Bonus Complaint How Sloty.com and I breached the terms multiple times

Arenda

Newbie member
PABnononaccred
Joined
Feb 19, 2018
Location
Friesland
Because i didnt reply during the weekend, sorry for that strange way of thinking in my oppinion. No problem for deleting the poll I thought it would have been restricted to accounts and ip’s. I have asked for oppinions of everyone and I know you are not convinced you made that more than clear to me.

I created this topic to dicus, warn and learn. And i did not open this topic so you could maybe change your mind.

Thanks again for clearing everything up although it was more than clear to me.
 
Last edited:

alexking12k

Experienced Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2013
Location
Los Angeles, CA
The real problem here was that the casino allowed all this to happen, and it only became an issue when a LARGE win was had. Clearly the casino are using the rules as a convenience to avoid paying out such a big win, but didn't mind when the win was only €700. Further, the casinos also failed to properly run a self exclusion check despite TWO opportunities, the initial deposit, and the withdrawal for €700. Instead, they did the verification on the €700 withdrawal and said everything was OK.

The casino should be fined by the MGA for this regardless of whether or not the MGA tells them to pay up for the player.

If staff are telling players that it's OK to use someone else's card or Skrill, this is another thing they should be fined for.

If it's considered OK to "fine" a winning player the sum of their win for breaching terms, it's also OK to fine the casino for their own breaches of terms and regulations.

If I had a dollar for every time a casino CS rep told me one thing and then another rep of the same casino, or even a manager, said that the first CS rep was wrong, I'd have a whole lot of dollars. Incompetence of online casino CS reps is an all too common annoyance.
 

miksaxxx

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2008
Location
Finland
hmm.

Strange question.

If there is household 2 persons.

player 1 and non-player 2

.

player 1 make email to name of player 2 and
put every same details. And also use "non- player 2 " credit card with out permission.

non-player notice it after 1 year. If he dont watch every card.
What will non-player can do ?. Chargeback casino and police report.

Becouse email , adress and every details can person 1 have .

Casino can allways void bets , but do they return those to person that dont have never played or maked account.
 
Last edited:

Arenda

Newbie member
PABnononaccred
Joined
Feb 19, 2018
Location
Friesland
hmm.

Strange question.

If there is household 2 persons.

player 1 and a player that does not want to play or not know about it named as player 2

.

player 1 make email on the name of player 2 and
put all the details of player 2. And also use "player 2 " credit card without permission.

player 2 notice it after 1 year. If he dont watch every card.
What can non-player do? Chargeback casino and police report.

Becouse email, adress and every details can person 1 have .

Casino can allways void bets, but do they return those to person that dont have never played or maked account.


I changed your message in the qoute because it was hard to understand.

In this case you can go to the police and file a report to your partner or the one who used your credentials, you can chargeback but it might be hard since some transactions took place 1 year ago. You can also get in touch with the casino and ask them to return these deposits but if they do it is off good will and not because they need to. I think they will need to see proof of the police report. To be more exact the other person in the household stole your money and that person is the one who you should get the money from, it is the same as that person would get a loan from the bank on your name and spends all of it. You can not track back to where the money was spend so the person who caused it is accountable.

But I might be so off again, because I am not a real reliable/trustworthy source if you read some responces on this topic.
 

colinsunderland

Experienced Member
webmeister
MM
Joined
Jan 28, 2016
Location
uk
If the story is going to be told then it's important to not be overly selective with the facts.

Player 1 self-excludes and straight-forwardly admits to gambling problems, to being asked by their partner to stop, and wanting to never be let to play again. The casino complies.
Player 2 (apparently the partner) pops up, same address etc, similar play patterns, supposedly using Player 1's CC, and so on.

No responsible casino on the planet would allow Player 2 to continue because the chances are VERY HIGH that it's actually Player 1 continuing on after the self-exclusion. Not to mention the breach of Terms.

Player 2's winnings should be cancelled, deposits returned and account closed. My understanding is that this is what was done.

I ruled for the casino and would do so again. There's simply way too much indicating that it's Player 1 doing most if not all the gambling.

As much as I agree with that, if they already verified the skrill account, processed a withdrawal AND told her she could use her boyfriends Skrill account, then to only deny winnings once a large amount was won, is pretty close to theft to me.

If they had refused the first withdrawal I would think fair enough. Surely they must have done the SE checks at that point, and then allowed the 'self excluded' player/girlfriend to keep playing even though they were aware of the situation?
 

Arenda

Newbie member
PABnononaccred
Joined
Feb 19, 2018
Location
Friesland
That is the whole reason why I am complaining. Like i said before if they would have told me the first time I would never even think about complaining.

Especially after they confirmed every document for 2 times within one month.
 

maxd

Complaints (PAB) Manager
Staff member
Joined
Jan 20, 2004
Location
Saltirelandia
Is the sequence of events at the casino applaudable? Nope, I wouldn't say so. Their claim is that it took them time to catch the SE. :meh:

Does the self-exclusion over-ride everything else and mean that in the end they should have done what they did, however long it took them to get around to it? Yes, I'd say it does.

If it was up to me the casino would pay back all of Player 2's deposits -- the point being that they should have caught the SE as soon as Player 2 signed on and put a stop to it -- but that isn't likely to happen. Is that "theft"? Maybe, maybe not, but given all the circumstances against Player 2 -- Terms violations, the SE, etc -- I'd say the worst you can say for certain about the casino is that they were awfully sloppy. Conveniently so perhaps but that's speculation.
 
Last edited:

colinsunderland

Experienced Member
webmeister
MM
Joined
Jan 28, 2016
Location
uk
Is the sequence of events at the casino applaudable? Nope, I wouldn't say so. Their claim is that it took them time to catch the SE. :meh:

Does the self-exclusion over-ride everything else and mean that in the end they should have done what they did, however long it took them to get around to it? Yes, I'd say it does.

If it was up to me the casino would pay back all of Player 2's deposits -- the point being that they should have caught the SE as soon as Player 2 signed on and put a stop to it -- but that isn't likely to happen. Is that "theft"? Maybe, maybe not, but given all the circumstances against Player 2 -- Terms violations, the SE, etc -- I'd say the worst you can say for certain about the casino is that they were awfully sloppy. Conveniently so perhaps but that's speculation.

Normally I would agree 100% with that, but they did KYC on the customer for the first withdrawal. That must include a SE check, especially if it was on withdrawal, which it was. The customer also spoke with live chat who confirmed it was acceptable to use her bf's account for deposits/withdrawals. To me, those two things together mean they were happy for her to continue using the site unrestricted, and they should pay her.

Also, she isn't self excluded (obviously assuming the story is correct as posted), therefore the self exclusion reason shouldn't come into it really. If it was on the first withdrawal and there was no live chat conversation or KYC done at that point, then I might think different, but again, she had been through KYC, if there were doubts about who was actually using the account then they should have been addressed then, not at a later point when she won a lot of money.

If it happened to me in the UK I would be issuing a claim against them in court and would be confident of winning.

I never understand why people say 'you should never believe what live chat say' either. Thats bullshit. Live chat are customer service. If you ask them a question, it should be answered correctly, you shouldn't be lied to. If you have it in writing that you can do something then the casino (or any company) should uphold that agreement, and if it were used it court, it would almost certainly be taken as evidence. Its not the customer's fault casinos don't bother training staff, I can train a monkey to copy and paste 'can you clear your cache and cookies', surely casinos can train humans to do a little better.

I've said for a long time, casinos should be forced to have a tick box on the sign up form saying 'if you have self excluded from any of these casinos, you cannot sign up here, if you do you will not be paid any winnings' then either a list of the casinos on the license or a link to the license, and not a hidden one like a lot of casinos use buried away at the bottom of the homepage. It wouldn't have a made a difference in this case but would stop a lot of the self exclusion problems we see regularly.
 

maxd

Complaints (PAB) Manager
Staff member
Joined
Jan 20, 2004
Location
Saltirelandia

maxd

Complaints (PAB) Manager
Staff member
Joined
Jan 20, 2004
Location
Saltirelandia
So you have more information than I have given, and you have allready added to this topic? Not assuming but asking...

I meant never assume that the casino's KYC on Player 2 would have turned up the SE on Player 1. The casino claims the SE thing came to light later in the timeline.
 

alexking12k

Experienced Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2013
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Normally I would agree 100% with that, but they did KYC on the customer for the first withdrawal. That must include a SE check, especially if it was on withdrawal, which it was. The customer also spoke with live chat who confirmed it was acceptable to use her bf's account for deposits/withdrawals. To me, those two things together mean they were happy for her to continue using the site unrestricted, and they should pay her.

Also, she isn't self excluded (obviously assuming the story is correct as posted), therefore the self exclusion reason shouldn't come into it really. If it was on the first withdrawal and there was no live chat conversation or KYC done at that point, then I might think different, but again, she had been through KYC, if there were doubts about who was actually using the account then they should have been addressed then, not at a later point when she won a lot of money.

If it happened to me in the UK I would be issuing a claim against them in court and would be confident of winning.

I never understand why people say 'you should never believe what live chat say' either. Thats bullshit. Live chat are customer service. If you ask them a question, it should be answered correctly, you shouldn't be lied to. If you have it in writing that you can do something then the casino (or any company) should uphold that agreement, and if it were used it court, it would almost certainly be taken as evidence. Its not the customer's fault casinos don't bother training staff, I can train a monkey to copy and paste 'can you clear your cache and cookies', surely casinos can train humans to do a little better.

I've said for a long time, casinos should be forced to have a tick box on the sign up form saying 'if you have self excluded from any of these casinos, you cannot sign up here, if you do you will not be paid any winnings' then either a list of the casinos on the license or a link to the license, and not a hidden one like a lot of casinos use buried away at the bottom of the homepage. It wouldn't have a made a difference in this case but would stop a lot of the self exclusion problems we see regularly.

I used to hate when a casino CS rep would tell me one thing (e.g. "you have a $20 cashback, which will be credited to your account shortly") and then they reneg on that statement (e.g. "it was a mistake on our end and you do not qualify for the cashback"). I would confront them and say that they should honor their initial statement and I would get transferred to the manager who would say "we will not honor the initial statement". I can't describe to you just how pissed off stuff like that made me!
 

alexking12k

Experienced Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2013
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Is the sequence of events at the casino applaudable? Nope, I wouldn't say so. Their claim is that it took them time to catch the SE. :meh:

Does the self-exclusion over-ride everything else and mean that in the end they should have done what they did, however long it took them to get around to it? Yes, I'd say it does.

If it was up to me the casino would pay back all of Player 2's deposits -- the point being that they should have caught the SE as soon as Player 2 signed on and put a stop to it -- but that isn't likely to happen. Is that "theft"? Maybe, maybe not, but given all the circumstances against Player 2 -- Terms violations, the SE, etc -- I'd say the worst you can say for certain about the casino is that they were awfully sloppy. Conveniently so perhaps but that's speculation.

Online casinos have been known to get very sloppy in handling of certain issues; however, they were always sloppy very much in their own favor.
 

dusky

Full Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2013
Location
England
I meant never assume that the casino's KYC on Player 2 would have turned up the SE on Player 1. The casino claims the SE thing came to light later in the timeline.

Later in the timeline when they were trying to avoid paying a player a larger sum of money than the one they already paid for example?

I certainly don't lean on the players behalf here as I think it's crazy using someone else's Skrill account, joint or not but the casino cannot have it both ways especially when they have already paid out.

As mentioned above I would also be taking this to court.
 

Arenda

Newbie member
PABnononaccred
Joined
Feb 19, 2018
Location
Friesland
The casino claims the SE thing came to light later in the timeline.
Just like I claim it is me who won the money, and not my partner.

Later in the timeline when they were trying to avoid paying a player a larger sum of money than the one they already paid for example?

I certainly don't lean on the players behalf here as I think it's crazy using someone else's Skrill account, joint or not but the casino cannot have it both ways especially when they have already paid out.

As mentioned above I would also be taking this to court.

I never have had issues like this before, and I gamble for 5 years so It is not the first time I made a withdraw or a deposit. If it has never been a problem I have had no reason to doubt that it would be now.
 
Top