There are some things that Tom left out or just ignored. His deposit was returned but they should have also paid him his winnings. If they returned the deposit they should have also paid the winnings as the OP didn't know he couldn't play there.
I understand protecting yourself from frauds and such but this guy is not a fraud and played with the intentions of winning and then those winnings were denied and account locked.
He should be paid period. He signed up through an affliate of cwc and therefore they are responsible for paying him.
A compelling argument.
The ban on Poland was made on an ARBITRARY date, no doubt a "knee jerk" reaction to something that was happening involving OTHER Polish players, such as strong suspicion of players acting in concert in a manner that may be fraudulent.
The fact that the OP was able to make a second deposit was the fault of the casino CS staff, in not immediately locking the account after withdrawal, as well as failing to remove the player from the promotional emails list. I find CW can remove players pretty fast from the promotional emails list when they want too. The players that SHOULDN'T be getting paid are all those Polish players that created this situation, who no doubt were breaking the rules en-masse.
Do CW assert that the OP was indeed one of the mass of Polish players that triggered the ban?
Under circumstances where "emergency" changes to terms are made, it is NOT fair to rely on the clause requiring players to regularly review the T & C, which presupposes a 30 day cycle in most cases, with the expectation among players that terms are most likely to change when a new cycle of promotions is launched.
Here in the UK, there are laws requiring 30 days notice be given to a customer of any changes to terms and conditions that ADVERSELY affect them. Why should the internet casino industry be exempt from this, after all - don't they propmote themselves as LEGITIMATE enterprises, and are supposedly trying to rid themselves of the "wild west" image.
I sometimes wonder whether it is our consumer protection laws that scare casinos off from going for a UK license, preferring instead to go for the whitelist jurisdictions, or even the well known, but rather lightly regulated, traditional places, such as Kahnawake.
Under the new UK laws that permit courts to enforce gambling debts, the refund of deposit option often employed may no longer be seen as final in some cases.
The CDS matter is probably the most important, since the OP used this instead of going to court, and got a ruling in his favour. Now CDS have reversed this, and have told the casino, but not the original complainant. Since the OP says that you can log on to an account when you have a dispute, there can be no chance of their reversal email being tangled up in spam filters.
I hope either Bryan or Max can check this directly with CDS, and find the current status of this dispute, as if overturned, it would show CDS as incompetent in failing to notify the complainant, rather than Club World as having disregarded a ruling against them.
