Options

£80,000 scratch card misprint misery

124»

Comments

  • Options
    DinkyDoobieDinkyDoobie Posts: 17,786
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Well as much as i hope he gets the money the card say's he wins the prize if he has two identical dice.

    The dice have the same number of dots but one of the dice has a giant gap in two of the borders.

    Still hope he gets the money.
  • Options
    Nessun DormaNessun Dorma Posts: 12,846
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    tony321 wrote: »
    They do that and have always done that, you could buy a ticket with no chance of winning the top prize

    But they could be selling the card under false pretenses. They would be advertising the chance of winning the top prize, knowing full well that they prize has already been won; ergo they would be selling the card, knowing that there was no chance at all of anyone winning the top prize.
  • Options
    Nessun DormaNessun Dorma Posts: 12,846
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Ovalteenie wrote: »
    Clearly says Five underneath. However the wording of the game could be disputed as it seems to only refer to matching 4 dots?

    It is not clear at all. It actually says "F /"
  • Options
    AddisonianAddisonian Posts: 16,377
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    It is not clear at all. It actually says "F /"
    Definitely a lot closer to "FIVE" than "FOUR" though.
  • Options
    MythicaMythica Posts: 3,808
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Odd Socks wrote: »
    There are four clear dots, plus a smudge, plus the wording to correspond to the number of dots. Camelot's rules posted on this thread clearly state that a misprinted ticket is void, you have yet to show that they claim that the number of dots is the winner as you are clinging to.




    You've not seen the card so I'll try and explain. It's a very small printing error and would easily have been overlooked. There is a small blank, or smudge where the fifth dot belongs in the middle (in fact, the outline of the fifth dot is clearly visible), this blank also cuts out the top and bottom of the middle of the symbol. However, underneath the pictures of dice, there is an F and a V (the I to make 'FIV' has gone) and under the other, the 'FOU' is clear.

    The card was checked with Camelot and the ticket is not on their database as anything other than winning a £2 prize which was won further down on the ticket. Only one game per ticket can be won. So, if he knows he won the £2 he can not possibly have won the £80, 000.

    You can win numerous times from one scratchcard.
  • Options
    lea_uklea_uk Posts: 9,648
    Forum Member
    The part of the number that is missing is directly under the missing 5th dot.
  • Options
    Nessun DormaNessun Dorma Posts: 12,846
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Odd Socks wrote: »
    There are four clear dots, plus a smudge, plus the wording to correspond to the number of dots. Camelot's rules posted on this thread clearly state that a misprinted ticket is void, you have yet to show that they claim that the number of dots is the winner as you are clinging to.



    You've not seen the card so I'll try and explain. It's a very small printing error and would easily have been overlooked. There is a small blank, or smudge where the fifth dot belongs in the middle (in fact, the outline of the fifth dot is clearly visible), this blank also cuts out the top and bottom of the middle of the symbol. However, underneath the pictures of dice, there is an F and a V (the I to make 'FIV' has gone) and under the other, the 'FOU' is clear.

    The card was checked with Camelot and the ticket is not on their database as anything other than winning a £2 prize which was won further down on the ticket. Only one game per ticket can be won. So, if he knows he won the £2 he can not possibly have won the £80, 000.

    Are these rules printed on the cards? Are the rules availabe to the customers at the time of purchase? Do the retailers make the customers aware of the rules, when the customers buy the cards?
  • Options
    Nessun DormaNessun Dorma Posts: 12,846
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Addisonian wrote: »
    Definitely a lot closer to "FIVE" than "FOUR" though.

    It doesn't matter, the premise was that the letters were clearly printed, when they weren't.
Sign In or Register to comment.