A man who has taken Betfred to court could finally receive his £1.7million payout.
Andrew Green, from the Lincolnshire village of Washingborough, has been battling for his winnings for more than two years.
He celebrated for five days straight when he won £1.7million in a blackjack game, which Betfred blamed on a ‘software glitch’.
Mr Green said it had been an ‘absolute nightmare’ trying to get the betting company to pay him his winnings, Lincolnshire Live reports.
The single dad claims no evidence has ever been presented to confirm the website software problem and now is suing the company at the High Court next week.
He said: “They have no reason not to pay me in my opinion. If there was a glitch, that’s between Betfred and the software provider.
“When I won. Betfred congratulated me on being a millionaire and they did so for five days.
“They led me to think I was one, even advising me to open a number of bank accounts to spread my winnings across with it being such a vast amount.
“Then, after five days, I got a phone call out of the blue, saying there had been a software glitch which caused the £1.7m payout and so they would not be paying me.
“In this time I have never received any evidence of this glitch.”
Mr Green, 53, said he was then offered £60,000 with a non-disclosure agreement, but turned it down.
In January, 2018, Mr Green won the £1.7m jackpot playing Frankie Dettori’s Magic Seven game.
He even carried on playing after winning the jackpot and won £423 to round the figure of his total winnings up to £1,722,923.54.
He said: “I could not believe what I had won. I phoned Betfred and even got them to read back to me the final figure and that’s when they first congratulated me.
“I thought all my Christmases had come at once.
“I am a single parent, I’ve had four heart attacks and received heart treatment 11 times and all of a sudden I thought my life was going to be a lot better.
“Ever since those first five days, it’s been an absolute nightmare.
“I was so lucky to win something like that to then go to complete devastation by having it ripped away from you.
“When I won, the one thing I wanted to do more than anything was to give my sister some of it. She died last year.
“That money would have made her life easier, be able to go on holiday with her girls and make some memories for them, but
Betfred even managed to rip that dream from me.”
Mr Green said the fight, which he has described as a constant battle, has caused stress, anxiety and upset.
He said: “It’s been horrendous. There’s been times when I wished I had not even won the money.
“Having to get to this stage of the High Court has been a worry. Am I finally going to be a millionaire or am I going to be left feeling absolutely gutted again and will I need to take it even further?
“I just feel robbed.”
Mr Green’s lawyers said if Betfred loses, this will be a groundbreaking ruling because its terms and conditions have never before been subject to any judicial scrutiny before.
If his application to the High Court is successful, Betfred will be ordered to pay out more than £2m, including nearly three years interest on his jackpot, plus all of his legal costs.
If Mr Green loses, there will be costs to pay to Betfred, but he will not lose his right to a full trial where technical evidence of the alleged malfunction could be brought forward for the first time.
Andy’s solicitor, Peter Coyle, of Coyle White Devine, said: “An application for summary judgement is a high risk strategy, because we have to satisfy the judge that Betfred has no chance at all of defending its position at a full trial.
“To do that, we have to accept Betfred’s case as it’s been presented to the court; namely that the blackjack game malfunctioned in some way.
“While Betfred’s betting terms and conditions are incredibly complicated and span across numerous different documents, we are confident that, on their proper construction, the terms simply don’t allow for Betfred to withhold payment when the alleged glitch is within Playtech’s game and not Betfred’s own software.”
A spokesman from Betfred said: “The case is currently progressing at court and it is therefore inappropriate for us to comment further.”