Attempting to use UKGC LCCP 4.1.1.1 to obtain balance

[disgruntled_punter]

Hello Everyone.

As operators find more creative ways to avoid paying, players need to find more creative ways of obtaining payment.

Despite reforms on 7 May 2019, it is clear that documents are still being weaponised by operators - i.e. "give us a, b, c,.......x, y, z" or you are not getting paid. This conduct is wholly and utterly unacceptable and nobody should entertain anyone who tries to justify it. It might all seem reasonable - until it happens to you. The LCCP reforms were a message to operators - if you don't want to pay, don't let them play.

As we all know however withdrawals still as a matter of routine course get made conditional upon the production of documents. There are Article 7 GDPR concerns with this. A contract cannot replace or supersede statutory rights. Operators always rely on their terms as an excuse for their conduct however their terms cannot supersede or replace statute. Consent to process data has to be "freely given". How can consent be "freely given" when there is an implied threat of depriving you of your money when not complying with document requests.

There is in my view a major issue which is only going to become bigger. What happens to balances when players say they are not complying and refuse any more document requests? Objectively, some of the requests which are discussed on here are demonstrably abusive and outrageous. What happens to balances when a player says "no more"? Some operators believe this creates a right to keep balances ad infinitum.

I wanted to ask if anyone has considered (or has tried) using LCCP 4.1.1.1 in this instance. This requires operators as a condition of their UKGC licence to hold players funds in segregated bank accounts. The idea being that you simply bypass the operator, contact the financial institution with proof of what you are owed from the segregated account by the operator and request that they pay it. I realise the first hurdle would be establishing what financial institution holds the money.

I'm not entirely convinced this would work however I don't think it should be entirely dismissed. It costs nothing to try and I wanted to hear other users thoughts and experiences on this very subject.

Thanks in advance.

 

[maxd]

FTR:

 

[L&L-Jan]

As operators find more creative ways to avoid paying

Find a normal casino in that case.

Seperation of funds is related that customer funds cannot be used for operational costs. With other words, lets say we have £500.000 in customer balances, we need to make sure those funds are seperated from the funds we operate with. Opposite of FullTilt poker back in 2010

 

[disgruntled_punter]

Find a normal casino in that case.

Seperation of funds is related that customer funds cannot be used for operational costs. With other words, lets say we have £500.000 in customer balances, we need to make sure those funds are seperated from the funds we operate with. Opposite of FullTilt poker back in 2010

By extension, what you are saying is a casino that doesn't pay balances in a timely manner is abnormal.

Almost every day there is reports on here of people not being paid or having the withdrawals made subject to documents contrary to LCCP 17.1.1. There is therefore a lot of abnormal casinos around.

If a casino refuses to pay do you believe that claiming directly from the provider of the segregated bank account is feasible? This thread is about finding ways to combat operators and their overbearing KYC policies. As we all know there is no uniformity. Play the same way at 10 sites and you will have 10 different KYC experiences ranging between nothing and notarised letters of good standing from Elvis.

This problem is only going to get worse not better. How many people are planning on complying with "affordability checks" to any extent whatsoever? What's going to happen their balances when they don't comply?

 

[Mark_Lottomart]

Find a normal casino in that case.

Seperation of funds is related that customer funds cannot be used for operational costs. With other words, lets say we have £500.000 in customer balances, we need to make sure those funds are seperated from the funds we operate with. Opposite of FullTilt poker back in 2010

Just to add to this, the funds are segregated based on differing levels of protection but primarily it’s all about what happens to the cash if the operator goes into administration, there’s no option (as far as I’m aware) for you to ring Mr Bank Manager and say you want your cash back.

 

[disgruntled_punter]

Just to add to this, the funds are segregated based on differing levels of protection but primarily it’s all about what happens to the cash if the operator goes into administration, there’s no option (as far as I’m aware) for you to ring Mr Bank Manager and say you want your cash back.

I realise it won't be a standard term and that it's not a common everyday practice however we are trying to think outside the box here for scenarios where operators are simply not paying.

In my view gambling account balances need to be made like tenancy deposits. Held by a neutral third party in a scheme. Much easier to get funds back than the current regime.

Is anyone aware of anyone trying to approach the provider who has the segregated funds with documentary evidence and making a claim?

 

[nfehily]

Hello Everyone.

As operators find more creative ways to avoid paying, players need to find more creative ways of obtaining payment.

Despite reforms on 7 May 2019, it is clear that documents are still being weaponised by operators - i.e. "give us a, b, c,.......x, y, z" or you are not getting paid. This conduct is wholly and utterly unacceptable and nobody should entertain anyone who tries to justify it. It might all seem reasonable - until it happens to you. The LCCP reforms were a message to operators - if you don't want to pay, don't let them play.

As we all know however withdrawals still as a matter of routine course get made conditional upon the production of documents. There are Article 7 GDPR concerns with this. A contract cannot replace or supersede statutory rights. Operators always rely on their terms as an excuse for their conduct however their terms cannot supersede or replace statute. Consent to process data has to be "freely given". How can consent be "freely given" when there is an implied threat of depriving you of your money when not complying with document requests.

There is in my view a major issue which is only going to become bigger. What happens to balances when players say they are not complying and refuse any more document requests? Objectively, some of the requests which are discussed on here are demonstrably abusive and outrageous. What happens to balances when a player says "no more"? Some operators believe this creates a right to keep balances ad infinitum.

I wanted to ask if anyone has considered (or has tried) using LCCP 4.1.1.1 in this instance. This requires operators as a condition of their UKGC licence to hold players funds in segregated bank accounts. The idea being that you simply bypass the operator, contact the financial institution with proof of what you are owed from the segregated account by the operator and request that they pay it. I realise the first hurdle would be establishing what financial institution holds the money.

I'm not entirely convinced this would work however I don't think it should be entirely dismissed. It costs nothing to try and I wanted to hear other users thoughts and experiences on this very subject.

Thanks in advance.

Just recently GGBET decided to withhold 2 separate withdrawals of mine until I send them details of my previously lost debit card. They had already allowed me to deposit with the replacement however. I closed the account but they they still insist on not releasing my funds until they see bank statements with old card details on it etc, etc.
I love what the ukgc are doing to this industry (killing it softly) because its full of rogues.

 

[paul7388]

Just recently GGBET decided to withhold 2 separate withdrawals of mine until I send them details of my previously lost debit card. They had already allowed me to deposit with the replacement however. I closed the account but they they still insist on not releasing my funds until they see bank statements with old card details on it etc, etc.
I love what the ukgc are doing to this industry (killing it softly) because its full of rogues.

Have never understood all this crap with debit cards . One of reasons I don't use a debit card at all these different casinos.

If it was a UKGC requirement maybe.

But used all the bookies sites for like 20 years plus. William HIll, Paddy Power , Ladbrokes, Coral.

Everyone is the same. Get new debit card enter details. Lose debit card enter details of new one and that's it.

Never once do you get asked for copies of new cards or bank statements or copies of old cards.

 

[PMKFRUITPRO]

Have never understood all this crap with debit cards . One of reasons I don't use a debit card at all these different casinos.

If it was a UKGC requirement maybe.

But used all the bookies sites for like 20 years plus. William HIll, Paddy Power , Ladbrokes, Coral.

Everyone is the same. Get new debit card enter details. Lose debit card enter details of new one and that's it.

Never once do you get asked for copies of new cards or bank statements or copies of old cards.

Yes this exactly why I hate playing at non ‘bookie’ sites. CBA with all the horse shit.

Not once in my entire punting career have I ever been asked for anything at a point of withdrawal from any of the usual lot, lads, corals, hills, sky, 365, paddy etc.

Once lads/corals asked for some extra ID but that was made clear as soon as I logged in, not after I requested a withdrawal.

As you’ve said, change bank, or get a new card, simply enter card details and then crack on. Whilst I appreciate not all off shore casinos can electronically verify, there is absolutely no need to ask for fuck all else, once you have proved that said card is yours. You certainly don’t need to produce bank statements from 2 yrs ago, or find a receipt from McDonald’s using previous card 18 months earlier for a fucking Big Mac Meal.

I would dread changing banks/upgrading/replacing bank cards at 90% of the dross recommended by this site. You’d just know ur asking for trouble at some point down the line and why take that risk??

Not for me.

 

[jasonuk]

I agree with the reps here - find another casino. Misbehaving operators should be handled from both sides - a competent regulator, and players voting with their wallet.

There is in my view a major issue which is only going to become bigger. What happens to balances when players say they are not complying and refuse any more document requests? Objectively, some of the requests which are discussed on here are demonstrably abusive and outrageous. What happens to balances when a player says "no more"? Some operators believe this creates a right to keep balances ad infinitum.

We've had a number of discussions about this on CM in recent months - as I suspect you've already seen.

The

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

does cover a number of paths, one of which discusses termination conditions if the CDD cannot be completed. The problem comes down to when the CDD request was triggered - because the rules change after that point:

• At the point of the CDD trigger, the amount to be repaid is the entire balance.
• After the CDD trigger, winnings are conditional on positive completion of the CDD.

We've talked in the past that funds should be returned to the player, but there are exceptions to this - predictably funds that are likely to trigger a proceeds of crime alert, but also any winnings awarded after the CDD was triggered. This gives a perverse incentive for operators to delay notification of the CDD because it allows them to freeroll players if they wish to decline intrusive CDD requests, essentially coercing them into compliance (and saving themselves some paperwork).