A PUNTER has launched a one-man protest against betting rules after his winning World Cup bet worth almost £13,000 was declared void by bookies.

Alan Edmunds, of Old Tovil Road, Maidstone, paid just 50p for a five-bet combination, known as a "Lucky 31", at the Coral betting shop in Maidstone's High Street on May 31.

But just days before the World Cup final - the decisive match for the gamble - the shop manager told him the bet would not be honoured.

Mr Edmonds, who has been betting for 43 years, was crestfallen by the news and said it was the "best bet I have ever had, and I can't have it".

Mr Edmonds' five steps to a fortune were:

* Brazil to win the World Cup Final

* Brazil to be the top-scoring side in the tournament.

* Ronaldo to win the Golden Boot for scoring most goals.

* Germany to play in the final against Brazil.

* England to reach the semi-finals.

Despite England's failure the bet still stood to earn him about £12,600.

The shop told him it was a "related bet" - which is against Coral rules because, they say, the odds were affected unfairly. Staff at Coral said that if Brazil were the highest scoring team in the tournament it would be more likely that their star striker, Ronaldo, would win the Golden Boot.

Bets are not considered a contract so there is no obligation to pay out.

Mr Edmonds', 58, has never heard of related bets and is warning other gamblers about the "unwritten rules". He said: "I went into Coral by chance just before the final and the manager told me he wouldn't pay out. By that time Germany and Brazil were already in the final so one part had come true.

"I watched the final in a pub and, if I had won, I would have bought everyone in there a drink. It was very disappointing, but I have gambled enough to know you never win against a bookie.

"There is nothing in the shop to say they do not take related bets, or to explain what they are. They have offered me £700 as a good will gesture, but I am not going to accept it."

He added: "I am going to go outside the shop with a banner warning people about the unwritten rules. I will never bet there again, and I hope I can make a few other people think as well."

Mr Edmonds is planning to take Coral to the Independent Betting Arbitration Service (IBAS) - which makes decisions in disputes over bets - but is not hopeful of getting his money.

Hilary Spooner, spokeswoman for Coral, said: "A bet is not a contract. It is governed by Coral's rules. The bet should never have been allowed and because it is against the rules it is not valid.

"The normal route for a complaint is through IBAS. If they make a decision then we will honour it."

Bets taken at Coral are run through a computer which can pick out void horse racing bets but is not able to do the same for football. It is believed this is why Mr Edmonds' bet was accepted.