GloBet betting site

[JJ.]

Hi guys,

I really hope someone will be able to assist me here...

www.globet.com DOES NOT EXIST ANYMORE

I used to gamble with them and made numerous deposits during last 5-6 years and managed to withdraw only once.

At the end of 2013 I started playing with them again and I made some cash, so I requested 2 withdrawals: 300 and 360 eur. My total balance was 806 EUR.

Withdrawals were requested on 12th of January. I also sent an email to check IF and WHEN they will be processed and I received a swift response that those will be processed in 2-3 working days...

After a whole month of suffering with their live chat, they still did not processed my withdrawals, and icing on the cake is that their sites are not accessible AT ALL!!

I filed a complaint at

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

and I am waiting for their response.

Still, I know the influence this forum has and I would like to get some advices from you guys.

In the meantime - even if they reopen - do not play with them.

Looking for heeeeelp

 

[dunover]

If you deposited by credit or debit card you should be protected. They have ceased trading? Can the UK GC actually do anything, i.e. were they a white label site?

P.S. They were a UK business so you should be protected.

 

[JJ.]

If you deposited by credit or debit card you should be protected. They have ceased trading? Can the UK GC actually do anything, i.e. were they a white label site?

P.S. They were a UK business so you should be protected.

Although I am using skrill for online purchasing, I made one deposit with my debit card...I dont know if it helps...

Yes, they have blocked the site and it's content...ALl the products (casino/betting/games) were available on the site only, meaning they definitely have ceased all the activities.

I am still witing for UK GC's response and will update you as soon as get some feedback.

Thank you for your interest dunover

 

[dunover]

If a business ceases trading you are entitled to a refund under section 75 of the CCA if your transaction is not satisfied. If you deposited with your card a gaming transaction then the return of winnings accrued can only be reasonably described as your expectations regarding the transaction. This is why I hate webwallets - this put a layer between your consumer rights and the merchant. Neteller etc. simply say 'yeah, he paid us for Neteller credits which we provided so tough titties.' You should try your webwallet for a refund as they are obliged as far as I know to retrieve money for you if the merchant fails to deliver.

Don't let it lie, they shouldn't get away with it.

P.S. IF you chargeback any casino monies, even if fully and lawfully justified, you may have difficulties in future - i.e. having accounts closed until you provide docs and a signed statement of deposits before they pay you any winnings. If accredited sites with a rep, they would be more accommodating once they know the genuine reason, but be aware.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Quite an embarrassment for the UKGC, a full blown "overnight flit with players' funds" on their watch. Their regulatory regime was supposedly robust enough to prevent this, and something they used in arguing that the old system contained regulators that failed to adequately safeguard players' funds.

It is possible that the UKGC will formally tell affected players to contact their card providers under the Consumer Credit act, and effect what is in effect a "chargeback". This could be a nasty surprise for the industry, as if the UKGC legitimise the use of consumer credit act protection, then chargebacks over disputes may become more common, and players able to justify the act because they are following advice from an official regulator.

What the UKGC SHOULD have in place is something like the deposit guarantee that covers bank deposits, funded by a levy on UK licensed operators. This would ensure player balances are returned, and keep the industry as free as possible from the problems associated with chargebacks.

I can just see the LGA and the GRA crowing over this, having faced a dressing down from the UK government over their lobbying to retain the status quo as being just as effective at protecting players as anything the UKGC can come up with.

 

[dunover]

Quite an embarrassment for the UKGC, a full blown "overnight flit with players' funds" on their watch. Their regulatory regime was supposedly robust enough to prevent this, and something they used in arguing that the old system contained regulators that failed to adequately safeguard players' funds.

It is possible that the UKGC will formally tell affected players to contact their card providers under the Consumer Credit act, and effect what is in effect a "chargeback". This could be a nasty surprise for the industry, as if the UKGC legitimise the use of consumer credit act protection, then chargebacks over disputes may become more common, and players able to justify the act because they are following advice from an official regulator.

What the UKGC SHOULD have in place is something like the deposit guarantee that covers bank deposits, funded by a levy on UK licensed operators. This would ensure player balances are returned, and keep the industry as free as possible from the problems associated with chargebacks.

I can just see the LGA and the GRA crowing over this, having faced a dressing down from the UK government over their lobbying to retain the status quo as being just as effective at protecting players as anything the UKGC can come up with.

Whether the UKGC approves card refunds or not is irrelevant. It's down to whether the individual card provider deems the transaction to be unsatisfied, i.e. if the mere act of being given credits by the casino is considered on its own a satisfied transaction or the transaction 'hangs' until the credits are spent, and if so the returns (cashouts) not being paid to the player breach the spirit and expectations of the chip purchase - I and no doubt the F. Ombudsman or any other reasonable person would agree the latter is fair.
It would add weight to any claim though IF the UKGC endorsed webwallet/card refunds. But I'm telling you now they would not, definitely not, because it would demonstrate their own toothlessness and expose the real situation of player protections, along the lines of which you mention; there basically aren't any.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Whether the UKGC approves card refunds or not is irrelevant. It's down to whether the individual card provider deems the transaction to be unsatisfied, i.e. if the mere act of being given credits by the casino is considered on its own a satisfied transaction or the transaction 'hangs' until the credits are spent, and if so the returns (cashouts) not being paid to the player breach the spirit and expectations of the chip purchase - I and no doubt the F. Ombudsman or any other reasonable person would agree the latter is fair.
It would add weight to any claim though IF the UKGC endorsed webwallet/card refunds. But I'm telling you now they would not, definitely not, because it would demonstrate their own toothlessness and expose the real situation of player protections, along the lines of which you mention; there basically aren't any.

They may do this on an individual basis where players make a formal complaint. It will make the problem smaller, and pass the buck to the card companies. We are often told that when a company goes bust taking our money with it, our FIRST port of call should be our banks if we paid by card, and THEN try other routes, which is normally to contact the liquidator. Refunds from banks can be held up until the liquidator finalises the calculations, as the banks obviously don't want to pay the full amount if there is any chance of recovery from the receiver.

Since this isn't supposed to happen under the UKGC rules, they may ask for a criminal investigation into how players' supposedly protected funds vanished as though they were merely an unprotected company asset. What they learn could lead to changes being made to the new regime before it comes in next year.

The "service" is to buy chips with which to place bets, unless these chips are lost, the failure to honour any balance is a failure to provide the service contracted and paid for. The purchase price is what is covered by the consumer credit act, the winnings probably have to be chased up via the UKGC and/or liquidator. If a player lost their chips, then the service was provided according to contract, so there are no grounds for taking the opportunity to use the situation to cheat a refund from the bank.

 

[dunover]

They may do this on an individual basis where players make a formal complaint. It will make the problem smaller, and pass the buck to the card companies. We are often told that when a company goes bust taking our money with it, our FIRST port of call should be our banks if we paid by card, and THEN try other routes, which is normally to contact the liquidator. Refunds from banks can be held up until the liquidator finalises the calculations, as the banks obviously don't want to pay the full amount if there is any chance of recovery from the receiver. Since this isn't supposed to happen under the UKGC rules, they may ask for a criminal investigation into how players' supposedly protected funds vanished as though they were merely an unprotected company asset. What they learn could lead to changes being made to the new regime before it comes in next year.

The "service" is to buy chips with which to place bets, unless these chips are lost, the failure to honour any balance is a failure to provide the service contracted and paid for. The purchase price is what is covered by the consumer credit act, the winnings probably have to be chased up via the UKGC and/or liquidator. If a player lost their chips, then the service was provided according to contract, so there are no grounds for taking the opportunity to use the situation to cheat a refund from the bank.

That is totally wrong Vinyl. The CCA states the banks must promptly refund the cardholder(s) as they are the first line of protection. Whether subsequently the bank retrieves the refunded liabilities from the receiver/administrator for the failed business is not relevant. The cardholders would have been refunded by the bank, as per their legal rights, months before that happens. The scenario of the cardholder getting repaid when the liquidator has 'sorted things out' would simply not occur UNLESS the cardholder had by-passed their CCA protection and made a claim directly to the administrator.

"The purchase price is what is covered by the consumer credit act, the winnings probably have to be chased up via the UKGC and/or liquidator."

That is speculation, but nevertheless is the moot point. Unless we can find any evidence of a previous test case/case-in-law we simply don't know. As I understand it the casino/bookie has not fulfilled the reasonable expectation of their contract with the customer if they fail to pay winnings where applicable. In this case the customers would be correct to retrieve their deposits via their card bank and as you suggest retrieve any winnings (remembering the PL fiasco no doubt these would have vanished into the ether) from a subsequent claim to the administrator probably via the UKGC.
There is a second way to look at this - if the player has made a deposit of 500 and now sits with a balance of 750, and cannot access the site, then the item he has 'purchased' is not available to him viz-a-viz his 500 worth of chips and has a bona fide case for a refund of 500.

There are a few permutations here clearly. Sooner or later there will be a test-case regarding this type of transaction, or an Ombudsman's ruling. This if favouring the player would have significant consequences for the future of bank/credit card funding of gaming transactions even via webwallets as they will seen to be even higher-risk than now. This would cost the banks, but especially the casinos as depositing would be difficult henceforth.

Whatever the outcome, something needs improving now.

P.S. To this end, unless playing at a rock-solid site like 32red, it is always a good idea to keep screenshots of your account, showing deposits and w/d's or e-mail confirmations of deposits and withdrawals if they send them to you. Obviously you can delete them once the appropriate withdrawal(s) have been received. This means you can always provide documentary proof to back up and claims with your card provider should you wake up one morning and find, as in this case, the casino has vanished.

 

[vinylweatherman]

That is totally wrong Vinyl. The CCA states the banks must promptly refund the cardholder(s) as they are the first line of protection. Whether subsequently the bank retrieves the refunded liabilities from the receiver/administrator for the failed business is not relevant. The cardholders would have been refunded by the bank, as per their legal rights, months before that happens. The scenario of the cardholder getting repaid when the liquidator has 'sorted things out' would simply not occur UNLESS the cardholder had by-passed their CCA protection and made a claim directly to the administrator.

"The purchase price is what is covered by the consumer credit act, the winnings probably have to be chased up via the UKGC and/or liquidator."

That is speculation, but nevertheless is the moot point. Unless we can find any evidence of a previous test case/case-in-law we simply don't know. As I understand it the casino/bookie has not fulfilled the reasonable expectation of their contract with the customer if they fail to pay winnings where applicable. In this case the customers would be correct to retrieve their deposits via their card bank and as you suggest retrieve any winnings (remembering the PL fiasco no doubt these would have vanished into the ether) from a subsequent claim to the administrator probably via the UKGC.
There is a second way to look at this - if the player has made a deposit of 500 and now sits with a balance of 750, and cannot access the site, then the item he has 'purchased' is not available to him viz-a-viz his 500 worth of chips and has a bona fide case for a refund of 500.

There are a few permutations here clearly. Sooner or later there will be a test-case regarding this type of transaction, or an Ombudsman's ruling. This if favouring the player would have significant consequences for the future of bank/credit card funding of gaming transactions even via webwallets as they will seen to be even higher-risk than now. This would cost the banks, but especially the casinos as depositing would be difficult henceforth.

Whatever the outcome, something needs improving now.

P.S. To this end, unless playing at a rock-solid site like 32red, it is always a good idea to keep screenshots of your account, showing deposits and w/d's or e-mail confirmations of deposits and withdrawals if they send them to you. Obviously you can delete them once the appropriate withdrawal(s) have been received. This means you can always provide documentary proof to back up and claims with your card provider should you wake up one morning and find, as in this case, the casino has vanished.

A while back, the banks were refusing CCA claims where the purchase was made abroad, so the banks DO "try it on" rather than refund first and ask questions later. It took regulatory intervention to "clarify" the CCA for the benefit of the banks, who were forced to accept that the CCA DID apply when the purchase was made abroad. I can see the same scenario unfolding over gambling transactions, the banks could resist the claims, and it would take a test case or regulatory intervention to clarify the rules.

Given that casinos consider chargebacks are a major problem, it clearly IS possible in cases where the merchant is still trading. The bank just gets the money off the merchant. The unique problem with gambling is the fact that the purchase can increase substantially in value, whereas the CCA was designed for the purchase of goods or services, and therefore covers the purchase price.

Another sneaky trick is that card issuers have reclassified "gambling" from a "purchase" to a "cash advance". They must have done this for a reason, and the implication is that they can argue that a "cash advance" from a credit card is NOT covered by the CCA. They may not be too bothered when they can get the money back from the merchant, but this is a rather unique case, a UK licenced betting site that has gone bust, potentially landing card issuers with 100% of the liability should the CCA be deemed to apply. If it does in this case, the banks know it would apply in future cases. I doubt they will simply roll over and accept their liabilities, but will probably try to get the card holders to contact the liquidator first.

Someone who lost access to purchased chips at GloBet needs to put in a claim with their card issuer in order to see how the banks intend dealing with this. All the recent bank scandals have shown that the banks will do their utmost NOT to pay out until they are forced to by a court or regulatory ruling, often the result of one or more test cases.

 

[GrandMaster]

"The purchase price is what is covered by the consumer credit act, the winnings probably have to be chased up via the UKGC and/or liquidator."

That is speculation, but nevertheless is the moot point. Unless we can find any evidence of a previous test case/case-in-law we simply don't know. As I understand it the casino/bookie has not fulfilled the reasonable expectation of their contract with the customer if they fail to pay winnings where applicable. In this case the customers would be correct to retrieve their deposits via their card bank and as you suggest retrieve any winnings (remembering the PL fiasco no doubt these would have vanished into the ether) from a subsequent claim to the administrator probably via the UKGC.
There is a second way to look at this - if the player has made a deposit of 500 and now sits with a balance of 750, and cannot access the site, then the item he has 'purchased' is not available to him viz-a-viz his 500 worth of chips and has a bona fide case for a refund of 500.

There are a few permutations here clearly. Sooner or later there will be a test-case regarding this type of transaction, or an Ombudsman's ruling. This if favouring the player would have significant consequences for the future of bank/credit card funding of gaming transactions even via webwallets as they will seen to be even higher-risk than now. This would cost the banks, but especially the casinos as depositing would be difficult henceforth.

Consider the following situation: You order something for £100, you pay buy credit card and the seller disappears without delivering the goods. You find that the same item now costs £200 from other sellers. How much do you think the credit card company should refund to you? I don't think that the credit card company would be required to supply the item or refund its current price.

If a court ever decides that credit card companies are liable for winnings as well, then credit card companies will stop allowing the use of cards for gambling purposes.