Elena777 vs VideoSlots

[maxd]

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.

 

[colinsunderland]

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.

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

 

[Nordog]

Since you broke your own t&c, its only fair the user can confiscate all your money? /s

 

[maxd]

An ADR is not an arbitration entity ...

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.

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

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

 

[colinsunderland]

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.

Videoslot's T&C's state that if the ADR rules it is binding under £5k, so would that be what you mean above?

 

[Borgie]

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 !

 

[Harry_BKK]

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.

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.

 

[nikantw]

I can understand why the OP left CM for AG

 

[Harry_BKK]

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 !

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

 

[colinsunderland]

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 !

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.

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

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

 

[Borgie]

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

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.

 

[Harry_BKK]

[


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.

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.

 

[Borgie]

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.

Ah yes good idea a new PAB based on what happened with MADRE and VS not complying with decision

 

[Borgie]

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.

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

 

[Fiekie247]

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.

 

[Fiekie247]

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

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.

 

[Borgie]

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

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 .

 

[colinsunderland]

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 .

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.

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.

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.

 

[maxd]

I can understand why the OP left CM for AG

Please explain.

 

[Borgie]

Please explain.

they meant can't explain - I am sure

 

[nikantw]

Please explain.

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.

 

[Borgie]

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.

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

 

[nikantw]

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

You can check without logging and as I said its not about the actual value, but more about first impression

 

[maxd]

... its not about the actual value, but more about fist impression

I can certainly understand that. Some of the "commentary" in here has been distinctly adolescent.

 

[Borgie]

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.

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