Betfred Taken To Court Over Unpaid Winnings

October 21, 2020

- Grant Whittington

The software glitch behind bookmaking giant Betfred’s 2018 refusal to pay out to a British man a massive £1.7 million in winnings has now turned application for a summary judgement in Britain’s High Court.

Applicant Andy Green, a resident of Lincolnshire, says he hit the jackpot playing Frankie Dettori’s Magic Seven Blackjack via Betfred in January 2018 – evidenced by the fact that his account was at the time credited with the incredible £1.7 million in winnings.

His joy was however short-lived as he not long after his big score realised that he wasn’t able to withdraw the winnings credited to his account by the operator.   

Money Good For Placing More Bets

Green reportedly placed several more bets by utilising some of the money credited to his Betfred account – at the time also taking several screenshots of his non-withdrawable winnings. His query was however met by a call from a director of Betfred explaining to him that the reason for the rejection of his claim was that the win had resulted from a software glitch in the system.

Betfred’s terms and conditions clearly reserves the right to “void all pays and plays” in an instance of malfunction. Since Green had ticked the relevant box indicating his agreeing with the operator’s terms and conditions at the time of the opening of his account, Betfred wasted no time informing him he had no further remedy of action at his disposal.

The Counter-Argument

But there’s another side to the story than a mere interpretation of terms and conditions.

According to solicitor Peter Coyle, the legal aid appointed by Green for the purpose of his application for summary judgement, Betfred’s 49-pager disclaimer is complicated to the point of frustration, and as such, cannot legally be enforced. As such, claims Coyle, Betfred isn’t by law permitted to withhold payment in Green’s particular case.

What probably won’t count in the sportsbook’s favour once the application goes to court is the fact that Betfred, following their refusal to pay to the player his rightful winnings, offered to put the matter to bet with a £30,000 payment made as a show of “goodwill”. This was however offered subject to an agreement on Green’s part to not mention the incident to anyone.

Upon the bettor’s refusal to accept the so-called token of goodwill, Betfred allegedly proceeded to increase the penance-seeking offer to £60,000. The second offer too, was promptly rejected by Green.

Bettor Says He’s Living In Hell

According to a statement lodged as part of the aggrieved party’s court application, the disgruntled bettor claims to have lived through a couple of years of “hell on earth”. He claims to have been treated worse than what anyone would consider “treating an animal” in his quest to secure his rightful winnings from the operator.

Playtech, being the product owner of the Blackjack software in question, has in the meantime continued to refuse to provide any information regarding the actual nature of the software glitch assumed to have caused the non-payment result.

According to Coyle, Playtech was by law required to not only report the incident to the UK Gambling Commission (UKGC), but also to provide the commission with a proper explanation of what exactly had transpired. Playtech, claims Coyle in the court application, having provided a non-specific explanation only four lines long, failed to abide by the relevant regulations.

The £2 million now being claimed from the operator is made up of the unpaid winnings together with interest spanning nearly 2 years. The judge presiding over the High Court matter has for the moment reserved making a ruling, meaning that the matter could still end up going to trial.

Recent Posts from this category



What Gambling Reform May Mean For The UK



MPs Lash Out At Lottery CEO Over Delay



DRA Slaps Cheating Darts Player With 8-Year Ban



Safer Gambling Week Spotlight On Betting

Click on your choice of sport. uses cookies to give the best experience possible. Please read our Cookie Policy for more details