Account suspended for premium charge avoidance

[freddy]

Wow they really do continue to take things to a new level don't they.

Why anyone still has a funded account with them is beyond me.

They have a right to close accounts and fair enough, but to take money like that without warning and the nessicary evidence can not be legal.

Maybe they will start lumping all betangels customers together, allot of us must have quite similar patterns.

scary

[Iron]

Freddy -

I agree.

An experienced trader could share their knowledge with someone starting out, and then find themselves accused of PC avoidance!

Jeff

[andyfuller]

I think the only outcome to this is to take it to court. You won't get your account reopened I wouldn't have thought as they don't have to have you as a customer if they do not wish. But they can not just take money off you.

If you do take it to court to reclaim your money and it is shown that you have in fact been using more than one account (which you say you haven't and I have no reason to doubt) I guess they could pursue you for fraud if they so wished and also recover all costs of the investigation against you if they were successful.

My guess is it would end up as an out of court settlement with you getting your money back so that they avoid the publicity but if you are 100% confident you have done nothing wrong I see no reason for you to settle out of court as they shouldn't be able to prove you have done anything wrong.

First step is obviously pay the fee to get all the information they hold on your released. They legally have to do this. It will be an interesting case to follow so please keep us informed.

[Dobbin]

I am sorry to hear about your troubles mate.

They will continue to do this. Why?

Because they can as there is no show of any solidarity amongst users of Betfart

As long as it is not happening to them it is ok otherwise a concerted response would be be orchestrated.

If everyone that has a decent bank withdrew their funds on the 1st of October as a sign that they are not just able to pick of individuals, like a sniper does, but they are actually dealing with a community of people.

Just my thoughts.

Dobbin

[Ethanol]

Looks like this story has made the press:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/news ... count.html

[freddy]

Fantasic news lets hope everyone else who has been screwed by them over the years uses this opertunity to take legal action against them as well.

Let the public know what they are really like.

[Euler]

The biggest issue I had with my episode is that Betfair's terms and conditions don't actually state this wider application of the premium charge. I ran their explanation past a legal bod and he said it was so vague that a judge would most likely rule against them.

I don't see a great deal of difference between me doing something and somebody doing something I recommend. You would end up with similar results, but the non PC payer would earn 2.5 times more than I could.

If this is the way Betfair are going to implement the charge then they should make this clear in their terms and conditions. As it stands I am pretty sure, given the number of people that seem to be getting caught up in this, that a legal challenge is almost a certainty.

I was 'fortunate' that it didn't cost me much, but I really feel for people that have had very big deductions. It's difficult to know on all these cases exactly what the circumstances were. But, as been pointed out on the thread, if somebody did pursue it Betfair would have to produce the evidence and that would be interesting reading for all PC payers.

[LeTiss]

Good luck Sandyman

If you're being 100% honest, and only operate one account, have just £24k profit from less than 250 markets, then this will obviously end up in court

Your case could be a watershed!

Just imagine, in 20 years time, law students might be studying Betfair vs Sayaniya as part of their exams

[Zenyatta]

Sayaniya,

Are you sure you want to take it to court? It will be very easy for the judge to determine who those other accounts belong to you know. The first thing the judge will do is get the details of the other accounts from Betfair and ask you why no other annoyed people have come forward - he will call for the other account owners to come forward - where are they? If no-one comes forward, or its your friends or people you know coming forward as the owners if the other accounts, you will lose the case.

Regardless if this particular case though, I do think the Premium Charge thing is beyond ridicious - 'premium charge avoidance' is so vaguely determined that anyone could basically have their account closed and money taken by Betfair for arbitrary reasons.

[Iron]

If the other people affected don't make a complaint, perhaps it's because they don't want to risk being landed with a huge bill for legal expenses - their own and Betfair's.

And Sayaniya maintains he doesn't know the other people - if the accounts belonged to friends of his, I'm sure he'd know about it...

Jeff

The first thing the judge will do is get the details of the other accounts from Betfair and ask you why no other annoyed people have come forward - he will call for the other account owners to come forward - where are they? If no-one comes forward, or its your friends or people you know coming forward as the owners if the other accounts, you will lose the case.

[andyfuller]

If no-one comes forward, or its your friends or people you know coming forward as the owners if the other accounts, you will lose the case.

I don't see your logic here.

If they were to belong to friends of his etc, which I am not saying they are, it takes a huge leap in assumption that he is trading on his friends accounts. The court would need to be certain beyond all reasonable doubt that he was using his friends accounts for him to lose the case which imo would be extremely hard to prove if they and he were to say he wasn't using them.

The onus would be upon Betfair to prove that he was which imo would be near impossible for them to do to a level that would satisfy a court, the mere fact that the accounts had similar styles would not be enough imo as there would still be huge doubt it was actually him.

[Iron]

On a slightly pedantic note, reasonable doubt is only used in criminal cases.

In civil cases, the court looks at the weight of the evidence.

Jeff

The court would need to be certain beyond all reasonable doubt that he was using his friends accounts for him to lose the case which imo would be extremely hard to prove if they and he were to say he wasn't using them.

[andyfuller]

Fair point and my mistake, but still I think it would be extremely hard to have the weight of evidence to prove it. The fact they are friends etc of yours is hardly evidence.

[freddy]

Im no legal expert,

but there is no way that a friend or a family member using the same system as you is proof of premium charge avoidance.

To take money from you like that they surly need to prove that you have placed the bets or intruscted others to place the bets on you behalf.

If they were taken to court then im sure they would have to give the money back.

Yes they can close you account,
yes they can give you a negative balance and say to you if you want to use the account again you have to give us x ammount of money.

But they can not just take money like this without proof.

How i have always understood it,
is the P.C is only a voluntary payment, you choose to pay it or you go elseware.

But now they seem to be taking it from people without warning .

[andyfuller]

To take money from you like that they surly need to prove that you have placed the bets or intruscted others to place the bets on you behalf.

Also if you are placing the bets on someone else's behalf and you gain no financial benefit from placing these bets then you are not avoiding the Premium Charge, they would need to show that you are gaining financially I would think.