Student suing bet365 over unpaid winnings

Student suing bet365 over unpaid winnings
BY DAVID BAXTER 10:03AM 10 JUL 2017
A student is suing bet365 after the firm refused to pay out winnings in excess of £1 million over a bet struck on June 22, 2016.

Megan McCann, who was 19 when she placed the winning wager, staked 960 each-way Lucky 15s on 12 horses, with the near £25,000 outlay returning winnings of £985,000.

Bet365 refused to pay out McCann, accusing her of fraudulent behaviour as they believe her stakes were funded by a third party, in breach of their terms and conditions.

With the matter now unresolved after more than a year, McCann, who lives near Belfast, is suing the online bookmaker for £1,009,960, lodging a writ in the High Court in Northern Ireland against Hillside (UK Sports) LP, the company which operates bet365.

A spokesman for bet365, quoted by the Daily Telegraph, said: "A full investigation has been carried out into the circumstances of the bet that was placed.

"Bet365 is entirely satisfied the circumstances are such that winnings are not payable in relation to it.

"We expect this position to be upheld at trial. We are not prepared to comment further whilst litigation is ongoing."

Former trainer and gambler Barney Curley was denied an £825,000 payout from 2010 by the Gibraltar gambling commissioner until 2012, and he employed the services of lawyer Andrew Montague.

McCann has also turned to Montague, who said: "This is something of a 'déjà vu' scenario for me, but as the case is now before the Belfast High Court, I am not in a position to comment further."

"Bet365 refused to pay out ... accusing her of fraudulent behaviour as they believe her stakes were funded by a third party, in breach of their terms and conditions".

I wonder what that means?

The outlay does seem excessive for a 19 year old student, but if the bet had lost would they have refunded her outlay?

shrek wrote: The outlay does seem excessive for a 19 year old student, but if the bet had lost would they have refunded her outlay?

My view exactly Shrek,if they thought something was amiss why did they take the bet, there is no way they would have refunded if the bet lost.

To me a bets a bet what if a 70 year poor pensioner put on the bet?

they protect themselves by putting in a clause that ay bet has to be "yours and not on someone's behalf"

but there are many ways to skin a cat

so in theory

"she put the bet on following a tipsters advice"

end of IMVHO

Imagine the reaction if a punter asked for a refund because the losing bet taken was on behalf of someone else :lol:

My view - if the ticket was handed over a legal transaction has taken place ie. a bet has been accepted.

One of the reasons I stopped punting, being treated like a criminal trying to get a bet on

It does get silly

Lets say my wealthy grannie asks me to put a punt on because she is wheelchair bound ??

Dave Scott wrote: It does get silly

Lets say my wealthy grannie asks me to put a punt on because she is wheelchair bound ??

Why not change the scene and invent a story like what if a jockey's brother-in-law put on the bet for a group of friends who planned the bet on a boat over the weekend?

The fact that they would keep the bet if it lost is a bit like keeping the dropped tool bag of a burglar who bolted when you surprised him so it's a non-argument. If the perp really is in breach, who cares they lost their bet? Another story if they legit.

Having said all that, how do you lay a UK25,000 bet, and then argue where it comes from? Do you lay bets that big at-the-off or seconds before?

Pay Pay...

Bob Brogan wrote: One of the reasons I stopped punting, being treated like a criminal trying to get a bet on

Were you so successful ?