuse to pay out to furious gambler who won nearly £15,000 on a £10 World Cup bet – offering him £660 instead

  • Liam Manifold, 30, bet £10 on three bets during the World Cup final in Qatar
  • He was given odds of 1,495/1 on the bets and believed to have won £15,000
  • Coral said they were too ‘closely related’ and refused to pay – they offered £660

A gambler thought he had won nearly £15,000 after placing just £10 on a series of World Cup bets – but one of Britain’s biggest bookmakers refused to pay out.

Liam Manifold, 30, from Tutbury, Staffordshire, had already planned how he would spend the money when Coral said it would not hand over the winnings.

The football fan was expecting odds of 1.495/1 after predicting that Argentina would be crowned overall winners of the World Cup in Qatar, Lionel Messi would be named player of the tournament and France would also make it to the final.

The delighted serviceman hurried back to the betting shop in Horninglow on December 11, the day after the final, but left empty-handed. Coral said the bets could not be combined into a treble because the three events were closely linked. It was alleged that Mr. Manifold wrote the odds on the slip himself.

Liam Manifold, 30, pictured with his partner Lauren, placed a series of bets on the World Cup final and thought he’d won nearly £15,000, but bookies Coral refuse to pay out

Mr Manifold was given odds of 1.495/1 after predicting that Argentina would be crowned the overall World Cup winner in Qatar, Lionel Messi would be named player of the tournament and France would also make it to the final

Mr Manifold was given odds of 1.495/1 after predicting that Argentina would be crowned the overall World Cup winner in Qatar, Lionel Messi would be named player of the tournament and France would also make it to the final

Is it legal for bookmakers to refuse to pay out winning bets? And why did Coral refuse in this case?

The Gambling Act of 2005 requires a bookmaker to pay out a winning bet and gamblers can take them to court if they fail to do so.

See also  The US FDA proposes limits for lead in processed baby food

However, they can legally refuse to pay out in a number of situations, including where a bet was in breach of their terms and conditions, was accepted in error or was based on incorrect pricing.

In Manifold’s case, he bet that Argentina would be crowned the overall winner of the World Cup in Qatar, that Lionel Messi would be named player of the tournament and that France would also make it to the final.

Combining the odds of each individual bet, he arrived at a final figure of 1,495/1 – meaning he would only win £15,000 if all three events happened.

However, Coral said his three bets could not be combined into one because they involved so-called ‘related contingencies’, ie the outcome of one bet influences the outcome of another.

The company explained: “If Argentina and France made it to the final, the chances of Argentina winning the final are clearly much smaller than they were at the beginning.

“If Argentina has won the World Cup, there is a good chance that Messi will be player of the tournament.”

This meant that Mr Manifold’s three individual bets could not be combined into one to generate better odds – giving Coral an excuse not to cash out.

A spokesperson for Coral said the events are ‘closely linked so the prizes offered on them separately cannot be included in a multiple bet’.

The bookmaker said it had made a ‘very fair and generous offer for settlement of the bet’ – just £660, according to Mr Manifold.

He intended to use the money to buy a new mobility scooter for his disabled father and also store some for the future.

Mr Manifold said the company should pay as his treble bet was accepted without any problem.

He said: ‘I went to cash in the bet and they said it shouldn’t have been placed and offered me £660 for it.

“I went through their complaints system, there is no leeway. I have gone to an independent complaints committee and am waiting for a response from them.

“Since then I’ve had several companies contact me to say if that was their company they would pay out.

“When I placed the bet, the man behind the counter said it was fine. They are now saying it’s a related bet.

See also  Home childcare Porse has temporarily suspended nine permits

“It’s now two weeks after the final and I don’t seem to be getting anywhere. If there’s a mistake, it’s their fault for accepting the bet. It’s very frustrating.

‘A little under £15,000 for a major gambling company is pennies to them, but to me it’s a life-changing amount.

“My dad is disabled, so I’d buy him a new scooter and save the rest.”

A spokesman for Coral said: ‘If Argentina and France have made it to the final, the chances of Argentina winning it are clearly much smaller than in the beginning.

“If Argentina won the World Cup, there is a good chance that Messi will be player of the tournament.

“So we settled the bet in the fairest possible way, paying out on the highest prized event, a final between Argentina and France, on 22/1, and on the basis that that had happened, we settled the prize applied by Argentina. winning the final which was 10/11 for the game.

Liam Manifold, 30, was planning how to spend the money when Coral said it wouldn't pay out

Liam Manifold, 30, from Tutbury, Staffordshire (pictured), had already planned how he would spend the money when Coral said it would not hand over the winnings

And then, based on Argentina having won the Cup, we applied an overly generous price to Messi to become player of the tournament at 1/2, because the probability that would happen if Argentina had won the World Cup would have been much larger. shorter.

‘The prices on the receipt were written by the customer, not the staff member.

‘We have settled the bet in accordance with our terms and conditions, and we have made a very fair and generous offer for settlement of the bet which is greater than what the odds of such event would have been if a customer had asked for rush -specific treble on December 11.”

How a gambler bagged a ‘£2MILLION’ payout after taking Betfred to court for an unpaid bet…but others weren’t so lucky

In 2021, a blackjack gambler won a landmark High Court battle against Betfred after the online gambling company refused to pay out its £1.7 million jackpot.

Andrew Green, the father of three, fought for three years to get the seven-figure prize he won by collecting chips while playing Frankie Dettori’s Magic Seven game on his phone in January 2018.

See also  Lisa Marie Presley appears shaky at Golden Globes days before she goes into cardiac arrest

Although he was congratulated on his winnings by a Betfred employee, just five days later the betting shop said he would not pay out the amount, claiming he only won because of an alleged software bug.

Andrew Green has successfully recovered around £2 million from Betfred after a three-year legal battle

Andrew Green has successfully recovered around £2 million from Betfred after a three-year legal battle

Betfred claimed a glitch prevented the game from resetting properly, meaning Mr Green, a single parent from Washingborough, Lincolnshire, would have seen his money grow exponentially he had continued to play.

Instead, the bookmaker allegedly offered Mr Green a £60,000 ‘goodwill gesture’ on the condition that he remain silent – a deal the father-of-three rejected before embarking on a three-year legal battle to recover his winnings.

In 2021, rugby league fans Gary Smeaton and Kris Shenton complained they lost out on more than £20,000 after 'human error' in a bet they placed with William Hill

In 2021, rugby league fans Gary Smeaton and Kris Shenton complained they lost out on more than £20,000 after ‘human error’ in a bet they placed with William Hill

High Court Judge Ms Justice Foster ruled in April 2021 that Betfred had no cause to withhold payment from Mr Green. The verdict meant he got the payout plus interest, estimated at around £2 million.

Betfred apologized to Mr Green for the delay in paying out and said it would not appeal the verdict.

In 2021, rugby league fans Gary Smeaton and Kris Shenton complained that they lost out on more than £20,000 after a ‘human error’ in a bet they placed with William Hill.

The pair celebrated when Salford Red Devils’ Jackson Hastings was named rugby league’s Steve Prescott MBE Man of Steel after a bet they placed in January.

They thought they were in line to collect £23,400 after a £100 double bet came in which saw Hastings win the Man of Steel and Salford finish in the top five of the Super League.

But bookmaker William Hill refused to pay out, saying they were separate bets that should never have been allowed – although she admitted it was human error on their part.

Mr Smeaton took the bookmakers to TSTIME Betting Adjudication Service (IBAS), which provides impartial settlement of customer disputes. He and his friend were each paid £4,000 for the ‘inconvenience’ they endured.

.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here