‘A mate’s phone’ - Defence falls flat as punter denied $15,450 payout

Utilising a mate’s phone to place racing bets has cost one Neds punter a $15,450 payout, with the Northern Territory Racing and Wagering Commission denying his appeal against the decision.

The dispute arose in August 2022 when the punter opened an account with Neds, which is owned by global wagering company Entain. Within five days, he had deposited $500 and placed seven multi-bets on Gloucester Park harness racing.

Two of the seven multis placed on August 9 were successful, resulting in a $15,450 return.

However, Neds said it noted some anomalies in his account, including the suspicion that it had been operated in breach of its terms and conditions surrounding who had used the account.

Put simply, Neds had determined the bets were placed from the same IP address and same type of mobile device as another account had utilised during the same time period. That account had been previously restricted from using same-race multis. It also determined a third Neds account was accessed from the same IP address.

The wagering services provider suspended the account for a suspected breach and Neds undertook an investigation into the matter.

Neds said it requested a statutory declaration, a financial institution authorisation and a bank statement from the account holder, none of which were forthcoming.

The complainant subsequently contacted Neds by phone to discuss the suspension. In recordings heard by the NTWRC, the punter said his phone had gone flat and that he had logged into the account via a ‘mate’s phone’.

Asked for the name of his mate, the punter refused to provide any further detail. The Commission found his response to the question surrounding the source of the funds for the initial $500 deposit was not convincing.

A complaint was filed with the then-Northern Territory Racing Commission, the regulator for where Neds is licensed, on August 13, four days after the multi-bets were placed, while Neds closed the account permanently on August 18.

The Commission, which added ‘Wagering’ to its title in 2024 but is still empowered to hear cases before that date, made its decision public last week.

“Having carefully considered all of the available evidence, the Commission is satisfied, on the weight of evidence, that Neds was justified in determining (acting reasonably) that the complainant’s account was linked to the same IP address and mobile device of another Neds account, and that Neds was justified in reasonably suspecting that the complainant was in breach of terms and conditions 8.1, in allowing other persons to access the account or operate account for the benefit of someone else,” the Commission found.

Neds refunded the initial deposits made by the punter.

The Commission ruled in a similar matter involving a Ladbrokes account holder in October last year.

In that case, a $30,000 payout was denied on the basis that Ladbrokes believed the account was what is colloquially known in the wagering industry as a “bowler account”.

The Commission also agreed in that case that Ladbrokes was justified in voiding the bets placed.