 |
By *ugby 123 OP Couple
over a year ago
Forum Mod O o O oo |
A syndicate wins the lottery....three of the syndicate hadn't stuck their pound in that week for whatever reason...they won a big amount.
There are now arguments that the three shouldn't get a share of the winnings.
Is it fair to leave out the people who didn't put their money in for that week? or should they lose out ?
Would you rather have the £72,000 winnings or take a lower share of £62,000 so the other people who forgot to pay their money got theirs too? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
This little chestnut often comes up and it's all down to what it says in any syndicate agreement between them. If whoever wrote it put in a clause allowing for missed or late payments, then they have a case.
If they didn't have any agreement between them then the law is clear on it - each draw is taken on it's own. So, if they didn't put their money in, then they wouldn't have any claim, morally right or otherwise. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ugby 123 OP Couple
over a year ago
Forum Mod O o O oo |
Sorry if you have heard the chestnut before but I am interested in peoples answers from a personal point of view rather than whatever is written in a contract.
I was more asking would a person who had won want to share part of their winnings with a person who may have not paid their pound for that week.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ugby 123 OP Couple
over a year ago
Forum Mod O o O oo |
"If they hadn't have won would they have paid the money retrospectively? "
I am guessing that would have to be considered for me....if the person was always missing payments then I would probably think it was their own fault then.
However, if it was an odd time that the pyment was missed it might be different. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Sorry if you have heard the chestnut before but I am interested in peoples answers from a personal point of view rather than whatever is written in a contract.
I was more asking would a person who had won want to share part of their winnings with a person who may have not paid their pound for that week. "
Following clarification..... ... to be absolutely honest AND mercenary, I wouldn't - certainly not giving them £62,000. But that would be based on whether the person running the syndicate made sure the members were reminded that monies were due, and took all steps to collect them before the draw. If they did, then those who didn't cough up their quid only have themselves to blame.
If, however, the person responsible for collecting all the money was less 'insistent', then I may be forced to concede that they ought to be given a share - specially if the same thing had happened on weeks when there were no winnings.
It's the old saying: Circumstances alter cases... so me Grannie used to say.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
This happened to someone I know but not with the lottery it was with the pools before the lottery came about, he was on the sick from work and rather than the person Chase him up for his 2 quid he decided to not put his coupon in, and his numbers came up winning 2,6 million, or so he thought,in this case they hadn't even put his coupon in so none of the syndicate got a penny, bloody fools |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
As said above, it would depend for me how often they miss the payments.
If they're nearly always late with the attitude of "Once I know we haven't won, I'm not paying", than no.
If they have ALWAYS paid on time and had given prior reason for being late with their contribution this time than I think in the spirit of things they should be given a share. x |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Sorry if you have heard the chestnut before but I am interested in peoples answers from a personal point of view rather than whatever is written in a contract.
I was more asking would a person who had won want to share part of their winnings with a person who may have not paid their pound for that week.
Following clarification........ to be absolutely honest AND mercenary, I wouldn't - certainly not giving them £62,000. But that would be based on whether the person running the syndicate made sure the members were reminded that monies were due, and took all steps to collect them before the draw. If they did, then those who didn't cough up their quid only have themselves to blame.
If, however, the person responsible for collecting all the money was less 'insistent', then I may be forced to concede that they ought to be given a share - specially if the same thing had happened on weeks when there were no winnings.
It's the old saying: Circumstances alter cases... so me Grannie used to say.. "
You might find 'contracts', if one even exists beforehand, aren't worth the paper they are written on. There would almost certainly be previous examples in the syndicate of people paying retrospectively (holidays, sickness etc), and these precedents would render a contract pretty useless. We have people in our syndicate regularly a month+ in arrears, and I wouldn't dream of depriving them of a share of any winnings. I would be happy enough to have won, rather than be greedy for more, at someone elses expense. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
We used to do a lottery syndicate at work and as staff members left they chose to remain in the syndicate and were supposed to pop in to pay their bit. Most paid in advance for a few weeks at a time to save trouble but often some weren't seen for months. So much so that by the end of the year the crappy amount that we'd won to be split between us their share went straight back into the pot to pay off what they hadn't paid the past few months. If that makes sense!
I'd be tempted to tell them to bugger off if we won in November and they hadn't paid any money since July for example. X |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"A syndicate wins the lottery....three of the syndicate hadn't stuck their pound in that week for whatever reason...they won a big amount.
There are now arguments that the three shouldn't get a share of the winnings.
Is it fair to leave out the people who didn't put their money in for that week? or should they lose out ?
Would you rather have the £72,000 winnings or take a lower share of £62,000 so the other people who forgot to pay their money got theirs too?"
I'd be fair and let them have their share as I wouldn't want to fall out
It's only money |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *exybabyMan
over a year ago
Canterbury....ish |
"Sorry if you have heard the chestnut before but I am interested in peoples answers from a personal point of view rather than whatever is written in a contract.
I was more asking would a person who had won want to share part of their winnings with a person who may have not paid their pound for that week.
Following clarification........ to be absolutely honest AND mercenary, I wouldn't - certainly not giving them £62,000. But that would be based on whether the person running the syndicate made sure the members were reminded that monies were due, and took all steps to collect them before the draw. If they did, then those who didn't cough up their quid only have themselves to blame.
If, however, the person responsible for collecting all the money was less 'insistent', then I may be forced to concede that they ought to be given a share - specially if the same thing had happened on weeks when there were no winnings.
It's the old saying: Circumstances alter cases... so me Grannie used to say..
You might find 'contracts', if one even exists beforehand, aren't worth the paper they are written on. There would almost certainly be previous examples in the syndicate of people paying retrospectively (holidays, sickness etc), and these precedents would render a contract pretty useless. We have people in our syndicate regularly a month+ in arrears, and I wouldn't dream of depriving them of a share of any winnings. I would be happy enough to have won, rather than be greedy for more, at someone elses expense."
There was a case a few years ago where two women had a 'verbal agreement' to share their bingo winnings.
For years they amicably abided to their 'verbal agreement' all without any fuss or ado....until the day that one of the women won the 'national' to the tune of just shy of £100,000. It was at that point, without reason, that 'greed set in' and she refused to give her mate her share.
The 'friend' that did not get her share took her compatriate through the courts and even though it was only a verbal agreement THAT was enough for the judge to award the non-recipient not only her share but also interest on her share for the amount of time that the recipient had witheld the money.
Needless to say there were massive reprocussions. The irony of the story was that the 'friend' that had won the 'national' had borrowed the money from her 'bingo buddy' as she was skint.
The media highlighted the fact that even though the woman arrogantly suggested that there was no 'written agreement or contract' so as to enforce her to share....however, even with only circumstantial evidence the judge ruled otherwise.
Money breeds greed and in a circumstance such as above it is only then that you find out who your real friends are!!
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
ISTR the advice from Camelot was to ensure you have this covered in the T&Cs you get syndicate members to sign up to.
My last office one required that money be given to the designated ticket buyer by a set deadline every week. No money - no win. Most people paid a month in advance. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I've been thinking about this today = what I would do in the situation. I've come to the conclusion that surely if I had entered into a syndicate and paid my way for the week where we won then I'd be in the syndicate, if someone else hadn't then they weren't for the week as the number of lines would have been less.
However, realistically I wouldn't be so callous and cold to eliminate someone from winning just because they'd missed that week. Similarly, I'd like to hope if the situation was the other way around the rest of the syndicate would have done the same for me. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
We have a syndicate at work: there's loads of us in it. We pay monthly to avoid miss payments and we're all given a "free" month.
With all that if someone still managed to miss a payment and we won, I wouldn't share! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
If the missed payment is not deliberate but accidental, and the person is of good character and not someone who would pull a fast one whenever he/she can, then I would share.
Otherwise no.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I would say yes have their share as if they have paid without fail for a period of time and forget to pay for one week then they should have their share... The saying money is the root of all evil is so true and I am not an evil or greedy person... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
