[vinylweatherman]

Originally Posted by soflat

I agree, he was probably not after the poud edge, but the rule is in place to discourage people from exploiting the pound edge. In other words, I think the player just got caught up in a rule meant to penalize other players.

I feel the rule is fairly divulged, although it could be done better.

Restricting players to certain currencies based on geographic location is up to the casino, and I don't see why they should be removed from the accredited list for it. Afterall, many reputable casinos have such rules.

I thought this player WAS located and working in the UK when opening his account, but was originally from the states. This had nothing to do with geographic location. I am beginning to suspect that it had something to do with identity documents being issued by the USA, making it look like a player exploiting the pound edge.

Perhaps indeed this term should clarify that it is citizenship and NOT actual current location that determines your "country" when it come to playing online. To make matters worse, other casinos take it the other way, a Hong Kong player denied bonuses by Intercasino was told to play from another country to get bonuses reinstated. With no real standardisation, casinos must be absolutely clear with their terms, and players must remember that there is no such thing as "standard practice", just as there is no requirement for casinos to void WR if the account is zeroed, another source of argument. There are things that most casinos do and some don't; and things that most don't but some do.
Perhaps we should all make the casino wait for our first deposits rather than us acting on impulse. We should interrogate CS, and ask for a precis in writing before we deposit a cent! I am sure this would encourage more clarity and openness in T & C in order to get our money in ASAP.
Allied to this point is the fact that many casinos lie through their teeth when asked to explain the reasoning for what appears to be a silly term. In this case it is a charge to cover the cost of "overnight express". Clearly, in this case this was just total BS, as the funds went by slower means. The fact that an excuse, rather than the truth, is used to explain the deduction is enough to render their reputable status worthy of review.
£500 max charge really shows up the deception. International courier charges the same whatever the amount of a cheque, usually around $30 to $50, and overnight bank wire is a similar amount. If the charge cap was around this amount, I would believe the excuse, but £500 cap is simply a fine dressed up as a charge for services rendered.