Betting on politics: Always read the fine print

published 28 July 2017

Most bookmakers are extremely honest. After all, if they didn't treat their customers properly they would quickly go out of business as no one would want to bet with them. However, they can occasionally become embroiled in controversies over disputed bets.

Earlier this year retired bookie Albert Kinloch sued Coral over a bet he made in 2011 on whether Rangers would be relegated. When Rangers was subsequently dissolved, reconstituted and readmitted to a lower division, Coral claimed that this didn't count as relegation. It also argued that the fact that it had offered particularly long odds was evidence of its intent. After a long legal battle, the Court of Session ruled in favour of Coral.

MoneyWeek

Subscribe to MoneyWeek today and get your first six magazine issues absolutely FREE

Get 6 issues free

https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/flexiimages/mw70aro6gl1676370748.jpg

Sign up to Money Morning

Don't miss the latest investment and personal finances news, market analysis, plus money-saving tips with our free twice-daily newsletter

However, after initially saying that it would pay out, Bet365 changed its mind. It argues that the terms and conditions of her bet stipulated that people are not allowed to place bets that are funded by third parties, making it null and void. She in turn argues that the terms were too "long", "complex" and "vague" to be applicable. The case is currently going to trial at the High Court in Northern Ireland, so it should be resolved soon. However, it does illustrate that it is important to pay attention to the terms and conditions of a bet.

It's also useful to have a general look at a bookmaker's overall rules, which can usually be found on its website, before placing any money. For example, Ladbrokes normally limits any payouts on political betting to £100,000 though this can rise to £250,000 in the case of UK general elections and US presidential elections.