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.
