Originally Posted by
wernerw
Update:
After more than a week they finally unlocked my account.
They did not answer my messages any more until I wrote them on friday that by monday evening I will contact financial ombudsman and FSA in case they do not start to answer my questions.
Then they suddenly answered again, telling me that all they did was following their T&C (which in my opinion is not true).
I again confirmed them that unless I receive answers I will proceed as announced.
When I came home from work today, voila, the account is unlocked.
Seems that I found the right words.
The ONLY hint they gave me was that my "gambling transactions" were suspicious.
So I still warn everybody. If you care about your money, beware of this company.
WTF are they up to! Both Moneybookers and Neteller were created with the EXPRESS PURPOSE of being a facility for GAMBLING TRANSACTIONS. If you deposit and withdraw from casino and poker sites, what is so damn "suspicious" about that, it's what they are for, Moneybookers even PROMOTE online gambling sites (including Ministering Angel, who they clearly didn't bother verifying first
)
Oddly enough, I had the same from Neteller - I ONLY make gambling transactions, yet they asked for more documents, but more worryingly, asked me what, and who with, my transactions were for. Surely, as they were all with THEIR own merchants, they bloody well KNEW that I was transacting with online gambling sites. If they had to ask, it shows that these eWallets really have no idea who their "merchants" are, and have to run the odd "fishing expedition" in order to catch the dodgy ones who are using the merchant/customer relationship for criminal purposes.
Moneybookers only compound this by having no proper route for customers to complain, and seem only to open up to communication when they are threatened with the UK Financial Ombudsman. Their licence requires them to respond, and have a proper internal complaints procedure, and they know full well that failure to respond is the same as issuing a deadlock letter, and enables the complainant to take the matter further.
While it may be within their terms to request additional documents at any time, they are expected to handle the matter in a professional manner, something that seems to be lacking with both them, and Neteller. At least with Neteller you can phone their (inept) CS and have a rant, even if it gets you nowhere.
Moneybookers are supposed to have live chat, which they encourage customers to use in preference to phone support. Live chat also keeps a record of the conversation, even if it is a case of taking screenshots or a cut & paste.
It is also possible to write to them, but this would not get immediate action, however, they are required to respond in a timely manner, which I believe is around 14 days from receipt of a complaint.
It is worrying that so many problems of this nature have recently emerged with webwallets, and it seems that Moneybookers have an unhealthily close relationship with online casinos that seems to get in the way of them acting in the interests of their customers. The case of topoor shows that Moneybookers will act simply on the word of one of their merchants, and close down an account, whereras if a player complains about a merchant, Moneybookers will claim it is not their problem, and to take it up with the merchant.
Moneybookers also showed that even a new merchant, Ministering Angel, can simply "buy" a promotional banner without Moneybookers checking into their background. Had Moneybookers checked into Ministering Angel with anything like the degree they check their ordinary customers, they would have immediately noticed that there was serious reason to doubt their integrity, and they should have never been given a merchant account, let alone advertising space.
If a fully regulated bank behaved in this manner, they would be under the hammer of the regulators, but there is actually little "regulation" involved with the "small eMoney issuer" licences that Moneybookers and Neteller have. It is more a case that they have licences to be excused from the more stringent rules required of banks in exchange for limits on the amount of eMoney they are allowed to issue to customers.
The limit is about 1000 Euro, and any more is not protected under the investor compensation rules, unlike banks, where the first £35,000 is covered.
To hold more than 1000 Euro, customers have to agree that the surplus is secure only in the trust accounts held by the eWallets, and not covered by any investor compensation scheme.
For Neteller, this is fairly safe, since they are regulated by the Isle Of Man - but I am not sure about Moneybookers, who are based in London, and rely on their "small eMoney issuer" waiver, and the strength of their trust arrangements, to keep client funds protected from any meltdowns in the system.
I cannot see how any customer that does not use the person to person transfer facility in these eWallets can be viewed as making "suspicious transactions", although there may be doubt about their identity if their documents were not up to date.
Moneybookers handled this far more badly than Neteller. I was asked to send updated documents, but was allowed around a month to put these together, and in the mean time had full access to my account functionality.
Despite a degree of ineptness with their CS in following through with the procedure, I was always able to use my Neteller account as it was intended.
It may be possible to challenge the fairness of these terms under consumer contract laws, which could cause Moneybookers to change the way they handle these routine checks so that there is a fairer balance between them and the consumer. Certainly, it would not be fair to just lock the account down, and rebuff all attempts by the customer to communicate as to why, where in fact they should have issued a request for documents, giving a reasonable time to comply, with the account only being locked if the customer ignored the request.
This may well be another case of the merchant passing on their suspicions to Moneybookers, who then acted on it by locking the account and asking for documents. In the case of topoor, they went on to permanently lock her account, and it later emerged that it was an allegation from PKR that two people were using the account that was passed to Moneybookers that landed topoor in the mess. Moneybookers clearly believed this to be the case, and permanently blocked the account.
Empty Fruities Astern Capt'n
Back to port for unloading.
Full Sails - before we get raided ourselves.
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks