Man Wins £1,000 Off 40/1 Bet But Bookies Refusing To Pay Out Because Of 'Mistake'

A granddad has been denied a betting win of £1,000 after a bookmaker refused to pay out on his 40/1 Premier League wager.

Retired electrician Phil Worthington stuck £25 on Manchester City, Liverpool and Chelsea to make up the top three of last year’s Premier League, as well as picking Norwich, Watford and Burnley to be relegated.

City of course ended up winning the league from Liverpool on the final day of the season, although not before some dramatic moments in both their last day of the season matches.

Chelsea staved Tottenham Hotspur to finish fourth, whilst Arsenal were left out of the Champions League places, in fifth, a detail that becomes part of Worthington's bet.

He also picked Norwich, Burnley and Watford to be relegated, as they were, but he hasn’t been given any winnings because the bet was allowed to be placed ‘by mistake’ according to Coral.

Phil, from Stockport, laid the bet in January, when Newcastle United were still in the relegation zone – before they made a significant recovery under new manager Eddie Howe – and was offered odds of 40/1.

MEN Media

Now, after the bookies refused to pay out, Phil is threatening formal action through a small claims court against the high-street bookmaker.

The 72-year-old told the Manchester Evening News: "I like a bet on a Saturday morning. I saw a tip in a national newspaper on January 15th this year for what they called 'a monster' of a bet with Coral at 40/1 odds for the top three and relegation three in the Premier League.

"I went to the bookies later that day and said I would like to do the bet.

"I showed the newspaper to the manager in the shop.

“He said he would have to check first, and I waited about 20 minutes while he did.

“He said yes I could place a bet of £25.

“I then asked him to sign my betting slip which he did.

"When I went back to collect my winnings I was told the bet was 'a mistake'. They offered me odds of 2/1 which would have meant £50 but I refused.

"I have been back to the shop three times since but they will not pay out the full winnings.”

MEN Media

He continued: "How can they pick and choose when they will pay out?

“It is unbelievable.

“Coral are making millions, and morally they should pay up.

"After I placed this bet I had other bets at Coral - they were happy to take the money off me.

“I am thinking of paying more money to lodge a claim against Coral in the small claims court.

"It is a matter of principle. How many others have lost out after winning on this bet?"

In a statement, Coral said: "The information printed in The Sun editorial section on this particular special bet was incomplete and therefore inaccurate, due to a mistake made when transmitting that information to The Sun.

"The 40/1 special price we were offering at that time was for Man City, Liverpool, Chelsea and Arsenal to finish 1-2-3-4 in that order and for Burnley, Watford and Norwich to finish 18-19-20 in that order.

"The Sun copy didn’t specify the fact that it was to finish in the correct order but, even more importantly, left off Arsenal for the top four correct finishing order, rendering it a significantly more likely outcome at that stage and therefore a significantly shorter price to occur."

MEN Media

"We have never offered a price in our system on any special bet for Man City, Liverpool and Chelsea to finish top three and for Burnley, Watford and Norwich to finish bottom three in any order.

"So to settle the customer's bet we have calculated the price we believe that eventuality would have been at the time in an attempt to settle the bet fairly.

"The actual 40/1 special bet we were offering was a loser in the end as Arsenal did not finish 4th. If a customer is unhappy with the way a bet has been settled in these circumstances they can seek independent advice from IBAS should they wish to."

Responding to the allegations made by Coral, The Sun said: "Coral gave us the odds by email direct and without specifying the order.

“Furthermore they took the bet as it stood and so it is their legal issue and not ours."