The Northern Territory Racing and Wagering Commission in Australia has ruled in favour of Entain-owned Ladbrokes in a dispute with a customer who had complained about not being paid out AU$30,000 (£15,172/€18,202/US$19,726). The regulator’s ruling was published on 22 October.
A customer filed a complaint with the Northern Territory regulator in January 2023 in reference to Ladbrokes refusing to pay out on a winning wager they had made through its online platform.
The player deposited $4,000 into their account, however Ladbrokes refused a request to withdraw $30,000 in winnings on the grounds that a third-party had been involved with the player’s account. This is in breach of the operator’s terms and conditions.
In their complaint, the player said they provided a bank statement to Ladbrokes as requested. The operator still refused to pay out, repeating its claim that a third-party was involved with the account as someone else had deposited money into his bank account.
The player said they were the only one involved with his Ladbrokes account and the money deposited into their bank account was money that was owed to them by a family member.
However, Ladbrokes submitted several pieces of evidence to back up its claim, including a third-party that it believed was pretending to be the complainant during several telephone and online chat conversations with Ladbrokes customer services.
There was also reference to the amount deposited into the player’s bank account and then their betting account. The standout issue was $4,000 being deposited into his betting account on the same day two $4,000 payments went into his bank account from a third party.
Both Ladbrokes and the player confirmed the original $4,000 had been returned. However, as the payout had not been made, the complainant proceeded to file a complaint, saying all bets had been lawful.
Ladbrokes stands by its decision
Responding to the complaint, Ladbrokes said it was in its right to refuse to payout. It said the complaint does not relate to lawful betting and should not be a matter for the Commission.
However, Ladbrokes said it would not return any earlier deposits made into the player’s betting account. This is because such deposits were made using a ‘Flexepin’ cash voucher and it couldn’t determine how the Flexepin vouchers were purchased.
Evidence to back up claims
In its analysis, the Commission picked out several key points. These include reference to the term and conditions of Ladbrokes, whereby players must only use their accounts themselves and not lend to third parties.
Based on this evidence, the Commission said Ladbrokes’ action over the case was “justified” although it did not agree with all the points made the operator. It made reference to third-party deposits into the player’s bank account and the pattern of betting deposits, as well as the differing voices heard during phone calls with supposedly the same person.
In terms of returning deposits, the Commission also sided with Ladbrokes. It agreed that the uncertainties over Flexepin make it impossible to determine how vouchers were funded, and therefore it was right to withhold earlier deposits. The now-returned $4,000 deposit was made using Apple Pay.
