Casino won’t pay

[adarkerson81]

Hi not sure if there is a better place to put this so if you could advise that would be great. Long story short Jackpot Star will not pay out £1000 that I won saying I used a third party payment method. I used Trustly to deposit funds from joint account I share with my wife and did it via my own app. They’ve actually come back and said I paid using a third party payment method of someone register with Gamstop. My wife did sign up for this about 5 years ago as she could see herself getting a bit too into it and didn’t want to get an addiction. Even so, surely it isn’t allowed for them to share that info about her with me? That aside - it’s my account too so how can they void my winnings? Any advice would be gratefully received. Thank you

 

[mulven]

Even so, surely it isn’t allowed for them to share that info about her with me?

AFAIK the only information they shared with you was that the payment method using was related to someone who is registered with GAMSTOP. They didn't reveal any personal information and you connected those dots yourself.

That aside - it’s my account too so how can they void my winnings? Any advice would be gratefully received. Thank you

Casinos have to take self exclusion and responsible gaming very seriously. It's likely they believe that the excluded individual got you to gamble on their behalf OR that the excluded individual signed up impersonating you. This is a real thing that happens and there is even a player who recently posted on this forum about doing just that with his wife's identity whilst using their joint account.

The GAMSTOP element really complicates things for you. People have been able to get past joint account 3rd party accusations through providing a lot of proof. With payment method being tainted by a GAMSTOP exclusion it somewhat ties the hands of the operator as they are bound to do several things including voiding the balance.

It is also difficult for you to actually prove you were the one gambling on the account or acting of your own volition. This really is the crux of the issue as this uncertainty makes it nigh-on impossible to give you the benefit of the doubt as they have to stick to their responsible gaming regulations and the only thing they have undeniable proof of is that the payment method is jointly owned by an excluded individual.

The account sign up, gameplay and usage is, to them, opaque. They have no way of knowing who was actually using the device or behind the decision to gamble. Even if your wife was on holiday in Australia at the time of these events, there is no way to know (or to prove for that matter) whether or not you were gambling on her behalf.

Whilst you can go through the full chain of the complaints process (internal > PAB > ADR etc), your chances are extremely low as you won't be able to irrefutably prove that your wife had no hand in the account or the decisions to gamble. There is also a rep on the forum (@EGO ) who may chime in but it's very likely what I've said will be echoed. Their hands are well and truly tied.

I believe you are entitled to receiving the deposit back and you should take this as a very expensive lesson on why you should never play with a joint account as it just opens you up to all sorts of issues. If you want to continue gambling online, I suggest you open a separate account to do so.

It's worth mentioning that if you still reside at the address registered with your wife's GAMSTOP account, that you may run into issues with that connection in the future as well. Not only that but some operators only allow one account per household. If you now live at a different address compared to GAMSTOP and use a new bank account, you shouldn't run into any more issues.

 

[adarkerson81]

AFAIK the only information they shared with you was that the payment method using was related to someone who is registered with GAMSTOP. They didn't reveal any personal information and you connected those dots yourself.

Casinos have to take self exclusion and responsible gaming very seriously. It's likely they believe that the excluded individual got you to gamble on their behalf OR that the excluded individual signed up impersonating you. This is a real thing that happens and there is even a player who recently posted on this forum about doing just that with his wife's identity whilst using their joint account.

The GAMSTOP element really complicates things for you. People have been able to get past joint account 3rd party accusations through providing a lot of proof. With payment method being tainted by a GAMSTOP exclusion it somewhat ties the hands of the operator as they are bound to do several things including voiding the balance.

It is also difficult for you to actually prove you were the one gambling on the account or acting of your own volition. This really is the crux of the issue as this uncertainty makes it nigh-on impossible to give you the benefit of the doubt as they have to stick to their responsible gaming regulations and the only thing they have undeniable proof of is that the payment method is jointly owned by an excluded individual.

The account sign up, gameplay and usage is, to them, opaque. They have no way of knowing who was actually using the device or behind the decision to gamble. Even if your wife was on holiday in Australia at the time of these events, there is no way to know (or to prove for that matter) whether or not you were gambling on her behalf.

Whilst you can go through the full chain of the complaints process (internal > PAB > ADR etc), your chances are extremely low as you won't be able to irrefutably prove that your wife had no hand in the account or the decisions to gamble. There is also a rep on the forum (@EGO ) who may chime in but it's very likely what I've said will be echoed. Their hands are well and truly tied.

I believe you are entitled to receiving the deposit back and you should take this as a very expensive lesson on why you should never play with a joint account as it just opens you up to all sorts of issues. If you want to continue gambling online, I suggest you open a separate account to do so.

It's worth mentioning that if you still reside at the address registered with your wife's GAMSTOP account, that you may run into issues with that connection in the future as well. Not only that but some operators only allow one account per household. If you now live at a different address compared to GAMSTOP and use a new bank account, you shouldn't run into any more issues.

Appreciate the detailed reply, thank you

 

[RouletteTools]

I feel for you man, Your wifes account has a lot to do with it for sure, Trying to prove it was you betting rather then her would be impossible to say the least like the guy above said, but a court of law would say different.

Pretty sure written laws on a tos rule basis will burn in a real court like the paper it's written on.


But you wouldn't take it that far for a $1000, maybe a phone call or a face to face with the guy that actually owns the casino might get you a good result ... Trust is everything, it's nothing on paper.


Try contact the guy who owns it is my best advice, don't get left on hold.

 

[mulven]

But you wouldn't take it that far for a $1000, maybe a phone call or a face to face with the guy that actually owns the casino might get you a good result ... Trust is everything, it's nothing on paper

Try contact the guy who owns it is my best advice, don't get left on hold.

Harassing/Stalking the owner of a very large casino group is bad advice. This is good advice for sorting out a dispute with a local business though.

Trying to prove it was you betting rather then her would be impossible to say the least like the guy above said, but a court of law would say different.

Pretty sure written laws on a tos rule basis will burn in a real court like the paper it's written on.

Some ridiculous terms that casinos have certainly wouldn't hold up in a court of law however the pertinent terms, regulations and laws surrounding self exclusion in this case definitely would.

In a civil case like this the claimant has the burden of proving the case against the defendant (casino) on a balance of probabilities. This essentially means that the court must be satisfied that the case being made by the claimant is more likely to have happened than not. Its an easier burden of proof to pass than "beyond reasonable doubt" but it would still be quite difficult to prove it's more likely that the wife had zero involvement than not.

But like you said, it's not worth it for £1,000, even if the case was quite strong.

 

[JohnSnow]

Hmm I don't know. If they withold the money unlawfully. You can sue them for fines way beyond the 1000 dollar mark (that is.. if you win the case). So you will get your 1000 dollars worth including the processing fees for the court (again if you win). It's the UK right? They are the once that have to proof it was your wife and not you. It doesn't matter how serious casino's have to take this case. They wouldn't stand a chance in court,

 

[mulven]

Hmm I don't know. If they withold the money unlawfully. You can sue them for fines way beyond the 1000 dollar mark (that is.. if you win the case). So you will get your 1000 dollars worth including the processing fees for the court (again if you win). It's the UK right? They are the once that have to proof it was your wife and not you. It doesn't matter how serious casino's have to take this case. They wouldn't stand a chance in court,

Please don't state things that aren't true. The obligation is on the claimant to prove their claim, not the defendant, in UK civil suits.

They are not withholding the money unlawfully, they are doing so in accordance with self exclusion regulations.

 

[JohnSnow]

Please don't state things that aren't true. The obligation is on the claimant to prove their claim, not the defendant, in UK civil suits.

They are not withholding the money unlawfully, they are doing so in accordance with self exclusion regulations.

Sorry i missed the part where this was a SHARED acccount!