Dual accounts , incorrect details and deposits at coral ?.

Jasminebed said:

I'm unsure of just what transpired, and I'm not quite sure if the OP is either. I do recall the earlier thread.

So Coral paid 1200 to your card? The one in your pocket that is now being declined? I'm unclear whether there were $196.60 in additional debits, or could they merely be authorized deposits by you that are only just now being settled? Do you play at a sister casino, sometimes the same processor and name appears on a card statement.

I would ask my bank to wait on any chargebacks until you and the Coral rep have a chance to investigate this further. You will still have time to do so for a bit longer. PAB if necessary. In fact, since Coral seems reluctant to share info with you, it might be wise to PAB immediately as they will talk with Maxd.

Unsavoury as it might be, do you have a friend or family member who might have stolen your card details? You recently have lost (or had stolen) another card, which is a pretty big coincidence.

Chargebacks affect merchants in more ways than the loss of the funds. I am sure that Coral would rather come to another resolution as well as you.

Click to expand...

catapultaudio said:

Are the bank refunding it as fraud or just doing a chargeback? As I thought the bank was insured against fraud and the retailer wouldn't lose the money, as opposed to a chargeback where the bank refuses to honour the transaction to the retailer on your request for some reason you have spoecified.

Click to expand...

vinylweatherman said:

It would seem that Coral are being obstructive, as in order to pursue this any other way the OP needs to know where to look, and then who to chase. If Coral insist on only dealing with the bank, then it has to go through the formal procedures, which may involve a chargeback, and could also land Coral in hot water with the ICO for improper processing of the OPs personal data. It may also be possible to complain to the ICO over the blacklisting, as it can be illegal to blacklist people for vague reasons.

Coral should never have allowed a card to be used where the billing address differs from the address registered as by doing so, they have willingly accepted a third party cardholder deposit. It's also possible that the bank might be liable if they didn't run due diligence when allowing these charges to go through.

Click to expand...

Nifty29 said:

LOL.

How are the being obstructive? By refusing access to (it appears) someone else's account? Are you kidding me? So you would be fine with 32Red providing your account details to me then, just based on me suspecting you might be using my card etc? Since you're completing your doctorate in Law via self-education, perhaps you could look into the Data Protection Act 1998 for starters.

Since Coral use the CVN system, the person making the deposit would need the physical card present, or would need to have had it at some point. So, either there are duplicate accounts created by the OP, or some fraudster (perhaps known to the OP) has got clever and used very similar details e.g. if the card name is Mr J Smith, a fraudster could use John, James, Jimmy etc etc. I don't see another option, unless these transactions are from weeks ago/before account was closed, which seems unlikely.

I think the Coral rep needs to fully investigate the matter before people start throwing around unfounded accusations of illegal conduct and being in "hot water" with whoever or whatever.

You seem to want to turn everything into an episode of Law and Order, when the reality is that doing so just clouds the issues. One thing's for sure.....you've given some actual legal practitioners a good belly laugh on an almost weekly basis.

How about we wait until Coral completes it's investigation (assuming the OP has asked the rep to start one)

Click to expand...

when they checked the card number they say it's registered to a similar name but wrong address

Click to expand...

vinylweatherman said:

It seems nothing is merely suspected here, but has already been confirmed by both Coral and the bank.




Being a number, there is no "similar" involved. Coral are saying the OPs card is registered to another account with a different address to the OP. They should have picked this up at Coral as they have the necessary information to determine that the same card has been used by two players from different addresses.

The OP has reason to know who has used their card without permission in order to take the necessary action, such as making a police report, or even dealing with the matter themselves. It could turn out that knowing the address solves the puzzle, with the OP finding out it's a family member or friend that has misused his card. This could then provide an opportunity for the friend or family member to repay the OP without the matter going through the bank or police, which would also mean no chargeback for Coral.

The OP should probably complain to the ICO about the refusal to provide key information on a potential fraudster. Coral will have to accept the consequences of forcing the player to go through their bank, as this WILL involve a process of recovery that will have wider negative consequences for Coral. If Coral do then blacklist him, the OP should make another complaint to the ICO for the distribution of incorrect and potentially libellous data to third party databases by Coral.

Click to expand...

Nifty29 said:

Libellous.

LOL.

Better call Jack McCoy then too.

Click to expand...

vinylweatherman said:

No need, the ICO deals with such matters. If a company places incorrect information about someone with a credit reference agency, and then refuses to remove it, the ICO will make them, and may even fine them and order compensation to be paid. The credit reference agencies are now under investigation over the issue of incorrect data being placed on file, and not being removed when brought to their attention.

Operating any kind of secret blacklist is illegal, so if Coral are blacklisting players, it must be within the scope of the Data protection Act, and they must make sure that any listing is both accurate and justified. You cannot record negative data against someone just because they were a victim of fraud that went through proper channels to get redress, which is what Coral has threatened to do in this case. All they can do is choose to deregister the OP as a player, using their "reserved right of admission". If they then start circulating negative data about the OP to third parties, they can be called upon to prove that it is accurate, else find themselves facing a libel action, which can be dealt with through the ICO as a data processing complaint, as well as through the courts.

Online casinos will have to accept that they cannot carry on expecting special treatment, and that where the proper procedures result in the bank reclaiming money back for customers who fall victim to fraud, that's what they as businesses will have to deal with. If they don't want this trouble, they need to be more accommodating to players who at least try to deal with the matter between themselves and the casino such that they are not pushed into going through the procedures with their bank.

Giving the money back is not enough in this case, the fraudster still has enough card details to perpetuate further fraud. The OP needs to get the bank to apply a block on the card and issue a new one.

Click to expand...