Conqueastador casino WTF

[irish-ranger]

I got a steer from a mate to have a look at a review on Trustpilot surely a casino holding a U.K. licence can’t do this??

 

[colinsunderland]

They don't use gamstop, but confiscate winnings due to someone being on benefits. Yep, sound a great casino. I would go to an ADR for that, they have no legal right not to pay him for that reason. Plus the withdrawal should have been paid anyway as waiting for a SoW shouldn't stop a withdrawal being processed.

Just for the record, GUTS also stated on here they don't allow people to play on benefits, so if you get child benefit, Universal Credit, Working Tax Credit etc don't play there. They also stated the don't allow people with debt to play, so if you have a loan, credit card, mortgage, car on finance, again, stay away from them.

Edit, didn't realise they had paid, in that case just walk away and play elsewhere.

 

[misstrouble]

I think they are? I mean, its not like they are holding funds ransom right?


Edit: ooooops. Didn’t read properly.

 

[Guntis]

The casino should payout the winnings but be on benefits and gamble is bad as bad can be!

 

[colinsunderland]

The casino should payout the winnings but be on benefits and gamble is bad as bad can be!

You can be on £50k a year and get child benefit.

 

[irish-ranger]

The casino should payout the winnings but be on benefits and gamble is bad as bad can be!

I agree but that doesn’t mean everybody on benefits can’t afford to gamble take working tax credit which is paid to top up those on low earnings “what a minefield” on benefits or not casinos should not be allowed to hold on to withdrawals.

 

[slot_zombie]

The OP stated he was paid his withdrawal and then the casino wanted proof of a job before allowing him to gamble again.

Sounds reasonable, not rogue. I had a similar request from their responsible gambling department.

 

[thr0b]

Reasonable, though I don’t think I’d want to play there again if they wanted to judge me on my bank statements. Especially as I use a separate account for gaming.

 

[Guntis]

You can be on £50k a year and get child benefit.

Fortunately I never I had to deal with any benefits and for that reason don't know much about it. And in opinion, benefits are only for people who are in need and it is a small amount of money provided by their country's government in order to keep bread on the table and buy essential things till life circumstances improve.
Speaking about the UK, I don't think that the Department for Work and Pensions would be happy to find out that someone spins slots on the money which meant to be for a different purpose.

But anyway the casino must pay those winnings out.

 

[misstrouble]

I think the issue here was that the only income was benefits. There was no salary.

 

[thr0b]

I think the issue here was that the only income was benefits. There was no salary.

Even so - as long as you’re playing within your means, it doesn’t matter. People are on benefits for all sorts of reasons, and it’s not for a business to make that judgment. But they’re are entitled to in the end. Presumably erring on the cautious side of being responsible.

 

[Guntis]

I think the issue here was that the only income was benefits. There was no salary.

Then it's should be "Here - take your money FO and go and get a job"

 

[misstrouble]

But I believe he did get his money, right?

 

[thr0b]

But I believe he did get his money, right?

Yep. They’ve decided they don’t want him to play there anymore, which is their right.

Equally, it’s his right to spend his money joe he wants, so long as he’s on top of his bills etc.

 

[misstrouble]

Yep. They’ve decided they don’t want him to play there anymore, which is their right.

Equally, it’s his right to spend his money joe he wants, so long as he’s on top of his bills etc.

Ofcourse, just as much as its their decision to not allow someone to play.

 

[Slottery]

Then it's should be "Here - take your money FO and go and get a job"

Wasn't that what they did, paid and blocked account?

 

[nightfox]

so if a person is on benefits and adds a amount of money on the account and hits big the decision to not allow someone to play and withdraw casinos should not be allowed to hold on to withdrawals because of a any income that person has a job or not

 

[misstrouble]

so if a person is on benefits and adds a amount of money on the account and hits big the decision to not allow someone to play and withdraw casinos should not be allowed to hold on to withdrawals because of a any income that person has a job or not

I think they paid out but closed the account.

 

[thr0b]

There can be no valid reason not to pay out if the money deposited was legitimate and not from an excluded player. Once the payout is done, then they can make the decision to decline further custom, which is what they’ve done here.

Not that much different to a bar deciding you’ve had enough to drink - finish up and leave.

 

[Guntis]

Wasn't that what they did, paid and blocked account?

Actually, the reply from Conquestador is spot on! If it was my casino i would reply the same.
The only problem is here that they did not mention anything in their T&C in regards to such rule.

 

[Slottery]

Haven't seen anything like that mentioned in any T&C:s even casinos all the time block or limit players based SOW or RG signs. There are so many different reasons and scenarios where players account get some treatment that list "We sill block all players account from following reasons: XXXX" could make a book and still most missing.

If it would be something that would cause confiscating winnings, then it's totally different than blocking account for "duty of care" (which they could have provide as only reason and no further comments but it usually is nicer to provide some reason for the decision) aftet paying whole balance on it to player.

 

[goatwack]

It's not for businesses to decided what Benefit claimants spend their money on. It was surely just a matter of time before they'd meddle in that aspect of people's lives, as predicted months ago.

I don't care about their 'moral justifications' for doing so. They're nannying life-choices under the pretext of RG to withhold legitimate winnings.

So unless proven this money is laundered they should stop with the faux Care For The Community bollocks. Clearly another small step in removing people's autonomy

 

[Slottery]

Who's speaking about moral, they just block your account when seeing that your bank accounts balance and incoming transactions are not worth of keeping you as player

 

[anddi32]

Casino has right to choose it's customers.
Maybe the looked that you are not a profitable player for the casino (because you win more than you lose?) and they realized that your incomes are not enough that you could be profitable customer.

Seriously... When any casino talks something about responsibly... It's pure b*llshit.
They don't care where your money comes (as long as it is legal money).
They have always some economic reason to ban players.

 

[YouTubeSlots]

Seems to be threads popping up everywhere about casinos doing sow checks and closing accounts down more then ever. Especially here in the u.k it's got to the point of if you manage to want to withdraw a big win. Your then asked to upload selfies and bank statements and prove your income etc. It's got beyond ridiculous at this point and just feels like what's the point even trying to win now. When you will most likely be hit with the we need your life story email the following morning. I try and stick with major betting sites like will hills, Sky Vegas etc. As they seem to be less likely if at all of pulling these shenanigans once you hit the withdraw button. Seems like things are just getting worse by the day, and the future of the u.k online gambling seen looks very grim, at least for most

 

[Reelsoffun]

Actually, the reply from Conquestador is spot on! If it was my casino i would reply the same.
The only problem is here that they did not mention anything in their T&C in regards to such rule.

But what if he had kept losing, without a withdrawal? they OK with that?

Remember they only asked for income proof after the withdrawal. Any casino that don't want unemployed or on benefit players should ask for this before deposits surely ??

If its that bigger of a deal for them they should check a player before allowing them to play, its that simple.

Sounds like another case of a casino wanting it all their own way.

 

[Slottery]

Most of casinos will request sow from you at some point, don't see much wrong to block account from player who's only income is some unemployment benefit.

No one start to do pre-deposit sow checks, when these things popping up, they can block account. Don't see much problem there.

 

[goatwack]

As has been mentioned, their SoW goes right out of the window if someone on negligible income, e.g Benefits, keeps depositing into the night without withdrawing.

So then it becomes less "We don't take players on Benefits' and more 'We're money-grubbing piglets that don't care if you mugged someone for that cash"

 

[Kroffe]

As has been mentioned, their SoW goes right out of the window if someone on negligible income, e.g Benefits, keeps depositing into the night without withdrawing.

So then it becomes less "We don't take players on Benefits' and more 'We're money-grubbing piglets that don't care if you mugged someone for that cash"

 

[paul7388]

Do not see why anyone has a problem with this.

The original post does not hold a lot of detail as to how the deposits are made.

Most casinos have a threshold of like 2.5k in deposits or withdrawals where they might do enhanced KYC .

Does not state over what period 2.5k in deposits was made. Was it over years or months.

So casino pays out winnings and asked the player to show proof of earnings as 2.5k is quite a lot especially if it is in a few months. Player then says sorry i am on benefits and only earnings i have. So casino rightly would say sorry but you cannot afford to have deposited the amount you have in that space of time from benefits so closes their account.

Think it was the only option available to the casino.

Let's face it all you hear about is how people cannot survive on benefits and need food banks and all the rest.
Many have never worked in their lives and the benefits they get paid for by tax from people that do work are supposed to pay for their essentials not gambling.

 

[anddi32]

Let's face it all you hear about is how people cannot survive on benefits and need food banks and all the rest.
Many have never worked in their lives and the benefits they get paid for by tax from people that do work are supposed to pay for their essentials not gambling.

Why any casino would care about anybody's personal financial situation? Business is business and money is money. There is no moral in this business.
And yes if this casino really cares about player's personal situation... There is still tens and tens of casinos where you can put that same money and they don't care.

 

[Nik]

The reply of the casino is excellent and that’s what every casino should do .

It looks wrong , it feels wrong and it is absolutely wrong in my opinion to believe that it’s fine to let someone who’s on benefits carry on gamble his/hers government financial support!
Benefits are there for one and only reason - to help you out with your everyday needs not to gamble !

 

[Slottery]

As has been mentioned, their SoW goes right out of the window if someone on negligible income, e.g Benefits, keeps depositing into the night without withdrawing.

So then it becomes less "We don't take players on Benefits' and more 'We're money-grubbing piglets that don't care if you mugged someone for that cash"

As long somebody don't make regulation that all players need to be sow verified and limits set based on that before they can deposit at all, it in my opinion is fair enough that when you receive some players sow which is not in line with spending or only living with benefits get their account blocked/limited.

When somebody send you bank statement where unemployment or other quite small benefit is only income, then it's probably not ok for casino keep taking loads of deposits from player, especially if spending so far have been high compare to income.

If players don't spend a lot but under amounts what "average" people can lose, then they most probably don't get sow verified for very long time and if it comes out later that player don't have other income but benefits, casino haven't done anything to get fined if player deposits are not that high that they should ring the bell.

Main interest for most casinos probably is that all accounts are handled according provided information and that information is requested when it should have. Then you can happily show players account and all information you have and decisions are based, when UKGC or any other regulator is auditing you and randomly picking some accounts to be reviewed.

 

[Borgie]

I assume we will also stop people on benefits smoking and drinking going on holiday eating doughnuts etc . As none of these things are necessary either.

The point is for a SOW surely you need to show that you can afford to gamble what you are depositing regardless of where that money comes from.

We are certainly not here to judge why a person is on benefits or to speculate whether they have ever worked etc etc

 

[goatwack]

As long somebody don't make regulation that all players need to be sow verified and limits set based on that before they can deposit at all, it in my opinion is fair enough that when you receive some players sow which is not in line with spending or only living with benefits get their account blocked/limited.

When somebody send you bank statement where unemployment or other quite small benefit is only income, then it's probably not ok for casino keep taking loads of deposits from player, especially if spending so far have been high compare to income.

If players don't spend a lot but under amounts what "average" people can lose, then they most probably don't get sow verified for very long time and if it comes out later that player don't have other income but benefits, casino haven't done anything to get fined if player deposits are not that high that they should ring the bell.

Main interest for most casinos probably is that all accounts are handled according provided information and that information is requested when it should have. Then you can happily show players account and all information you have and decisions are based, when UKGC or any other regulator is auditing you and randomly picking some accounts to be reviewed.

Well this is why discussion can be respectable between members, even if I don't agree with your completely flawed opinion

 

[Slottery]

Why any casino would care about anybody's personal financial situation? Business is business and money is money. There is no moral in this business.
And yes if this casino really cares about player's personal situation... There is still tens and tens of casinos where you can put that same money and they don't care.

No, but there are quite heavy fines if you let somebody deposit £10k every month without making sure that it's affordable amount for person in question. Like posted just above, when you are audited (or somebody make complaint that you need to open what and why you have done as due diligence for player), you don't want to have many players where you haven't request sow even spending is significant amount and that you have taken enough actions when you have received and reviewed players sow.

 

[thr0b]

The reply of the casino is excellent and that’s what every casino should do .

It looks wrong , it feels wrong and it is absolutely wrong in my opinion to believe that it’s fine to let someone who’s on benefits carry on gamble his/hers government financial support!
Benefits are there for one and only reason - to help you out with your everyday needs not to gamble !

not entirely true - everyone is entitled to entertainment. If you’ve not got the money for a night out, or a day out, a tenner here and there for a flutter is fine.

 

[colinsunderland]

The reply of the casino is excellent and that’s what every casino should do .

It looks wrong , it feels wrong and it is absolutely wrong in my opinion to believe that it’s fine to let someone who’s on benefits carry on gamble his/hers government financial support!
Benefits are there for one and only reason - to help you out with your everyday needs not to gamble !

So if someone earns £100k a year, has no debt, paid his mortgage off, and after bills has say £75k a year disposable income, but gets a disability benefit, that isn't means tested, you feel its wrong that he should be allowed to stick £20 into a casino and play?

It's no ones business what people spend benefits on, apart from their own. I'm sorry but I don't think its right that people should be able to tell people what they can and can't spend their money on. Would it be stupid for someone to spend all their benefits on gambling, yes, but no more so than someone working 16 hours at minimum wage. Might as well just go back to food stamps, and stop people buying Christmas presents, branded food, why buy a loaf of hovis bread for £1.20, you don't need that when tesco sell one for 35p.

 

[irish-ranger]

The reply of the casino is excellent and that’s what every casino should do .

It looks wrong , it feels wrong and it is absolutely wrong in my opinion to believe that it’s fine to let someone who’s on benefits carry on gamble his/hers government financial support!
Benefits are there for one and only reason - to help you out with your everyday needs not to gamble !

Let’s be realistic here there’s a dam lot of people in full time employment who get a dam lot less than some people on benefits get what next sow checks for all?? before initial deposit

 

[Slottery]

So if someone earns £100k a year, has no debt, paid his mortgage off, and after bills has say £75k a year disposable income, but gets a disability benefit, that isn't means tested, you feel its wrong that he should be allowed to stick £20 into a casino and play?

It's no ones business what people spend benefits on, apart from their own. I'm sorry but I don't think its right that people should be able to tell people what they can and can't spend their money on. Would it be stupid for someone to spend all their benefits on gambling, yes, but no more so than someone working 16 hours at minimum wage. Might as well just go back to food stamps, and stop people buying Christmas presents, branded food, why buy a loaf of hovis bread for £1.20, you don't need that when tesco sell one for 35p.

I think there was mentioned that player should be able to provide proof of some additional income or savings or what ever and they could open account.

Not sure in what time this player who got that email spent that amount but if you let somebody to play and spend high compare to income and you have known that players only income is benefit, regulator for sure is not happy that you didn't take any steps prevent overspending.

Easiest way for casino is just close account, all people have rights to their entertainment and loads of other rights but any online casino is not obligated to arrange these to people but they are free to choose their customers.

 

[Guntis]

But what if he had kept losing, without a withdrawal? they OK with that?

Remember they only asked for income proof after the withdrawal. Any casino that don't want unemployed or on benefit players should ask for this before deposits surely ??

If its that bigger of a deal for them they should check a player before allowing them to play, its that simple.

Sounds like another case of a casino wanting it all their own way.

Yes, agree. The player's financial situation could have been easily determined during the SOW process and the specific rule regarding unemployed players added to their t&c.

But It's actually funny - someone goes to Trustpilot and sends a warning message to other unemployed ones - hey guys, don't play there that Conquistador will eventually ask for your source of income...

That Trustpilot is really full of haters, competitors and different types of other madmen and nutters...

 

[Slottery]

Don't really agree that it should be added to T&C:s, sow is there that players financials are reviewed and if something is not ok, then action is taken.

People can get benefits and at same time win from lottery, have savings or XYZ, if you try to add all possible scenarios to your T&C:s you just make huge mess.

Casinos review sow and take best action they think is suitable, in this threads case it was to block players account. There are many other scenarios where players get their accounts closed, for example you seem to spend all your money and take loads of payday loans, nobody don't want to add in their T&C:s that players with loans not accepted as many have mortgages etc... but payday loans and it spent to gambling is quite heavy RG sign and in my opinion good enough reason to close account (not if you have taken one payday loan which shows in your statement but if it's full of them and all going to casinos, then blocking account is not really wrong).

 

[sufferinsilence]

Would a cinema turn away their customers too if they knew they were on benefits? A night at the movies is as costly as playing an hour of Bonanza!

If they'd be into RG they'd actually talk to the customer and figure out how much money he could "miss" for entertainment, putting a deposit limit on the account or if it turns out they can't afford it at all close the account. But I get it that it's easier to just close the account if someone says they're on benefits.

 

[Jono777]

I think it is more likely that casino(s) who take this stance and approach to players depositing benefits to play are more likely trying to avoid the.....

"Casino XYZ allowed Mr A. to repeatedly deposit, knowing he had little income and mouths to feed and was not in control of his gambling."

Most will take it on the chin (losses) many are in control and will pay bills, fill fridge etc first but casinos avoiding the small percentage who'd cry "they took advantage" or the very small minority who may even take their story to the press.

 

[ESCJAMIE]

As someone whos out of work "At the moment" This does my head in, I have money saved from work and I also have money from birthdays xmas genreal £20 here and there from my dad ect, Thats not benefit money thats my own money so how would that work ? When I can "afford" to gamble its from the odd £10 £20 spare or saved then if I get a big win then it can tidy me over for weeks. As far as I know there is no legal reason saying you are not allowed to use benefits money for gambling, In fact ive watched loads of programs on channel 4 of people on benfits getting to cash point at midnight then going to the bookies over and over again, if someone picks gambling over the rent food ect then so be it thats there choice but it shouldnt be a reason to stop someone playing/withdrawaing as when that money hits there bank they are free to do what they want with it

 

[Jono777]

Another after thought....

If gambling with benefits was not allowed then all the amusement arcades and bookies would have been totally empty from 1990 - 2000!

On top of this, most if not all of the AWP's in all the pubs I frequented would have been never touched

*No, I was not unemployed for this period

 

[ESCJAMIE]

I could claim benfits and have a gift of £50 for xmas and win that £50 £1000 but I tell them im out of work and on Benfits, they see my bank statement proving what I said, How would that work , I know how it would end casino still banning me and saying I can not play or allowed winnings even thou I never touched that money to play, UKGC Need to sort there shit out with some casinos

 

[Slottery]

For sure there's no legal reason, like in OP here, they just said it's their policy not to let people without any other income than some benefit not to play with them.

Can assume that they requested players sow and some months bank statements, if you player stated that benefit was only income they decided to block account.

Of course you could leave account open with some very small limits etc... but blocking account eliminates all the risks what you could possibly get from UKGC if that player have blown all his dosh to gambling and their decisions are harder to predict than correct scores in football, they migh ask "Why you didn't block that account when saw that players only income is this small benefit?"

If your max reward from player is £20 a month or what ever could be thought players disposable income is and how much from it accept as deposits and still possibly some could afterwards say that blocking account would have been only right thing.

Would think it high risk, fcking low reward decision, not much benefit to keep player so why bother.

 

[goatwack]

The permutations are endless, and yet Benefitters still get smeared with the whafty end of the stick

 

[ESCJAMIE]

You are also allowed up to x amount around 10k or so in your bank before you have to declare it to your benefits what ever that is anything under a certain amount you are allowed to have.
ALSO, Lets talk about lottery and scratchcards all gambling I am sure 1000s of unemployed people have got lucky before and won several £1000s they nevergot stopped from getting winnings cause they was out of work !

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

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