The Boston Lincolnshire woman is now suing the UK National Lottery and the outgoing operator Camelot after she was reportedly shorthanded by the lottery. Parker-Grennan argues that she had won £1 million from a draw of “£20Million Online Spectacular” back in August 2015.

Malfunction or Not, Player Expects Her Winnings

She has since been offered just £10 from the lottery which Camelot argued was the rightful payout. The woman has naturally been loath to accept what she saw as a consolation prize of her rightful £1 million win. So, after trying to secure the money for years, she launched a lawsuit with the High Court in 2022, trying one final attempt to collect her prize.

The matter now rests with a judge who has to weigh both arguments. Parker-Grennan says that upon winning, she was congratulated by the accompanying animation confirming her win. However, Camelot argued that the outcome of each game at the National Lottery’s Instant Win Game portfolio is pre-determined.

Even though the computer displayed the animation, it had not been meant to do so – a technical malfunction occurred, Camelot explained, in denying the woman the payout and confirming that the supposed payout was indeed only £10. Such cases have not been uncommon and they have been deeply exacerbating for the people who thought they had won only to get themselves caught in a prolonged exchange with the lottery and eventually end up in court.

However, Parker-Grennan has not let go and she has insisted that she won fairly and that she expected to be paid out the full amount. However, Camelot barrister Philip Hinks said that the lottery was only liable to pay the amount that had been pre-determined by the computer – not the amount the animation ended up displaying.

Camelot Stands a Good Chance in Court, But Nothing Is Certain

Hinks said that there was a good chance that the courts would side with Camelot in the matter. Not all is certain, however, as a Betfred customer was recently awarded a £1.7 million jackpot even though the software had malfunctioned.

Most courts seem to have sided against the plaintiffs, though, with the victims unable to sway judges from the United Kingdom to the United States that a faulty animation should serve as the basis of honoring a payout.

In Las Vegas, gambling companies have been smart as they advertise that technical malfunctions of any sort tend to void all pays and plays. Whether this will be the case in Parker-Grennan’s case remains to be seen.