Casinos

Casinos By Status

Popular Filters

By Banking Options

Games

All Games

Bonuses

Popular Bonus Filters

Forums

Popular Forums

Forum User Features

Complaints

Submit A Complaint (PAB)

PAB Rules and Guidelines

Browse PABs

Gambling News

Popular News Sections

About Us

About Us

external image

Elena777 vs VideoSlots

bamberfishcake said:
Sorry if i offended anybody.

It was not an attempt to hijack a thread. It was an attempt at a joke.

I googled MADRE Regulator, saw picture, laughed and posted - simple. No hidden agenda or disrespect intended.

Remove the post if it pleases everyone. I couldnt give a Monkeys.
Click to expand...

I too am guilty of joking about so if people find that offensive my posts should also be removed.
 
Harry_BKK said:
To be honest, I don't know if the MGA licence applies to players from outside the EU. IMO, I would be surprised if it would.

The MGA licence came into play when casino operators were looking to have easy access to all EU countries and Malta with its low taxes/gambling-friendly laws was a perfect choice. So a lot of them set up shop on the island. The MGA licence is probably not binding in let's say China, Russia, Kenya, Brazil etc.

The terms say for "Players residing in Malta or playing under our MGA licence:" MADRE is to be approached for complaints.

Who exactly is playing under the MGA licence? The licence is not valid worldwide, many countries do not recognize it, e.g. the UK, Sweden, Spain, Italy, Denmark, Romania, US, etc.

Does it apply to Russian players as the OP seems to be from Russia? I don't think so but could be totally wrong.
Click to expand...

The T&C state they govern all players apart from the couple of countries specifically excluded from them, therefore the complaints proceedure would be that one. Sure @Team.Videoslots will be able to confirm that or not though :)
 
Yes, this thread has raised more than one report now. It's not about removing posts, but rather trusting members to actually assist the OP (as indeed a few have, thankfully). We all like a laugh sometimes but take a step back and see this thread from the perspective of the OP, who has sought advice here - it doesn't come across as an honourable reflection of what the forum is all about.

Please stick to the topic from now on. Thank-you.
 
ladyhawke said:
This!

Many of the culprits on this particular thread have a great sense of humour - albeit rude on occasion - but as @Scott1baird says, why do you have to interfere and reduce many threads to the lowest common denominator with your 'sexual jokes, innuendos and slurs'. The very first response to the OP started this hijacking, with the corresponding responses just getting worse and worse. Debate and difference of opinion is one thing. What you guys are doing with your takeover is quite simply appalling.
Click to expand...

I will consider myself well and truly "TOLD"

My humorous posts (or attempts at humor) are now a thing of the past.

Thank you for your valuable input and have a great week ahead.

(FWIW: I initially (and partially still do) think there is a degree of BS to this claim) - Hence my reaction post. Does not excuse it fair enough but does explain why!
 
Jono777 said:
I will consider myself well and truly "TOLD"

My humorous posts (or attempts at humor) are now a thing of the past.

Thank you for your valuable input and have a great week ahead.

(FWIW: I initially (and partially still do) think there is a degree of BS to this claim) - Hence my reaction post. Does not excuse it fair enough but does explain why!
Click to expand...

I love your sense of humour. Usually. Just was very irritated at the way this thread turned into a jokey, sexualised thread right from the get-go, without anyone even giving the OP the consideration of a relevant answer.

I have no idea if the OP is on the level or not - the Force is not strong with my BS meter - but to subject a newbie member to the type of response in this thread is pretty damned low. If you believe it is all just BS, then why not call her out right from the beginning?

And that is why I "TOLD", although I am obviously being judged for not understanding this is just bog-standard "No harm, No foul' behaviour for a lot of you.
 
I don't mind the humour, although I think in this case, and considering the OP doesn't seem to be a native English speaker, it was a bit OTT (and no I didn't report any post), but I don't particularly like how if someone new joins to make a complaint, especially about a casino thats known on here, they get shot down and accused of lying before anyone has any idea if they are on the level or not. It happens a lot, and hardly encouraging people to use the forum, if the reaction to their first post is 'you're a liar'.
 
Well I am sure VS is working on this internally, don't think it always benefits a case by responding in a public forum.
Don't get me wrong, not always happy with decisions or changes made by VS or any other casino in that matter but I am sure if the player is due that money and the regulator ruled in the players favor, that VS will get that sorted.
I do not expect less from a highly accredited casino.
 
lotusch said:
Well I am sure VS is working on this internally, don't think it always benefits a case by responding in a public forum.
Don't get me wrong, not always happy with decisions or changes made by VS or any other casino in that matter but I am sure if the player is due that money and the regulator ruled in the players favor, that VS will get that sorted.
I do not expect less from a highly accredited casino.
Click to expand...
There are some non account specific questions they could answer though :)
 
lotusch said:
Well I am sure VS is working on this internally, don't think it always benefits a case by responding in a public forum.
Don't get me wrong, not always happy with decisions or changes made by VS or any other casino in that matter but I am sure if the player is due that money and the regulator ruled in the players favor, that VS will get that sorted.
I do not expect less from a highly accredited casino.
Click to expand...
Sorry-- Had to laugh at the "highly accredited" comment-- they seem to have gone south for player loyalty lately BIG TIME-
 
lowdwnsteve said:
Sorry-- Had to laugh at the "highly accredited" comment-- they seem to have gone south for player loyalty lately BIG TIME-
Click to expand...

They are still an accredited casino with the most active reps here. Loyalty rewards are changing everywhere. If VS dont give you what you think others are offering you can simply move where you spend your money .
 
Looks like the OP submitted a PAB already.

115037
 
Team.Videoslots said:
Hello everyone,

We are not able to provide any further updates regarding this, but we recommend @Elena777 to submit a PAB for further review.

Best regards,
Team Videoslots.
Click to expand...

Well why didn't you say that rather than say you would give an update?

Surely theres nothing to PAB, if your ADR has said you should pay, then you should pay? What am I missing?

Why can't you give answers to the non account specific questions in the thread, the thread raised some perfectly legitimate questions, but you won't answer them?
 
irish-ranger said:
I came across this complaint on another forum which has been running from July they found for the player due to VS unwilling to supply supporting evidence.
So as someone already pointed out there’s a lot more to this which I think we will never find out.
Click to expand...

If it is how it looks, then it calls into question Videoslots' integrity in my view. Their T&C's clearly state they will be bound by the ADR's decision if under 5k, this is under 5k. The regulator has found in the player's favour, therefore they should pay. Theres no legitimate reason I can think of, not to supply evidence to show they should keep the money, unless they have none. I can possibly understand why they might not want to supply the information to Max or AG for example, especially if it shows fraud (but even then it would be quite flimsy to say no to showing evidence), but this is to their appointed ADR. Unless they don't trust the ADR not to keep the information to themselves, what possible reason could there be not to give them the information.
 
I'd like to clarify a few things regarding this issue and the PAB related to it:
  • the PAB was closed because the OP stopped communicating with us after the issue had been taken up at MADRE.
  • If VS and the player are willing to cooperate I'm happy to resume the PAB. That will require the OP to contact us and state, in writing, that they wish us to proceed.
  • this may have already been mentioned but MADRE is a Malta ADR service, not a regulator. Since the original title of this thread was "... The regulator said to return the money ..." that is incorrect and misleading. I've changed the thread title accordingly.
 
Last edited:
maxd said:
I'd like to clarify a few things regarding this issue and the PAB related to it:
  • the PAB was closed because the OP stopped communicating with us after the issue had been taken up at MADRE.
  • If VS and the player are willing to cooperate I'm happy to resume the PAB. That will require the OP to contact us and state, in writing, that they wish us to proceed.
Click to expand...

Not sure if it makes a difference to you re-opening it, but she has re-opened her complaint at AG too.
 
Harry_BKK said:
An ADR is not an arbitration entity ...
Click to expand...

An ADR very much is an arbitration entity but their judgements are not necessarily binding, obviously.

In the EU it is typical practice that an ADR's ruling on a case of value less than €5000 _is_ binding but that is only where the parties to the dispute are agreed to this. For instance with ADRs certified by the UKGC it is part of the LCCP regulations that the €/£5000 rule applies.

At this point I have no information on VS's agreement with MADRE so the €5000 rule may or may not be part of the equation. It sounds like it is not but that's just an educated guess.

colinsunderland said:
Not sure if it makes a difference to you re-opening it, but she has re-opened her complaint at AG too.
Click to expand...

Ah, she's decided to pursue it elsewhere. So be it.
 
maxd said:
An ADR very much is an arbitration entity but their judgements are not necessarily binding, obviously.

In the EU it is typical practice that an ADR's ruling on a case of value less than €5000 _is_ binding but that is only where the parties to the dispute are agreed to this. For instance with ADRs certified by the UKGC it is part of the LCCP regulations that the €/£5000 rule applies.

At this point I have no information on VS's agreement with MADRE so the €5000 rule may or may not be part of the equation. It sounds like it is not but that's just an educated guess.



Ah, she's decided to pursue it elsewhere. So be it.
Click to expand...

Videoslot's T&C's state that if the ADR rules it is binding under £5k, so would that be what you mean above?
 
So the ADR she used said that her deposits should be returned - VS did not do that and it would seem are not going to - we dont know what info VS gave that ADR and as she is now reopened her complaint with AG, Max will not get involved amd we will never know I guess

However I am interested in what happens here at CM if Max decides in a players favour and the casino still wont agree to do whatever has been decided ? As VS appear to not be coperating with they ADRS decision - so them suggesting a PAB almost seems to be like - ooh lets start again and this time maybe someone new will find in our favour !
 
Last edited:
maxd said:
An ADR very much is an arbitration entity but their judgements are not necessarily binding, obviously.

In the EU it is typical practice that an ADR's ruling on a case of value less than €5000 _is_ binding but that is only where the parties to the dispute are agreed to this. For instance with ADRs certified by the UKGC it is part of the LCCP regulations that the €/£5000 rule applies.

At this point I have no information on VS's agreement with MADRE so the €5000 rule may or may not be part of the equation. It sounds like it is not but that's just an educated guess.

Ah, she's decided to pursue it elsewhere. So be it.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I was not 100% clear what I meant. An ADR is, of course, an arbiter per se but the outcome is not legally binding contrary to full arbiters (for the lack of a better word). I had a few cases in my business life where I had to defend my employer in front of an arbiter and those judgements are 100% legally binding, whether you like it or not. And you only get one shot, that's it.
 
Borgie said:
So the ADR she used said that her deposits should be returned - VS did not do that and it would seem are not going to - we dont know what info VS gave that ADR and as she is now reopened her complaint with AG, Max will not get involved amd we will never know I guess

However I am interested in what happens here at CM if Max decides in a players favour and the casino still wont agree to do whatever has been decided ? As VS appear to not be coperating with they ADRS decision - so them suggesting a PAB almost seems to be like - ooh lets start again and this time maybe someone new will find in our favour !
Click to expand...

According to the OP, VS never supplied any information/documents. So I assume the judgement is based on the info from the OP only.
 
Borgie said:
So the ADR she used said that her deposits should be returned - VS did not do that and it would seem are not going to - we dont know what info VS gave that ADR and as she is now reopened her complaint with AG, Max will not get involved amd we will never know I guess

However I am interested in what happens here at CM if Max decides in a players favour and the casino still wont agree to do whatever has been decided ? As VS appear to not be coperating with they ADRS decision - so them suggesting a PAB almost seems to be like - ooh lets start again and this time maybe someone new will find in our favour !
Click to expand...

Yes it does, however it I was the customer, I would open a PAB, not to see if the original decision was correct as that has already been decided, but along the lines of

Videoslots lost through their ADR and were told to refund my deposits or winnings. Videoslots are refusing, despite their T&C's clearly stating that the ADR's decision is binding.

Then the only thing to rule on is simply, have VS broke their terms and condition, which, to me, is fairly clear.

Harry_BKK said:
According to the OP, VS never supplied any information/documents. So I assume the judgement is based on the info from the OP only.
Click to expand...

That seems correct, however, thats down to VS not the OP, Videoslots were fully aware of the ADR's involvement from the start.
 
Borgie said:
[


So how does that work if the Casino refuses to work with the ADR ?- however on AG Videoslots did say they would deal with MADRE. ALl very confusing.
Click to expand...

No clue to be honest. If the case is crystal clear for VS then maybe they don't see the need to engage with an ADR because they don't want to give away sensitive information or similar.
 
colinsunderland said:
Yes it does, however it I was the customer, I would open a PAB, not to see if the original decision was correct as that has already been decided, but along the lines of

Videoslots lost through their ADR and were told to refund my deposits or winnings. Videoslots are refusing, despite their T&C's clearly stating that the ADR's decision is binding.

Then the only thing to rule on is simply, have VS broke their terms and condition, which, to me, is fairly clear.



That seems correct, however, thats down to VS not the OP, Videoslots were fully aware of the ADR's involvement from the start.
Click to expand...

Ah yes good idea a new PAB based on what happened with MADRE and VS not complying with decision
 
Harry_BKK said:
No clue to be honest. If the case is crystal clear for VS then maybe they don't see the need to engage with an ADR because they don't want to give away sensitive information or similar.
Click to expand...

Ok but on AG VS actually said they would deal with this matter through MADRE and if they changed their minds they should have at least let all parties know
 
That's Typical Videoslots for you. They do as they please and refer to their terms and keep quiet. Nobody at VS ever gives more info or want to give more info when you need it, although they tell you send us an email to support, just to provide the exact same answer.

They never get into details.

The same thing as to when those Mass number accounts that was closed a few months ago, mine included, with no reason, just because they can.
 
Borgie said:
Ok but on AG VS actually said they would deal with this matter through MADRE and if they changed their minds they should have at least let all parties know
Click to expand...
Yeah I saw now.
However they quoted Elena breached term 1.4 in their t's and c's. My point is they should stop referring to the terms and give more details of what happened or the player has done. They always do this, never give more info or evidence for their decisions.

They closed my account for the same terms 1.3 and 1.4 and the rest of whoever they decided to close their accounts based on ''Business Decision''

I have no problem with them doing it, its just explain yourself more so I could understand better which would put me at ease.

Anyways these are months ago, lets not dig up the past.

115043
 
Fiekie247 said:
Yeah I saw now.
However they quoted Elena breached term 1.4 in their t's and c's. My point is they should stop referring to the terms and give more details of what happened or the player has done. They always do this, never give more info or evidence for their decisions.

They closed my account for the same terms 1.3 and 1.4 and the rest of whoever they decided to close their accounts based on ''Business Decision''

I have no problem with them doing it, its just explain yourself more so I could understand better which would put me at ease.

Anyways these are months ago, lets not dig up the past.

View attachment 115043
Click to expand...

I am afraid they do not have to give details - and if they suspect fraud they will never give details.

The question is should they have accepted the deposit - if they believe the deposit from illegal means surely it should be passed to the appropriate authorities .
 
Last edited:
Borgie said:
I am afraid they not have to give details - and if they suspect fraud they will never give details.

The question is should they have accepted the deposit - if they believe the deposit from illegal means surely it should be passed to the appropriate authorities .
Click to expand...

They should submit a SAR and while they can't tell the customer that, they could tell the ADR, who could then, pause the case until the outcome of the investigation was known.

Harry_BKK said:
No clue to be honest. If the case is crystal clear for VS then maybe they don't see the need to engage with an ADR because they don't want to give away sensitive information or similar.
Click to expand...

In which case, by default, they will lose. Which they have. Then they have to pay as per their terms and conditions.



The circumstances are, they were told by the ADR to pay. Their T&C's state they will accept the ADR decision as binding if its under 5k. They now seem to be saying no to that. They said they would provide an update on here, and now changed their minds. Doesn't exactly fill you with confidence. I genuinely can't see any defence to not paying, even if there was fraud involved or anything, then they shoudl have provided those details, even if not in detail, to the ADR. That is the ADR's whole point of being involved, to review the evidence available and make a decision.
If this was a rogue casino doing this people would be calling them scammers and everything.
 
nikantw said:
Nothing to do with you or the PAB service.... I just imagined how I would feel if I didn't know better and saw the first replies to my first post be like that and then the rep says no comment here but has replied on AG....... thats all.
Click to expand...

As the OP hasn't logged on since Sunday afternoon they saw only the first reply to their post - so really nothing to get upset about there.

The VS rep replied on AG back in July when the complaint was first raised - not currently and all they said was they would deal with Madre
 
Borgie said:
As the OP hasn't logged on since Sunday afternoon they saw only the first reply to their post - so really nothing to get upset about there.

The VS rep replied on AG back in July when the complaint was first raised - not currently and all they said was they would deal with Madre
Click to expand...

You can check without logging and as I said its not about the actual value, but more about first impression
 
nikantw said:
... its not about the actual value, but more about fist impression
Click to expand...

I can certainly understand that. Some of the "commentary" in here has been distinctly adolescent.
 
Team.Videoslots said:
Hello everyone,

We are not able to provide any further updates regarding this, but we recommend @Elena777 to submit a PAB for further review.

Best regards,
Team Videoslots.
Click to expand...

As she had already submitted the equivalent of a PAB with MADRE which ruled in her favour its sort of hard to understand why she would do another one :)
 

Similar threads

P
dazzlehand - how should I react to this decision?
Replies
13
Views
1K
pelimies79
P
P
Bets.io: How They Stole $870 USDT From Me After Full Video KYC (Full Story & Proof)
Replies
3
Views
948
keiser
K
S
Videoslots: Serious payment issues
Replies
5
Views
8K
samdog21
samdog21
C
Videoslots locked account
2
Replies
70
Views
7K
Team.Videoslots
Team.Videoslots
RichyJ75
Casino vs GAMSTOP
Replies
18
Views
27K
Dan.Videoslots
Dan.Videoslots

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)

Accredited Casinos

Read about our rating system and how it's done.
Back
Top