Syndicate lottery win - one for the MN jury

[Puzzledandpissedoff]

Genuinely asking this on behalf of a friend who doesn't use MN - or even use computers much, come to that

She works in a place where 8 staff are in a lottery syndicate; they pay in a set amount once a month, except that one member constantly "forgets" and has only paid two or three times over the last 2 years

Of course you can guess where this is going: they've won a few tens of thousands and, predictably, the non payer expected a share, insisting he'd make up what he owed in return

The other 7 originally said "no way" but eventually voted 4/3 to give in because the atmosphere was becoming so poisonous - except it's still poisonous because the 3 who voted no are seething

It's all a bit late now since the non-payer's hardly going to return his portion, but anyway I said I'd ask the MN jury ... should they have shared with him or not?

Fucking chancer and they've actively decided to let him take the piss out of them

Who has been paying for him all this time? Did they even buy an extra (8th) ticket on his behalf on this occasion?

Wasn't this the plot of a TV drama serial a few years ago? I think in the drama, they let the non-payer have his share.

Ok, I'd like to be part of this syndicate too. I know I've never paid anything, and never heard of it before, but I might have done if I had and therefore I have just as right to a claim as this guy.

A cheque is fine, thanks.

Just no.

Agreed that he was taking advantage when it suited him, of ducking out of paying almost all the time then expecting a cut when it suited him.

I would probably have given him a token amount just to shut him up but nothing like the proper divide because it wasn't his money that contributed to the winning of the biggie.

What gunpowder said

Yes, I kind of thought this is what everyone would say; I said the same myself, and suggested the "official form" the Lottery people provide - also that he should have been chucked off the syndicate long since, all of which they failed to do

To answer a couple of questions, it really was only 2-3 payments he ever made, and the total winnings were just under £60,000

I guess, like most of us, they never really expected to win much; it's not exactly a life changing amount split between 8 but it's not peanuts either and now it's caused endless trouble

This is why when I run the syndicate at work the rules are clear: no pay, no play.

The only way to split it fairly is this:

The 4 that agreed to share with him get an eighth each
The 3 that said no way get a seventh each
The 1 cheeky fucker gets what's left

So say it was £80,000:
4 get £10000 as expected
3 get £11400 as expected
1 gets £5800

There was a big court case about this, but I don't know what the resolution was. A woman missed one payment as she went home with morning sickness. They won £28 million and didn't give her anything.

Here

Does the stake each week include that person's notional contribution (.e.g is 8x £2 total £16 wagered), on the basis that said person will ultimately settle their debt? If so, the winnings should be split to include that person - the opportunity to drop them from the syndicate for non-payment has passed.

However if the stake varied each week depending on whether that person remembered to contribute or not (e.g. some weeks only 7x £2 total £14 was wagered, other weeks the full £16 wagered because said person had remembered to pay) then said person is not included in the stake for the £14 weeks and therefore does not get a share of winnings from the £14 wager.

Or at least, that's how I'd do it.

They should not have shared. At my previous work but two we had a syndicate and there were a written set of rules about payments in and payments out if there was a win which everyone had to sign up to. Basically two missed payments and you were out.

Did they have a written contract? Sounds daft when this is to do with friends (well, work colleagues) but it makes sense when this all happens.

“You’ve got to be in it to win it” I.e you have to buy a ticket to claim the prize. This person hasn’t paid their share of the ticket so they don’t get their share of the prize

Absolutely no way should they share. He should be embarrassed to even think he’s entitled to anything.

I honestly wouldn't know if this has been covered in some sort of TV drama; it wouldn't surprise me, but anyway that's not much use in a RL situation

I'm not sure either if the others put the money in for him or if it was done some other way

For clarity, the money's already been split 8 ways after the 4/3 vote by the remaining 7, so now it's not so much what to do as whether they did the right thing ... not that it will make much difference now of course

To me, it depends whether his ticket was bought when he didn't pay or not.

If he's in debt to someone who has been paying his share, then maybe. But then this isn't just missing 2 or 3 payments is it, it's making 2 or 3 payments.

But if his ticket wasn't bought, his 'stake' didn't exist.

Actually, nope. Just nope.

I think if they've been regularly covering his stake and putting in numbers for him and whether every so often he's been paying himself up to date or not they should pay him out. See, he's a chancing cheeky fucker but they've enabled him to be a chancing cf by allowing it to go on so long. I can understand why it's pissing off the three who don't want to share, it would piss me off too, but they should have spoken up after the first couple of times he 'skipped' his share and nailed down the t & c of being in the syndicate. They didn't so it's too late to bitch about it now.

I think in this case those who wanted to give him some money should have given it out of their own share.

No way. I am in 2 syndicates at work and in both you pay a month in advance and it’s no pay, no play.

Usually if you are taking holiday you make sure to pay any amounts due in your break in advance. If you fall sick you should be paid up anyway. Persistent non payers are swiftly shown the proverbial door.
They should have ousted him long ago

Nope! There was a case for this in Spain with a lot more money at stake (think big Christmas lottery), can't find a link to the newspaper reports in English. It went to court. The non-payer lost, and wasn't entitled to any of the winnings

Imagine if he had gone in a bookies and said "I meant to put a tenner on Man U winning last night, but didn't can I have my winnings please?"

Exactly the same here. Like many others here I too was in a syndicate and had to sign a contract that no payment that week meant no winnings. It's not difficult to grasp.

I would be seriously peed off too if he was getting a share.

I agree with PP.

The money should be split between those who paid in, so 7 people get £8,571 each. If the none payer is to get a share, that would make it £7,500 each. So each person who paid in needs to give the non-payer £1071 each if they are to include him.

As it's not agreed amongst all, each payer gets the higher amount and it's between them and non-payer if they wish to hand over part of their money to the non-payer

Be clear, when he didn't pay, he wasn't part of the syndicate, so not entitled to a share, it would only be a 'good will' gesture, so each member can make their own choice about the level of good will they feel.

If she rarely paid in then she's not due the payout.