Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think the single mum should get 33million

184 replies

Pistachiocray · 24/01/2016 07:41

If she can remember where and when she bought the ticket and the man serving her can remember her.

These tickets should be in some kind of readable state after a wash.

OP posts:
BarbaraofSeville · 24/01/2016 10:37

We don't know if the newsagent had CCTV or if the images are still available (many record over themselves every few days or so).

CCTV might show her buying a ticket in the newsagent but won't prove what numbers she put on then.

Camelot will know, or will be able to find out, where and when the missing winning ticket was sold. They have said it was bought in Worcester, which is presumably where this woman lives, but they obviously haven't said 'it was bought from Mr Smith's newsagent at 6 pm on the Thursday before the draw' because that is what they want the winner to tell them.

JuxtapositionRecords · 24/01/2016 10:41

What will happen to the money if they don't find the winner? I hope charity?

MrsUltra · 24/01/2016 10:46

IMO, the OP used the term hoping for an emotive response
this

BarbaraofSeville · 24/01/2016 10:50

Yes, if the money is unclaimed, it goes into the Lottery's Good Causes fund.

Someone upthread has said that there are often false claims, and even more so for a massive jackpot. Perhaps this alleged winner is hoping to make a few quid anyway by selling her story. Who knows? People make up all sorts of stuff - remember the 'security guard snatched away my baby while I was breastfeeding' one?

Sadly though, a lot of people don't realise that this sort of thing is probably fraud, perverting the cause of justice, or in the case of the breastfeeding woman, wasting police time, which are all crimes with quite serious penalties.

I really have no idea in this case, it could be the biggest ever case of sods law/really bad luck if she is telling the truth, in which case I hope she gets her money, even if she has to wait, or she could be trying it on.

CantWaitForWarmWeather · 24/01/2016 10:54

but they obviously haven't said 'it was bought from Mr Smith's newsagent at 6 pm on the Thursday before the draw' because that is what they want the winner to tell them.

Exactly. If she can give that information and it matches with the information the Camelot have, then surely that would work in her favour. That's why I mentioned CCTV as that would back her up if she can be seen at the right time buying the ticket. But, if the shop has recorded over it by now then there won't be anything there to back her claim up now.

katmanwho · 24/01/2016 11:00

I do wonder what security procedures Camelot has?

Do they contact the shop (or shops) in the area and tell them that they have a winning ticket brought from their shop so please keep CCTV until it's claimed?

I say "shops" - so the actual shop doesn't know. Then if someone says I got the ticket from this shop (because the owner is in on the scam), then it can be disproved.

I also wonder how many people do try it on?

There must be a lot of evidence to prove it - and there can easily be just a single bit of evidence to disprove it. Such as the customer always gets the same numbers but this week, they changed and it just happened to be the week it won - but the ticket got damaged.

Potatoface2 · 24/01/2016 11:03

the date and the barcode have washed off....but not the numbers...yeah right.....i bet her whole life is being scrutinised right now....and her family and people she is associated with!

Trills · 24/01/2016 11:10

This is a very silly thread.

You think that a person with a partially-damaged ticket should get the money.

What makes you think you know best?

Without knowing anything about the condition of the ticket, or the additional security measures that need to be observed, or the rate at which fake "damaged tickets" are found after an unclaimed win.

GingerIvy · 24/01/2016 13:14

I imagine they have methods of scrutinising the info to determine whether or not it is genuine. They're not likely to publicise those methods for obvious reasons.

Oh, and I'm a single mum (preferred phrase or not - I can't say I have a "preferred phrase for it" what an odd thought), in my 50s, and my two youngest are hardly likely to be supporting themselves, as they're both under 10. These things do happen.

I don't understand this "preferred phrase" anyway. Who sits around thinking "would I rather be called a single mum or a lone parent?" Doesn't CHANGE anything. Who cares?

TheSultanofPingu · 24/01/2016 20:48

According to her daughter, she has never actually said that she's won the lottery, only that she has the winning numbers.

Hmmm.

73dexter · 25/01/2016 10:49

Not only is she a single mother but a 'divorced German grandmother with a heart condition'. Does that make any difference to whether or not she should get the 33 million?!Wink

Katenka · 25/01/2016 11:12

I find the term 'single mother' pointless in this situation.

It doesn't change what's happen (though I have my doubts) and also her kids are grown up. So why would the term 'single mother' attract more sympathy?

Katenka · 25/01/2016 11:37

It's funny because the daughter said

My mum had my children overnight on the Friday before the draw and forgot to check her ticket because she was distracted.

The draw was a Saturday wasn't it?

And also that they sent the ticket off to Camelot. Camelot saying they know of her claims and waiting for the woman in question to apply in writing answering details questions such as how many lines were bought, date, time, was it a luck dip etc

So she put the ticket in the post but never contacted them to find out what to do and what information to give?

And apparently she isn't that fussed another quote is 'She's said if she is the winner, great. But if she's not the winner, she's not the winner.'

but then followed by When she found out she had the winning numbers she couldn't breathe and she hasn't slept since.

So she might be fussed.

Non of it makes sense

Lockheart · 25/01/2016 11:43

If Camelot can verify the ticket then absolutely she should get the money.

If they can't verify the ticket, then tough.

BillSykesDog · 25/01/2016 11:50

I think that it's a bit suss that the shop owner went straight to the press and outed his shop, meaning that anybody else who now claims to have got the ticket from his shop would now be passing on second hand information rather than having unique identifying info.

I'm wondering if he somehow knew it was from his shop, and they have cooked up a story between them to try and claim it to split. It just all seems a bit 'off'.

LalaLyra · 25/01/2016 12:09

Her fatal error, if she's genuine, may be the delay. Camelot know right away exactly when and where the ticket was bought so if she'd called the next day and said "They are my numbers, but my ticket is damaged" they could have called the shop and made sure the CCTV footage was safe. In a small shop it's now likely to have been recorded over. They'd then have matched her ticket remnants, the CCTV and the machine data and if she was genuine she'd have had her money. She wouldn't be the first to get a pay out with no ticket or a damaged ticket. The fact she went public first, after a delay has probably got Camelot's back (and suspicions) up.

BillSykes Camelot must have told the man (and may have told the press) that his shop sold the ticket. They are the ones that know, and they generally give permission for press involvement because they want the hype/the winner to come forward. He couldn't have known without them telling him unless it was his numbers or he only sold one ticket that day and remembered it.

lizzydrippingsghost · 25/01/2016 12:37

no one knows if it was deffinatly that shop, hes saying it is because she turned up at his shop claiming to have the winnig ticket.
camelot havent confirmed it

xenu1 · 25/01/2016 13:32

And can Camelot search on numbers alone? That is, can they find out if the same set of numbers was purchased at any other time (and from where?). It might point to a later purchase :)

Gunting · 25/01/2016 13:38

The couple who owns the shop is a good friend of my family.

They had a call on Friday from Camelot saying 'the press may be in touch with you' and didn't say why. On Saturday the lady went into the shop so I'm fairly certain the ticket was sold there

firesidechat · 25/01/2016 13:57

Or the woman said it was bought there and that's what she told Camelot.

firesidechat · 25/01/2016 14:01

There is nothing to suggest that the real ticket was bought in that particular newsagents.

Andrewofgg · 25/01/2016 18:13

If it's genuine she should of course get the money, and her family status and children are irrelevant to that.

If she's tried to fake it she should go to prison, and her family status and children are irrelevant to that.

Theselittlelights · 25/01/2016 18:26

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

MaryPoppinsPenguins · 25/01/2016 18:35

I think she's lying.

The barcode, date and time are missing.
The numbers are right but could've been bought any week.
She only came forward after they said where the ticket had been bought.

And the rules say that unless you have a readable ticket (which I think means barcode) then you can't have the money.

They had CCTV and a paper trail of that guy who lost his ticket, and said they 100% believed he was the winner. But without a ticket they wouldn't give him the money. I don't see why this should be any different... (Even if she wasn't lying!)

theDudesmummy · 25/01/2016 18:39

Don't really have an opinion on the lottery ticket thing, but regarding being a "mum" or not in your fifties, when I turned fifty my DS had only just turned four! I'm not single but would certainly call myself a mum!

Swipe left for the next trending thread