Jeff
freddy wrote:But you don't have to pay the P.C
it's not enforceable by law.
You just have to pay it if you want to continue using Betfair.
They will not chase you for it. So it's lightly diffrent.
Virgin Media staff in X Factor bet scam
True, but as with banks, they take the money out of your account without so much as a 'By your leave'!
Jeff
Jeff
Thats why they will / used to refund you the first weeks P.C when you reach the threshold if you complaine about it.
They know they don't have a leg to stand on if you claimed you didn't know it was going to happen.
but after that, when you know the score you are effectivly voluntarily paying the P.C if you want to keep using Betfair.
They know they don't have a leg to stand on if you claimed you didn't know it was going to happen.
but after that, when you know the score you are effectivly voluntarily paying the P.C if you want to keep using Betfair.
Last edited by freddy on Mon Apr 18, 2011 6:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
If a boss were to operate a 'voluntary' fine for staff turning up late, whereby if the staff didn't pay up they got sacked, I imagine a court could view that as unfair and unlawful.
You could argue that Betfair's position is fundamentally no different...
Jeff
You could argue that Betfair's position is fundamentally no different...
Jeff
freddy wrote: They know they don't have a leg to stand on,
but after that, when you know the score you are effectivly voluntarily paying the P.C if you want to keep using Betfair.
Yep but there are clear rules for sacking people and you would be in clearly be in breach of them.
so i would say this is a very different situation.
All Betfair doing are charging you to use a service like anyother company does.
They decide what it will cost you and you either pay it or go someware else.
It's your choice.
There not putting a gun to your head and they will not chase you for it if you decide not to use them again and withdraw all your your funds.
If they did inforce it i agree they prob would be in breach of some rule, but they don't.
so i would say this is a very different situation.
All Betfair doing are charging you to use a service like anyother company does.
They decide what it will cost you and you either pay it or go someware else.
It's your choice.
There not putting a gun to your head and they will not chase you for it if you decide not to use them again and withdraw all your your funds.
If they did inforce it i agree they prob would be in breach of some rule, but they don't.
I think it's a matter of interpretation, and therefore in my layperson's opinion it's not a foregone conclusion that a court would view Betfair's position as acceptable.
BTW, has anyone tried putting the enforcement principle to the test by saying to Betfair 'I don't give you permission to deduct any money from my account'? If they deduct the money anyway, surely they are acting against your will, and the contribution can't be said to be voluntary.
BTW, has anyone tried putting the enforcement principle to the test by saying to Betfair 'I don't give you permission to deduct any money from my account'? If they deduct the money anyway, surely they are acting against your will, and the contribution can't be said to be voluntary.
freddy wrote:
If they did inforce it i agree they prob would be in breach of some rule, but they don't.
Yes i know people who have requested the money taken from them to be put back in there account
and they have done so the first time,
but the next time it happens
you will not get away with playing play dumb they will deduct it from your account on the day without fail.
You have been warned so you have no real leg to stand on.
If you don't have enought money in your account or any at all for that matter they will just give you a negitive balance. And leave the choice up to you.
So i think you will find they have it pretty much sewn up legally Jeff.
and they have done so the first time,
but the next time it happens
you will not get away with playing play dumb they will deduct it from your account on the day without fail.
You have been warned so you have no real leg to stand on.
If you don't have enought money in your account or any at all for that matter they will just give you a negitive balance. And leave the choice up to you.
So i think you will find they have it pretty much sewn up legally Jeff.
Possibly - but I maintain that it's not a given that a judge would agree, which is all that matters.
Whilst in theory the judge is merely there to uphold the law, in practice there's nothing to stop him applying a dubious interpretation of it. If you Google 'stupid UK judge decisions', I'm sure you'll find plenty of examples!
But for me it's academic, as I'm far, far away from having to worry about the Premium Charge!
Jeff
Whilst in theory the judge is merely there to uphold the law, in practice there's nothing to stop him applying a dubious interpretation of it. If you Google 'stupid UK judge decisions', I'm sure you'll find plenty of examples!
But for me it's academic, as I'm far, far away from having to worry about the Premium Charge!
Jeff
freddy wrote: So i think you will find they have it pretty much sewn up legally Jeff.
Well we will have to agree to disagree on this one Jeff ,
but personally i just carn't see a Judge ever saying that a company can not charge what they want for there services, providing there are still other alternatives for people to use of cause.
If a pint in a pub costs 1-00 normally and all of a sudden they put it up to 5-00 then you might be annoyed, you might refuse to pay and ask them to take it back.
But the simple fact is if you don't like the pricing then you have to go to another pub.
,but personally i just carn't see a Judge ever saying that a company can not charge what they want for there services, providing there are still other alternatives for people to use of cause.
If a pint in a pub costs 1-00 normally and all of a sudden they put it up to 5-00 then you might be annoyed, you might refuse to pay and ask them to take it back.
But the simple fact is if you don't like the pricing then you have to go to another pub.
But the point is that this isn't a charge for a service - it's more like a penalty charge.
It's not like Betfair are offering services to people who incur the Penalty Charge that they don't provide to everyone else. Therefore, it's a form of price discrimination.
Jeff
It's not like Betfair are offering services to people who incur the Penalty Charge that they don't provide to everyone else. Therefore, it's a form of price discrimination.
Jeff
freddy wrote: but personally i just carn't see a Judge ever saying that a company can not charge what they want for there services
PS I don't know if price discrimination is unlawful under UK law, but it definitely is under European law.
For example (from http://www.biicl.org/files/60_reflectio ... nation.pdf):
In Portuguese Airports for example airlines paid
different landing fees depending on their point of departure. The Commission believed that the services being purchased (i.e. the use of the airport and its facilities) were the same irrespective of the point of origin of the aircraft involved. As a result
this practice was held to be discriminatory; in other words the respective landing fees represented ‘equivalent transactions’. As no objective justification could be found for the different fees the price discrimination in question was held to have violated Article 82 (c).
Surely this is fundamentally no different to charging a Premium Charge member and everyone else different fees for the same service.
Jeff
For example (from http://www.biicl.org/files/60_reflectio ... nation.pdf):
In Portuguese Airports for example airlines paid
different landing fees depending on their point of departure. The Commission believed that the services being purchased (i.e. the use of the airport and its facilities) were the same irrespective of the point of origin of the aircraft involved. As a result
this practice was held to be discriminatory; in other words the respective landing fees represented ‘equivalent transactions’. As no objective justification could be found for the different fees the price discrimination in question was held to have violated Article 82 (c).
Surely this is fundamentally no different to charging a Premium Charge member and everyone else different fees for the same service.
Jeff
Ferru123 wrote:But the point is that this isn't a charge for a service - it's more like a penalty charge.
It's not like Betfair are offering services to people who incur the Penalty Charge that they don't provide to everyone else. Therefore, it's a form of price discrimination.
Jeff
It is still a charge for services, only certain customers pay more than others for that service,
this may not seem fair, but it's up to them, there's no law against price discrimination i don't think, well there carn't be really as most businesses do it in some form or other.
If a manufacturer was selling lots of goods to a large chain of shops for example, then the manufacturer's price would most likely be a lot different to if they were selling to a small corner shop that only sells 5 a year. This is Price discriminationis it not.
Don't see what Betfair are doing is any different.
this may not seem fair, but it's up to them, there's no law against price discrimination i don't think, well there carn't be really as most businesses do it in some form or other.
If a manufacturer was selling lots of goods to a large chain of shops for example, then the manufacturer's price would most likely be a lot different to if they were selling to a small corner shop that only sells 5 a year. This is Price discriminationis it not.
Don't see what Betfair are doing is any different.
It is. But that's price discrimination based on quid pro quo rather than exploiting your monopoly!
I think a better analogy would be a supplier looking at a customer's annual report and thinking "These guys have a bit of cash splashing around, so we'll raise the price we charge them for widgets, but we'll freeze the price everyone else pays."
BTW, the irony of your analogy is that Betfair's most successful customers will have the highest turnover and thereby benefit Betfair the most. But rather than giving such customers a dedicated account manager, they levy a Premium Charge! Where's the fairness in that?!?
Jeff
I think a better analogy would be a supplier looking at a customer's annual report and thinking "These guys have a bit of cash splashing around, so we'll raise the price we charge them for widgets, but we'll freeze the price everyone else pays."
BTW, the irony of your analogy is that Betfair's most successful customers will have the highest turnover and thereby benefit Betfair the most. But rather than giving such customers a dedicated account manager, they levy a Premium Charge! Where's the fairness in that?!?
Jeff
freddy wrote: If a manufacturer was selling lots of goods to a large chain of shops for example, then the manufacturer's price would most likely be a lot different to if they were selling to a small corner shop that only sells 5 a year. This is Price discriminationis it not.
Don't see what Betfair are doing is any different.
It's the same thing though really isn't it ?,
Betfairs business is quite unique so it's difficult to find an analogy that works. I was just demonstrating that it's very common for customers to pay different amounts for the same product.
When Betfair introduced the P.C they said that their successful customers were actually costing them more money than the less successful customers, this was if you choose to believe them
because they are constantly taking money out of the betting pool and Betfair are having to go out and spend money to constantly attract new customers for them to fleece.
So according to them they are doing it for financial reasons and are not just discriminating, so I don’t really see a legal issue, no different to a manufacturer upping the prices of a product when they see how much the shops are making from them and taking a bigger piece of their pie.
Don’t get me wrong I hate the P.C, but I pretty sure there is nothing that anyone can do about it other than going elseware..
Betfairs business is quite unique so it's difficult to find an analogy that works. I was just demonstrating that it's very common for customers to pay different amounts for the same product.
When Betfair introduced the P.C they said that their successful customers were actually costing them more money than the less successful customers, this was if you choose to believe them
because they are constantly taking money out of the betting pool and Betfair are having to go out and spend money to constantly attract new customers for them to fleece.So according to them they are doing it for financial reasons and are not just discriminating, so I don’t really see a legal issue, no different to a manufacturer upping the prices of a product when they see how much the shops are making from them and taking a bigger piece of their pie.
Don’t get me wrong I hate the P.C, but I pretty sure there is nothing that anyone can do about it other than going elseware..
-
federer
Its really impressive good work.freddy wrote:It's the same thing though really isn't it ?,
Betfairs business is quite unique so it's difficult to find an analogy that works. I was just demonstrating that it's very common for customers to pay different amounts for the same product.
When Betfair introduced the P.C they said that their successful customers were actually costing them more money than the less successful customers, this was if you choose to believe them
So according to them they are doing it for financial reasons and are not just discriminating, so I don’t really see a legal issue, no different to a manufacturer upping the prices of a product when they see how much the shops are making from them and taking a bigger piece of their pie.
Don’t get me wrong I hate the P.C, but I pretty sure there is nothing that anyone can do about it other than going elseware..