Like many punters, Liam Manifold had a few flutters on the World Cup to help make the action on the pitch more exciting.
But the 30-year-old probably didn’t expect to win £15,000 from his selections – and he would have been even more surprised when Coral, with whom he placed his bets, would refuse to pay out.
It all comes down to related contingencies, which usually prevent a punter from placing an acca with two or more closely-correlating picks.
However, Manifold was able to get his selections on at this local Coral store, but now the firm is refusing to pay out his £14,950 winnings on the grounds of palpable error.
What are Related Contingencies In Betting?
Although it’s quite complication to explain, related contingencies apply to accumulator bets where one leg has a direct correlation on the outcome of another.
So, you couldn’t bet on Manchester City to beat Liverpool in the FA Cup semi-final and back them to win the FA Cup on the same coupon. Why? Because one is a related contingency of the other.
You also can’t put a team to win and a first goalscorer on the same coupon – you have to use a specific bet like Wincast or Scorecast to do so.
More and more firms are starting to accept related contingency wagers via their Bet Builder tools, which offer football punters more options when curating the bets they want to place.
World Cup Woe
Manifold had struck a £10 treble at his local Coral shop in the weeks leading up to the World Cup:
- Argentina to lift the trophy
- France to reach the final
- Lionel Messi to be named Player of the Tournament
Offered odds just shy of 1500/1, he probably wealked out of the high street bookies thinking little more of it.
But as the World Cup reached its business end, Argentina and France were both very much in the mix – with Messi delivering performances befitting of his international swansong.
In the end, Argentina lifted the Jules Rimet trophy after vanquishing France in the final, while Messi was given the Golden Ball – confirming his Player of the Tournament status.
Manifold was presumably on cloud nine alongside the Argentines, with plans to buy his father a new mobility scooter with his riches.
But Coral are refusing to pay out the near £15,000 prize, claiming the bet was a related contingency that should never have been allowed. They have instead offered £660 as a settlement sum on the two selections that were not related.
“When I placed the bet the guy behind the counter said it was absolutely fine,” Manifold confirmed. “They’re now saying it’s a related bet.
“I went to cash in the bet and they said it shouldn’t have been placed and offered me £660 for it. I’ve gone to an independent complaints committee and I’m waiting to hear back from them.”
Can a Bookie Refuse to Pay Out On a Winning Bet?
The answer to this question is….well, it depends.
In theory, once a punter places a bet with a bookmaker, a legal contract has been struck – they can’t ask for their money back, and so the bookie shouldn’t be able to renege on paying out either.
However, their terms and conditions often give the bookies the power to hide behind palpable error – that is, where an honest mistake has been made. In this case, Coral will argue that the shop clerk made an error in accepting a related contingencies bet.
The firm will also argue that Manifold’s bet was struck at the incorrect odds – he had written down the price on his betslip of each individual selection, but given the related nature of them there’s no way Coral would have offered such odds without a human error taking place.
Manifold has done the right in turning to an independent complaints organisation, which may well be the Independent Betting Adjudication Service (IBAS), in order to find a resolution.
But he may be in for disappointment. Back in 2021, two rugby league fans set a precedent when they placed a related contingencies flutter at William Hill – Salford Red Devils to finish in the playoff places and their player Jackson Hastings to be named Man of Steel.
In theory, their £100 bet won and netted the duo £23,400. However, William Hill refused to pay out, hiding behind the defence of ‘human error’ in accepting the wager in the first place.
Eventually, it’s thought that they settled up by paying £4,000 each to the pair.