Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited May 24, 2022, 4:38 pm
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

Lottery pool goes to court after man with losing ticket demands share of $63.3 million prize

May 9, 2022, 11:37 am

Share this news story on Facebook
Tweet this news story on Twitter
InternationalInternational: Lottery pool goes to court after man with losing ticket demands share of $63.3 million prizeRating:

Lottery player insists he has a winning ticket

By Kate Northrop

What started as a feel-good story for a lottery pool is turning sour after a man with a losing ticket claims the group owes him more than $260,000 (US$182,013) from a $63.3 million (US$44.3 million) Australian Powerball prize.

Some might remember the 250 member Facebook group named "Goldfields, let's pay our mortgages" that won a share of the $126 million (US$91.3 million) Powerball jackpot in the Australian Lottery in February.

The Kalgoorlie-based group is now headed to court after a man proclaims he had a winning ticket for the draw, which the pool leaders say was in fact a ticket for a different draw.

Tania and Kevin Parkes, the owners of retailer City News Kalgoorlie and the organizers of the lottery group, were approached by Mark Ing, who said that he was owed a share of $261,986 from the Powerball draw they won in February.

He then showed up at a Lotterywest office representing himself as a member of the winning lottery group and filed a claim for the money. Lotterywest is also known as the Lotteries Commission of Western Australia.

As long as Ing could provide proof that he participated in the winning lottery pool, his claim would be valid.

However, the Parkes run multiple lottery pools at once. They allege that their records indicate he had bought a ticket for a different, unsuccessful draw, called "#1 Syndicate," rather than entering the winning "#2 Syndicate." The couple claims that Ing had untruthfully represented himself to Lotterywest as a participant in the "#2 Syndicate."

Lotterywest had paid out winnings to the lottery group on March 11 but did not pay Ing the $261,986 share he demanded, according to Perth Now. Simultaneously, Lotterywest told the Parkes that they still intended on paying Ing.

On April 14, The Parkes submitted a writ of summons to the Supreme Court of Western Australia, which says, "despite a formal dispute of ownership filed by the plaintiffs with Lotterywest, Lotterywest informed the plaintiffs that it intended to disburse the winnings on their ticket to the defendant."

The Australian Supreme Court blocked the payout.

"The syndicate was operated by the retailer and as such, Lotterywest can't comment on its administration," Lotterywest stated.

Now, the Parkes are engaged in a legal battle against both Ing and Lotterywest. A hearing is scheduled for August 2.

News story photo(Click to display full-size in gallery)

Lottery Post Staff

We'd love to see your comments here!  Register for a FREE membership — it takes just a few moments — and you'll be able to post comments here and on any of our forums. If you're already a member, you can Log In to post a comment.

10 comments. Last comment 15 days ago by Mata Garbo.
Page 1 of 1
Avatar
Simpsonville
United States
Member #163182
January 22, 2015
2882 Posts
Online

I thought the good old USA was the litigious capital of the World.

 

Hope the Judge tosses this, but will re-read the story AGAIN after the dog and I go for a ride/walk to clear my head/thought process!

    cottoneyedjoe's avatar - cuonvFT

    United States
    Member #197030
    March 28, 2019
    1048 Posts
    Offline

    Seems like the Parkeses did some things right running their pool. They had (or tried to have) a precise member list where everyone contributed a precise amount for a one-time group play. I'd assume that being business owners the Parkeses keep better records than most. It's confusing why Lotterywest is saying they will pay Mark Ing if he is not on the roster of #2 Syndicate. This case seems more clear-cut than the Tsotsos drama.

      Avatar
      New York
      United States
      Member #103596
      January 4, 2011
      7776 Posts
      Offline

      A lawsuit over a pool of players paying the lottery- that's a shocker. (I'm surprised that owners of a retailer selling lottery tickets can form a pool- legal in Australia apparently. I don't think it's permitted in NY or other states?).

        Tony Numbers's avatar - Lottery-022.jpg
        Bronx ny
        United States
        Member #158510
        August 25, 2014
        962 Posts
        Offline

        Aborigines! Stick that in yer. Dirigereedoo

          Avatar
          Kentucky
          United States
          Member #32651
          February 14, 2006
          9575 Posts
          Offline

          "Some might remember the 250 member Facebook group"

          Keeping the records for that size of a group is a full time job. And I'll bet they have the record of which drawing Ing was in.

          "Lotterywest had paid out winnings to the lottery group on March 11 but did not pay Ing the $261,986 share he demanded,"

          Wondering how Ing plans on proving he was part of the group after the Lottery paid off the winners?

          "Let's go Darwin"

            Avatar
            Bronx ny
            United States
            Member #209099
            August 20, 2020
            52 Posts
            Offline

            No money no honey get out! Says ing's wife.. lol

              KY Floyd's avatar - sunflowers avatar.jpg
              NY
              United States
              Member #23834
              October 16, 2005
              4558 Posts
              Offline

              "They had (or tried to have) a precise member list where everyone contributed a precise amount for a one-time group play."

              If all the players on the retailer's list have paperwork confirming they were in syndicate #2 and the other guy doesn't things should be pretty clear. If the players don't have their own paperwork and the only paperwork is two lists that the retailer has they've done poor job regardless of how good their lists are. For the former I'd think  the retailers would have brought it up.

              Having a clear agreement in writing is important for any lottery pool, but it's even more important if it's for a short term than a long standing pool that may have a history to provide evidence that might clarify any  disagreements that lead to a dispute.

                Avatar
                Simpsonville
                United States
                Member #163182
                January 22, 2015
                2882 Posts
                Online

                A lawsuit over a pool of players paying the lottery- that's a shocker. (I'm surprised that owners of a retailer selling lottery tickets can form a pool- legal in Australia apparently. I don't think it's permitted in NY or other states?).

                What I've seen and even looked up CA lottery this morning since a LP bought me some tickets there read the rules.  Though just two of us, hers and my tickets, my emphasis is on a group of folks claiming the winnings. Seems like wording is the key issue, no state I've played in that cuts separate checks uses the word lottery pool.  Group is what is usually used and there is an IRS form for it!

                  Avatar
                  * In hot pursuit of $ *
                  White Shores- California
                  United States
                  Member #136471
                  December 12, 2012
                  6801 Posts
                  Online

                  Nice try Ing.

                  Broken Heart Reaction GIF by Travis

                   * Voice of Reason *   

                  * People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it- George Bernard Shaw.

                    Avatar
                    Gallatin Tennesee
                    United States
                    Member #194096
                    November 29, 2018
                    158 Posts
                    Offline

                    Looks like the only thing the couple did wrong was having 2 similar names for 2 different groups. If you are using the name "Syndicate" for one group, you should come up with a different name for the second group. That would hopefully deter con men like Mr. Ing from showing up demanding $261,986,....... claiming to be confused.

                    US Flag

                    Success is not final, failure is not fatal, it is the courage to continue that counts.

                    .......Sir Winston Churchill