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.
(Click to display full-size in gallery)
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!
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.
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?).
Aborigines! Stick that in yer. Dirigereedoo
"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?
No money no honey get out! Says ing's wife.. lol
"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.
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!
Nice try Ing.
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.