Saftote Bandits

Justanotherpunter Wrote:

---

>
> I thought I at least had a chance when I went to a
> meeting with the gambling board with regards to
> bookmakers limiting a punters' bet size just
> because they are a winner.To my mind it was a
> clear violation of the Consumer Protection Act as
> it is discriminatory in it's nature.They told me I
> don't have a leg to stand on.
>
> This all comes down to revenue,and these boards
> are all just an arm of goverment at the end of the
> day.Every extra cent they squeeze from punters
> pockets ultimately adds to revenue,all be it small
> amounts.
>
> Good luck fighting it though.Personally I have
> tried to fight these fights in the past,but I'm at
> the point of surrender now,it's just too taxing.

There must be a good lawyer somewhere with knowledge of gambling that can help us with this, especially regarding the consumer protection act - the gambling board has no interest whatsoever.

Every new online bookie does the same thing – they limit you within a month.
It goes to a thousand to 500 and lower and lower. The blokes who said they will never limit customers (YYY) don’t even exist anymore.

All they want is hundreds of mugs to take the specials, do their money and then keep on depositing – people who don’t have a clue about betting %.

If you ever find such a lawyer, I am sure there are many that will share expenses.

Very often the answer to a question is determined by how the question is presented and to who!

All businesses ,including bookmakers can determine their own strategy regarding limits of liability etc BUT if before betting even opens, there are variable limits to punters, that surely breaches the consumer protection act, as discriminatory!
However, I would not be taking advice from the gambling board anymore than I would discuss a traffic offence with Home Affairs!!
The place is the National Consumer Commision who are versed (hopefully) in what constitutes a breach.

I ask you whether you regard having different limits for winners/losers breaches the following rules: (taken word for word from the Dept of T&I document)
1)Suppliers are not permitted to prioritise any consumer groups over others when marketing SELLING or distributing their goods or services
and
2)suppliers are not permitted to vary the quality of their goods and services in a discriminatory manner.

What do you think?

rob faux Wrote:

---

> Very often the answer to a question is determined
> by how the question is presented and to who!
>
> All businesses ,including bookmakers can determine
> their own strategy regarding limits of liability
> etc BUT if before betting even opens, there are
> variable limits to punters, that surely breaches
> the consumer protection act, as discriminatory!
> However, I would not be taking advice from the
> gambling board anymore than I would discuss a
> traffic offence with Home Affairs!!
> The place is the National Consumer Commision who
> are versed (hopefully) in what constitutes a
> breach.
>
> I ask you whether you regard having different
> limits for winners/losers breaches the following
> rules: (taken word for word from the Dept of T&I
> document)
> 1)Suppliers are not permitted to prioritise any
> consumer groups over others when marketing SELLING
> or distributing their goods or services
> and
> 2)suppliers are not permitted to vary the quality
> of their goods and services in a discriminatory
> manner.
>
> What do you think?

This was exactly my thinking when I went to the gambling board.I even took a copy of the CPA with and had specifically underlined what you have quoted above.

They looked at me like I'm some kind of a nut(they may be right on this count),and then proceeded to tell me that gambling has it's own set of rules that sets it apart.

I didn't bother after that.It's like arguing with a stone.

I did get a free cup of tea which seemed a fair compromise.

Justanotherpunter Wrote:

---

> rob faux Wrote:
>

---

>

---

> > Very often the answer to a question is
> determined
> > by how the question is presented and to who!
> >
> > All businesses ,including bookmakers can
> determine
> > their own strategy regarding limits of
> liability
> > etc BUT if before betting even opens, there are
> > variable limits to punters, that surely
> breaches
> > the consumer protection act, as discriminatory!
> > However, I would not be taking advice from the
> > gambling board anymore than I would discuss a
> > traffic offence with Home Affairs!!
> > The place is the National Consumer Commision
> who
> > are versed (hopefully) in what constitutes a
> > breach.
> >
> > I ask you whether you regard having different
> > limits for winners/losers breaches the
> following
> > rules: (taken word for word from the Dept of
> T&I
> > document)
> > 1)Suppliers are not permitted to prioritise any
> > consumer groups over others when marketing
> SELLING
> > or distributing their goods or services
> > and
> > 2)suppliers are not permitted to vary the
> quality
> > of their goods and services in a discriminatory
> > manner.
> >
> > What do you think?
>
> This was exactly my thinking when I went to the
> gambling board.I even took a copy of the CPA with
> and had specifically underlined what you have
> quoted above.
>
> They looked at me like I'm some kind of a nut(they
> may be right on this count),and then proceeded to
> tell me that gambling has it's own set of rules
> that sets it apart.
>
> I didn't bother after that.It's like arguing with
> a stone.
>
> I did get a free cup of tea which seemed a fair
> compromise.

Hey JAP,I'm completely on your side and I believe that there are certain things we wrongly accept as gamblers!
For instance,I cannot understand why bookmakers are not subject to the very basic common law of contract(or are they and we never test)
If you see a price in a window of a retail shop and you walk in and offer the money(the offer) and a person acting within the scope of their employment accepts it(acceptance), the contract is concluded ,even if there is a "mistake"
However,we are subject to offering a stake, being issued a ticket and then accepting a change of contract due to "mistake" ,AFTER THE EVENT.................another situation which would be interesting if tested by litigation I would think!

rob faux Wrote:

---

> Justanotherpunter Wrote:
>

---

>

---

> > rob faux Wrote:
> >
>

---

>
> >

---

> > > Very often the answer to a question is
> > determined
> > > by how the question is presented and to who!
> > >
> > > All businesses ,including bookmakers can
> > determine
> > > their own strategy regarding limits of
> > liability
> > > etc BUT if before betting even opens, there
> are
> > > variable limits to punters, that surely
> > breaches
> > > the consumer protection act, as
> discriminatory!
> > > However, I would not be taking advice from
> the
> > > gambling board anymore than I would discuss a
> > > traffic offence with Home Affairs!!
> > > The place is the National Consumer Commision
> > who
> > > are versed (hopefully) in what constitutes a
> > > breach.
> > >
> > > I ask you whether you regard having different
> > > limits for winners/losers breaches the
> > following
> > > rules: (taken word for word from the Dept of
> > T&I
> > > document)
> > > 1)Suppliers are not permitted to prioritise
> any
> > > consumer groups over others when marketing
> > SELLING
> > > or distributing their goods or services
> > > and
> > > 2)suppliers are not permitted to vary the
> > quality
> > > of their goods and services in a
> discriminatory
> > > manner.
> > >
> > > What do you think?
> >
> > This was exactly my thinking when I went to the
> > gambling board.I even took a copy of the CPA
> with
> > and had specifically underlined what you have
> > quoted above.
> >
> > They looked at me like I'm some kind of a
> nut(they
> > may be right on this count),and then proceeded
> to
> > tell me that gambling has it's own set of rules
> > that sets it apart.
> >
> > I didn't bother after that.It's like arguing
> with
> > a stone.
> >
> > I did get a free cup of tea which seemed a fair
> > compromise.
>
> Hey JAP,I'm completely on your side and I believe
> that there are certain things we wrongly accept as
> gamblers!
> For instance,I cannot understand why bookmakers
> are not subject to the very basic common law of
> contract(or are they and we never test)
> If you see a price in a window of a retail shop
> and you walk in and offer the money(the offer) and
> a person acting within the scope of their
> employment accepts it(acceptance), the contract is
> concluded ,even if there is a "mistake"
> However,we are subject to offering a stake, being
> issued a ticket and then accepting a change of
> contract due to "mistake" ,AFTER THE
> EVENT.................another situation which
> would be interesting if tested by litigation I
> would think!


Rob i went into town this morning at 9am waiting for THE SHOPS to open,there is about 6 betting shops in about a mile.I deliberately had a small tester bet in Ladbrokes £40 @7/2 Sound Surround the manager picked up a staff sheet and checked if she needed to phone that size of bet into head office,i asked what she was allowed to lay

£250 TO REGULARS and £150 TO STRANGERS SHE SAID

Well I hope u took the 140/40
And then 210/60 as she knew u by then?

245/70 what is wrong with you dave?

150 pound is close enough to 3000 rand so i suppose our bookies are heroes lay 5000? <

Justanotherpunter Wrote:

> This was exactly my thinking when I went to the
> gambling board.I even took a copy of the CPA with
> and had specifically underlined what you have
> quoted above.
>
> They looked at me like I'm some kind of a nut(they
> may be right on this count),and then proceeded to
> tell me that gambling has it's own set of rules
> that sets it apart.
>
> I didn't bother after that.It's like arguing with
> a stone.
>
> I did get a free cup of tea which seemed a fair
> compromise.

my point is, the consumer protection act is the law, and you cannot make rules and regulations that are contrary to the law

fingers Wrote:

---

> Justanotherpunter Wrote:
>
> > This was exactly my thinking when I went to the
> > gambling board.I even took a copy of the CPA
> with
> > and had specifically underlined what you have
> > quoted above.
> >
> > They looked at me like I'm some kind of a
> nut(they
> > may be right on this count),and then proceeded
> to
> > tell me that gambling has it's own set of rules
> > that sets it apart.
> >
> > I didn't bother after that.It's like arguing
> with
> > a stone.
> >
> > I did get a free cup of tea which seemed a fair
> > compromise.
>
> my point is, the consumer protection act is the
> law, and you cannot make rules and regulations
> that are contrary to the law

It was only in the last couple of decades that gambling debts were legal............for many years gambling rules WERE beyond the law as you couldn't litigate ,so even common law didn't apply..................a lot of present attitudes are still a remnant of that and ,if tested in court ,a lot of the accepted conditions would be changed by precedent IMO!
The problem is that it has to be a very large bet to make litigation worthwhile, but breach of CPA would be an interesting ruling from The Consumer Protection Commision!

I find it amazing how Ladbrokes, I think the world's largest bookie, makes a living with a maximum lay of 250 quid.