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

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