Legal Action against Betfred’s Refusal to Pay Winnings

A gambler who has been trying to collect his winning from an online operator for two and a half years has turned to the court system to restore justice.

Andrew Green, 54, from Washingborough, Lincolnshire, is suing Betfred and its parent company, Gibraltar-based Petre for £2 million including interest, for having his 2018 winnings of £1.7 million refused to be paid.

Felt Like Robbery

Mr Green said he felt as if being robbed by the operator, when it informed him they would not pay his winnings because of a glitch in the system. By bringing legal action against Betfred at the High Court in London, Andrew Green is hoping to find a resolution while avoiding the need for a full trial.

Unlike his lawyers who asked Mrs Justice Foster to either rule in his favor or strike out Betfred’s defense to his claim, Betfred’s legal representatives insisted the case be resolved at a full trial. Betfred’s excuse for not paying the winnings rests on a text in its terms and conditions (T&C) which Andrew Green agreed with prior to starting to play.

Winnings Declared Void

Betfred’s lawyer Richard Osborne argued that winnings can be declared void in cases of machine malfunctions, the so called ‘pays and plays’ clause. His technical explanation to the court was that the Frankie Dettori’s Magic Seven Blackjack machine which Mr Green played and won experienced a glitch and kept throwing more and more special cards in the dealings without taking these out, thereby exponentially increasing the chances for success.

Furthermore, the High Court heard that the reason Andrew Green won only £1.7 million was because he stopped playing. Otherwise, the winnings would be in the region of £50 million, or even £500 million, as there were already 3 times winnings as high as 7,000 times the stake, and he could have won as many times as he chose with the same 7,000 to 1 ratio.

Liability Clause Should Be Disregarded

Andrew Green’s lawyer, James Couser, argued that all relevant terms need to comply with the Consumer Rights Act and for that, the pays and plays clause should have been prominently displayed. Instead, it is found “tucked away on page 13 of a long, repetitive and frankly tedious electronic document”, thereby the liability clause should be disregarded.

Mr Green told reporters outside the court after the hearing that he was hoping to win not only for himself, but for everyone else, so that nobody had to go through what he had undergone since January 2018. He further pointed out he gambled to win the jackpot and to win it and have it refused was so unfair.