>
Coral bookies refuse to pay an irate punter who won nearly £15,000 on a £10 World Cup bet, offering him £660 instead
- Liam Manifold, 30, wagered £10 on three bets during the World Cup final in Qatar
- He was given odds of 1,495/1 in the betting and believed he had won £15,000.
- Coral said they were too “closely related” and refused to pay, offering £660
A punter thought he had won almost £15,000 after betting just £10 on a series of World Cup bets, only to have one of Britain’s biggest bookies refuse to pay.
Liam Manifold, 30, from Tutbury, Staffordshire, had already planned how to spend the cash when Coral said he would not hand over the winnings.
The soccer fan expected odds of 1.495/1 after predicting that Argentina would be crowned the overall winner of the World Cup in Qatar, Lionel Messi would be named player of the tournament and France would also reach the final.
The delighted maintenance engineer hurried back to the betting shop in Horninglow on December 11, the day after the final, but left empty-handed. Coral said that bets could not be combined on a triple because the three events were closely related to each other. She claimed that Mr. Manifold wrote the odds on the receipt himself.
Liam Manifold, 30, pictured with his partner Lauren, has placed a series of bets on the World Cup final and thought he had won almost £15,000, but Coral bookmakers refuse to pay.
Mr Manifold was given odds of 1495/1 after predicting that Argentina would be crowned overall winners of the World Cup in Qatar, Lionel Messi would be named player of the tournament and France would also reach the final.
A Coral spokesperson said the events were “closely linked to each other so prices offered individually could not be included in a multiple bet.”
The bookie said he had made a “very fair and generous offer for the settlement of the bet”, which Mr Manifold claimed was only £660.
He was planning to buy his disabled father a new mobility scooter with the money, as well as save some for the future.
Manifold said that the company should call since his treble was accepted without any problem.
He said: ‘I went to collect the bet and they said it shouldn’t have been placed and they offered me £660 for it.
‘I have reviewed your complaints system, there is no room for manoeuvre. I have gone to an independent complaints committee and am waiting to hear from them.
“Since then, several companies have contacted me to say that if this was their company, they would pay.
‘When I placed the bet, the guy behind the counter said it was absolutely fine. Now they say it’s a related bet.
It’s been two weeks since the final and it seems like I’m not getting anywhere. If there is an error it is your fault for accepting the bet. It’s very frustrating.
‘Just under £15,000 for a big betting company is pennies to them, but to me it’s a life-changing amount of money.
‘My dad is disabled so I was going to buy him a new disabled scooter and put the rest in savings.’
A Coral spokesperson said: “If Argentina and France have reached the final, then the odds of Argentina winning it are clearly much lower than they were at the start.”
Liam Manifold, 30, from Tutbury, Staffordshire (pictured), had already planned how to spend the cash when Coral said he would not hand over the winnings.
“If Argentina won the World Cup, the chances of Messi being the player of the tournament will be very high.
“So we settled the bet as fairly as possible, paying the highest priced event, a final between Argentina and France, at 1/22, and then on the basis that that had happened we priced Argentina”. winning the final that was 10/11 before the game.
“And then, on the basis that Argentina had won the cup, we priced Messi too generously for player of the tournament at half as the odds of that happening if Argentina had won the World Cup would have been many”. short.
‘The prices on the voucher had been written by the customer, not the staff member.
We have settled the bet in accordance with our terms and conditions, and have made a very fair and generous offer for the settlement of the bet that exceeds what the odds of such an eventuality would have been if a customer had requested a specific triple quickie. on December 11.’