Jetbull/Everymatrix Scam Update - Non payment of Court Order

Daz_b

Experienced Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2015
Location
Newcastle
Hello All,

I posted to Casinomeister in November last year regarding my problem with Everymatrix. In summary, I had joined Jetbull, unaware that the licensee is Everymatrix, and that they also run a variety of other betting websites - one of which I had previously self-excluded from. As has happened with many other Everymatrix victims, Jetbull accepted my registration and waited to see if I won anything before flagging up a problem. In this case, when I made a withdrawal request they cancelled my winnings of £625.

I went down the eCogra route to try to get some help in claiming my winnings, which in my view had been won fairly and in good faith. In retrospect, I feel this was a waste of 3 months. I found that eCogra didn't even meet their own service levels, (e.g. keeping the complainant updated at particular intervals), they eventually completed what felt like a half hearted investigation, and were not a particularly good advert for "self regulation" in my opinion.

Ultimately I ended up going down the Small Claims route and in August, successfully won a judgement in my favour against Everymatrix for the £625 owed plus legal costs. The payment was due by 13th September, and displaying a typical lack of integrity and professionalism, Everymatrix have still not paid the order.

I've been in touch with the UK Gambling Commission as I would expect that ignoring court orders is of some relevance in assessing ongoing fitness to operate. They have noted the situation and asked me to keep them informed. I'll also look at further legal proceedings I can take to ensure I receive what is owed to me. One way or another, I will get some justice, that is for sure. If any forum members have any other suggestions or advice, I would really appreciate it.

I'm not a big time gambler compared to probably a lot of forum members, but my advice would be to be really careful about dealing with Everymatrix casinos and sports betting sites. I have found them utterly contemptible, from their rotten Service Desk and flaky policies right through to their amateurish legal team. In an industry that makes money without needing to be underhand, it's all pretty sickening and unpalatable.

I'd be happy to share my witness statement and evidence and provide advice to any others who have been conned by Everymatrix and whom are interested in making a claim. Also happy to share a scan of the court order if anyone doubts me. Feel free to private message me.

Thanks and best wishes.
 

goatwack

Get dunked, big buns!
Joined
Aug 29, 2012
Location
Londonia
I want you on my side.......for anything.:cool:

I'll put you on speed-dial so that we can work out a plan to get rid of my mother-in-law :eek::eek:
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
Contempt of court is a serious business failing, and often the sign of a rogue business as often seen on BBC "rogue traders" where they often mention the list of court orders the company has ignored.

The next step would be to instruct an enforcement officer (bailiff) to enforce your court order at Everymatrix/Jetbull business premises. This will cost a little, but they will end up paying it after a successful recovery. Given that in order to have a UK licence an operator must have a UK presence, and also be solvent, the outcome of this enforcement step should be of great interest to the UKGC. This type of enforcement should work on a legitimate and solvent company, although intentionally rogue businesses do avoid court orders by winding up the firm and popping up again, often in the same offices, as completely new entity, same people, but different limited company so that they avoid all their debts. This won't work here though, because a new company would require a new licence.

The media might also be interested in a UK licenced gambling company that is still refusing to pay a punter even when they have won an order for payment in court, they may pay up as soon as the reporter contacts them for their side of the story before publishing, and give some excuse like "poor internal communications between departments" for their failure to send you the payment on time.
 

Simmo!

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
May 29, 2004
Location
England
Hello All,

I posted to Casinomeister in November last year regarding my problem with Everymatrix. In summary, I had joined Jetbull, unaware that the licensee is Everymatrix, and that they also run a variety of other betting websites - one of which I had previously self-excluded from. As has happened with many other Everymatrix victims, Jetbull accepted my registration and waited to see if I won anything before flagging up a problem. In this case, when I made a withdrawal request they cancelled my winnings of £625.

...Ultimately I ended up going down the Small Claims route and in August, successfully won a judgement in my favour against Everymatrix for the £625 owed plus legal costs. The payment was due by 13th September, and displaying a typical lack of integrity and professionalism, Everymatrix have still not paid the order.

Firstly, congrats on your perseverance. Secondly, I've always felt the EveryMatrix SE policy has been poorly implemented. If you are going to apply this across a group of casinos, you have to prevent players from playing, not apply it after the event. I have always wondered if, were an audit to be taken, just how many self excluded players have deposited at a second EM brand because I suspect it is a significant number and you are possibly the only one who has taken it to this level.

It is a bit worrying that eCogra were unable to reach this conclusion, I must admit.
 

dunover

Unofficial T&C's Editor
Staff member
webmeister
PABnonaccred
PABnononaccred
CAG
mm3
Joined
May 22, 2012
Location
the bus shelter, opposite GCHQ Benhall
Excellent OP and this is what CM is all about!

Us 'barrack room lawyers' (Me and Vinyl primarily) have always maintained the exclusion of vital terms breaches basic consumer law in the UK and many other Euro nations. This County Court Judgement has simply endorsed our views on this EM SE BS.

As Simmo says it shows the UKGC and eCogra are seriously lacking. I personally have an official complaint in at the UKGC regarding a couple of matters concerning non-automated SE/TAB and yes, the EM SE nonsense. Unsatisfied with their first response I have escalated this to level 2 after they demanded more evidence, some of which I have provided from this forum to demonstrate the scale of the issue. I will of course use this as further ammunition.

OK, Vinyl beat me to the Bailiff issue - for about £60 you can get a High Court Warrant executed to collect this debt. This involves them visiting the EM offices and demanding payment in full or confiscating assets in lieu. This is partly why the casinos licenses by the UKGC should have a physical address in the UK to take players here.

I suspect through that EM have NO assets here and simply use a PO Box bogus office. You also need to be precise against whom the CCJ has been issued - EM or the owners of the casino? The casino may have people residing in the UK who can be visited.

I also think it's appropriate that Max gets the proof of this CCJ from the OP and assuming it's all genuine (I believe so) issues an official warning against EM on here to the effect they actually will not even comply with an official court order.

The obvious conclusion here is that EM have a history of allowing their casinos to rip-off players with this omitted information, and given that in the UK the Statute Of Limitation Act(1981) gives claimants 6 years to act on any disputed debt, this could spell big aggro for EM - and they deserve it IMO.

P.S. I re-read the OP and see you have already informed the UKGC. I agree ignoring CCJs is certainly big negative on their fitness to operate. It makes them no better than a cowboy builder.
 

Mouche12

Kitty Lover
PABnonaccred
PABnoaccred
PABnononaccred
Joined
Jul 25, 2007
Location
Amsterdam
Well done Daz_b and thanks for sharing the results of your efforts.

There's some solid advice from VWM on how to proceed next. It is unbelievable EM ignores the court order and it's quity worrying too. You may indeed want to share this story with the media.

Good luck with your further endeavours, I am certain you will succeed in the end.
 

dunover

Unofficial T&C's Editor
Staff member
webmeister
PABnonaccred
PABnononaccred
CAG
mm3
Joined
May 22, 2012
Location
the bus shelter, opposite GCHQ Benhall
They are effectively in big trouble now. They could hire lawyers and appeal the CCJ but it would be pointless, as they are effectively asking a higher court to exempt them from UK Laws all other businesses must operate under so it would simply be vexatious. I think this will spell the end of EM in the UK or at very least the welcome end of the racket I have invented a new CM word for 'EMSEB' - EveryMatrix Self-Exclusion Bullshit.

Remember, this CCJ has major implications for EM and ALL other licensees with multiple properties. It effectively (unless overturned which I cannot se a valid reason to do so) means a rubber stamp for every player who was denied winnings (whether or not deposits were refunded only) or lost a deposit and walked away happily unaware he/she wouldn't have been paid as the other EM sites weren't mentioned in the terms.

I think it would be prudent for any reps here to take note of this CCJ/thread if they are here on behalf of any licenses with more than one casino being operated.

If anything is needed to convince them that it really is time to start listing sister sites in the terms, it is this especially if you have previously operated the EMSEB-type method.
 

lockinlove

Staring into the sun
PABaccred
PABnonaccred
Joined
Jan 17, 2014
Location
Canada
The owner and board members must be absolute idiots to have the rules they do. Do they not realize their reputation is tarnished? Do they not realize this day and age there is a thing called google. The more negative hits the worse. Some people blow me away when trying to build a brand. Instead of building a beast they built a 3 legged piglet

Is it a boardroom of Nigerian princes?
 

dunover

Unofficial T&C's Editor
Staff member
webmeister
PABnonaccred
PABnononaccred
CAG
mm3
Joined
May 22, 2012
Location
the bus shelter, opposite GCHQ Benhall
Well done and fair play for seeing this through

I wouldn't have been bothered with all the hassle myself.

I also wonder will this set a precendent for other players?

Yes, it does. Until the CC ruling is overturned, any player in this guy's position can use it as a reference, case-in-law. If you have lost out via this EMSEB business I would personally ask him for his case ref.no. by PM. You can issue acclaim in the UK CC system online, it isn't expensive. As they appear to have no staff or physical address in the UK they won't defend it anyway.
 

Harry_BKK

Dormant account
Joined
Dec 18, 2014
Location
Balcony
Great stuff Daz_b :thumbsup:

This should teach them a (hopefully) expensive lesson. They will be the laugh of the industry for the years to come as a single small time player (no offense please) brought them down for a mere £625. :thumbsup:

I said in one of the countless EMSEB threads that it would be interesting to find out how much extra money EM made over the years with undetected SE players since they only did the KYC once a player submitted a withdrawal, speak was winning. They were never bothered to do it while a player was depositing and losing, even if it was 1000's.

All those cases, where unwary SE'ed players opened a new account, deposited, lost and never returned, must have made EM a tidy profit as otherwise they would have changed procedures much sooner. :eek: :rolleyes:
 

dunover

Unofficial T&C's Editor
Staff member
webmeister
PABnonaccred
PABnononaccred
CAG
mm3
Joined
May 22, 2012
Location
the bus shelter, opposite GCHQ Benhall
Great stuff Daz_b :thumbsup:

This should teach them a (hopefully) expensive lesson. They will be the laugh of the industry for the years to come as a single small time player (no offense please) brought them down for a mere £625. :thumbsup:

I said in one of the countless EMSEB threads that it would be interesting to find out how much extra money EM made over the years with undetected SE players since they only did the KYC once a player submitted a withdrawal, speak was winning. They were never bothered to do it while a player was depositing and losing, even if it was 1000's.

All those cases, where unwary SE'ed players opened a new account, deposited, lost and never returned, must have made EM a tidy profit as otherwise they would have changed procedures much sooner. :eek: :rolleyes:


All the EMSEB and similar for any other casinos that act in this manner could have been avoided by quite simply listing the sites in their terms. They wholeheartedly refused this as casinos don't want to mention the names of other casinos when you are signing-up to them. This is when it makes sense to list them - what is the point of recruiting a player to whom you cannot pay winnings? Of course we know the sorry answer to that...
 

Daz_b

Experienced Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2015
Location
Newcastle
Thanks to everyone for your positive comments and advice. I have been on my own with this - and it has not been easy to navigate through to get this far, and at times has been quite stressful and depressing. It is great to read some supportive comments.

To me the money is not insignificant, but it is the principal that is just as important to me. Like all of you on here, I have lost money on gambling, (and have had some good days as well). On bad days I have always taken losses on the chin and taken responsibility for my actions. I certainly wouldn't go running to a bookmaker crying because I've lost and asking for my money back. Conversely, I don't expect to win and effectively have my winnings "robbed" from me by a rogue operator. Especially one that is supposed to be regulated by the UKGC.

To give some further feedback on the County Court Judgment (particularly in light of Dunover's comments);

1. The Everymatrix defence was struck out for want of compliance in that the Defendant did not serve its witness statement on the Claimant.

2. So in effect, I won on a technicality, so we can't say this is a 100% precedent. Whether this was a deliberate ploy by Everymatrix or lack of professionalism is open to debate.

3. But - the fact that the case got on the County Court track as far as the hearing, (and the actual sitting took place) demonstrates that it was felt that Everymatrix had a case to answer.

4. I would also add, that Everymatrix changed their defence. In the original written response to the claim, they basically said they had followed regulations and that they were correct in their actions. However, on the day of the hearing, their "defence" ended up (.....sound of barrel being scraped) that "Everymatrix" is not a legal entity therefore cannot be sued.

5. The impression I got from the judge was that she both disagreed with this defence and was agitated by the attitude of Everymatrix. So whilst I can't say for sure, certainly by the tone of the judge, I think she would have awarded me the money anyway.

I thought I should be honest in terms of the nature of the verdict, bearing in mind the comments posted. However, I would remain quite confident that anyone else wanting the go down the same route will have a strong chance of winning if they prepare their case as carefully as I did, paying attention to what is actually a "regulation" and what is simply Everymatrix claiming is a "regulation" or in their words "the law"!! and also going through their sloppy policies with a fine tooth comb.

This is why I would be happy to share my statement and evidence both with a site administrator (to prove my story) and/or anyone else interested in making a claim. This is especially relevant, bearing in mind Everymatrix may rewrite their policies - so retrospective claims will need to refer to the historic policies and processes which I have documented.
 

dunover

Unofficial T&C's Editor
Staff member
webmeister
PABnonaccred
PABnononaccred
CAG
mm3
Joined
May 22, 2012
Location
the bus shelter, opposite GCHQ Benhall
Thanks to everyone for your positive comments and advice. I have been on my own with this - and it has not been easy to navigate through to get this far, and at times has been quite stressful and depressing. It is great to read some supportive comments.

To me the money is not insignificant, but it is the principal that is just as important to me. Like all of you on here, I have lost money on gambling, (and have had some good days as well). On bad days I have always taken losses on the chin and taken responsibility for my actions. I certainly wouldn't go running to a bookmaker crying because I've lost and asking for my money back. Conversely, I don't expect to win and effectively have my winnings "robbed" from me by a rogue operator. Especially one that is supposed to be regulated by the UKGC.

To give some further feedback on the County Court Judgment (particularly in light of Dunover's comments);

1. The Everymatrix defence was struck out for want of compliance in that the Defendant did not serve its witness statement on the Claimant.

2. So in effect, I won on a technicality, so we can't say this is a 100% precedent. Whether this was a deliberate ploy by Everymatrix or lack of professionalism is open to debate.

3. But - the fact that the case got on the County Court track as far as the hearing, (and the actual sitting took place) demonstrates that it was felt that Everymatrix had a case to answer.

4. I would also add, that Everymatrix changed their defence. In the original written response to the claim, they basically said they had followed regulations and that they were correct in their actions. However, on the day of the hearing, their "defence" ended up (.....sound of barrel being scraped) that "Everymatrix" is not a legal entity therefore cannot be sued.

5. The impression I got from the judge was that she both disagreed with this defence and was agitated by the attitude of Everymatrix. So whilst I can't say for sure, certainly by the tone of the judge, I think she would have awarded me the money anyway.

I thought I should be honest in terms of the nature of the verdict, bearing in mind the comments posted. However, I would remain quite confident that anyone else wanting the go down the same route will have a strong chance of winning if they prepare their case as carefully as I did, paying attention to what is actually a "regulation" and what is simply Everymatrix claiming is a "regulation" or in their words "the law"!! and also going through their sloppy policies with a fine tooth comb.

This is why I would be happy to share my statement and evidence both with a site administrator (to prove my story) and/or anyone else interested in making a claim. This is especially relevant, bearing in mind Everymatrix may rewrite their policies - so retrospective claims will need to refer to the historic policies and processes which I have documented.

The piece I bolded I absolutely agree with - casinos often change terms retrospectively and have been caught out numerous times doing so on here.
As you say it won't change the potential of them being liable for 6 years' worth of payments they have ripped-off from players here in the UK.

As for point 3 they haven't complied with UKGC rules in full at all. (search for kaboo SE in the forum and read the threads) Max has pasted them in there in one post and the UKGC specify they must act to "prevent bets from SE players under their license" BUT the wording is woolly as you'd expect from the UKGC and they don't specify when the casino should act. EMSEB happens due to this lack of specificity and suddenly they 'discover' the issue when you've won. I spoke to them in person at ICE in London about this back in February and they told me they were 'aware of the EMSEB issue'....:rolleyes:

The UKGC do NOT make 'laws' but are a government QUANGO created to administer UK gambling within the law. They are merely a regulator and UK consumer laws trump anything the UKGC interprets or says. EM are in breach of these laws in that they do not provide 'comprehensive, inclusive and complete' terms - something I've pointed out to the UKGC in my current open complaint regarding casinos taking the piss with either EMSEB-type scams or inadequate SE/TAB facilities.

Irrespective of whether you won on a technicality or the substance of your case, EM are in the pit as far as I am concerned - if they don't respect a Court Order in a country they are licensed to take players from, then what does this say about their respect for the Licensing Authority which is lower down the food chain than a court??

If EM have a license they MUST be a entity despite their ridiculous claim otherwise when they changed their defence. As you say that may be clever tactics as they would have to be incredibly stupid to not realize the potentially huge financial consequences of losing to your claim on its merit. Perhaps you should inform the UKGC that a licensee with many casinos has given you in writing a statement that they 'are not a legal entity'...:)

As for satisfying the judgement, UK CC Judgements ARE enforceable EU-wide so if they are in breach of the conditions of the UKGC in not having a physical UK office to send Sheriffs to via the High Court.

EM are in a hole here whichever way they turn, and I think their inherent unscrupulous behaviour has finally caught up with them.

P.S If they try and change their terms they are legally required to inform their customers anyway, so there will be blanket evidence of them doing so. If they amend terms and DON'T tell players than that's another hole they've dug. Keep an eye on them daily....
 
Last edited:

ThePOGG

Meister Member
webmeister
Joined
Feb 17, 2012
Location
UK
It is a bit worrying that eCogra were unable to reach this conclusion, I must admit.

dunover said:
As Simmo says it shows the UKGC and eCogra are seriously lacking.

eCOGRA cannot deal with self-exclusion issues. As a licensing issue this is reserved to the UKGC. As with ourselves we have to forward on SE issue to the UKGC directly and I know that there is some discussion with regard to how to manage the high case load this is creating at the UKGC at the present time.
 

ThePOGG

Meister Member
webmeister
Joined
Feb 17, 2012
Location
UK
This is why I would be happy to share my statement and evidence both with a site administrator (to prove my story) and/or anyone else interested in making a claim. This is especially relevant, bearing in mind Everymatrix may rewrite their policies - so retrospective claims will need to refer to the historic policies and processes which I have documented.

Hi Daz_b,

If you're happy to share I'd be very happy to take a look over this. It would give me some useful guidance to provide players with when considering court action and an example of a small claim that was successful. It would also be very useful to me to see some supporting documentation of the court's ruling (if you have any) as if you can show this I'll make a request of EveryMatrix/Jetbull to offer a statement regarding this thread. Email's webmaster@thepogg.com.

Thanks!

TP
 

Casinomeister

Forum Cheermeister
Staff member
Joined
Jun 30, 1998
Location
Bierland
Hi Daz_b,

If you're happy to share I'd be very happy to take a look over this. It would give me some useful guidance to provide players with when considering court action and an example of a small claim that was successful. It would also be very useful to me to see some supporting documentation of the court's ruling (if you have any) as if you can show this I'll make a request of EveryMatrix/Jetbull to offer a statement regarding this thread. Email's webmaster@thepogg.com.

Thanks!

TP

I second that. I would be interested in seeing these docs.
 

dunover

Unofficial T&C's Editor
Staff member
webmeister
PABnonaccred
PABnononaccred
CAG
mm3
Joined
May 22, 2012
Location
the bus shelter, opposite GCHQ Benhall
Hi Daz_b,

If you're happy to share I'd be very happy to take a look over this. It would give me some useful guidance to provide players with when considering court action and an example of a small claim that was successful. It would also be very useful to me to see some supporting documentation of the court's ruling (if you have any) as if you can show this I'll make a request of EveryMatrix/Jetbull to offer a statement regarding this thread. Email's webmaster@thepogg.com.

Thanks!

TP

I fear they may be reluctant to do that. They will want to keep this as quiet as possible, as there is the potential for an avalanche of claims for payments going back up to 6 years for the other victims of their incomplete and thus unfair terms. This is also a huge egg-on-the-face for the UKGC who have consistently failed to act on the EMSEB issue despite being aware of it for a considerable time. The answer is so simple, to make licensees inform the players at sign-up stage OR have an automated checking system at sign-up like many other licensees/casinos. Surely now the UKGC will remove their heads from the sand?
 

ThePOGG

Meister Member
webmeister
Joined
Feb 17, 2012
Location
UK
I fear they may be reluctant to do that.

I absolutely agree. I don't honestly expect a statement, but if they're not appealing the ruling or there's no factual inaccuracies in the player's statement that they haven't complied with a court ruling, I have ground to take action against the operator. They have to be offered the opportunity to contest this though....
 

dunover

Unofficial T&C's Editor
Staff member
webmeister
PABnonaccred
PABnononaccred
CAG
mm3
Joined
May 22, 2012
Location
the bus shelter, opposite GCHQ Benhall
I absolutely agree. I don't honestly expect a statement, but if they're not appealing the ruling or there's no factual inaccuracies in the player's statement that they haven't complied with a court ruling, I have ground to take action against the operator. They have to be offered the opportunity to contest this though....

Absolutely. If there is no action I will have drop EM sites from my pages, as I cannot promote casinos which ignore court rulings.
 

Daz_b

Experienced Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2015
Location
Newcastle
Hi ThePOGG - I have emailed you the documents.

Casinomeister - are you able to PM me an email address and I'd be happy to send to you also.
 

ThePOGG

Meister Member
webmeister
Joined
Feb 17, 2012
Location
UK
Thank you for that Daz_b - I've reviewed and everything appears to be legitimate. I'll contact EveryMatrix/Jetbull and see what they have to say.

On a side note, I reviewed the terms and conditions at Favourit casino and can't see any mention of EveryMatrix.

TP
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
We are repeatedly hearing from individual EM operators that "this is an EM decision, not ours" when it comes to certain matters, such as disputed payments to players, particularly where SE is one of the issues involved. Now, if EM are not a "legal entity", how can they make decisions that trump any decisions made by the operators of individual casinos on their platform. Even if they were trying to argue that they were merely a "supplier" to the casino involved, such as just supplying the platform software, this can be shot down right away by referring to cases where the "platform software supplier" told the OWNER of a particular casino that a certain player MUST not be paid, and where the owner then tells the player concerned "it's out of my hands, it's an EM decision".

In reality, you CAN sue a company as the "legal entity", it does not have to be a named individual, and ANY company that has been properly set up becomes a "legal entity" in it's own right, separate from the individuals who are on the board and own it via shares. Their amended defence must have been written by a failed law student not to realise the depth of the hole this would be dropping them into should it be used in court, even if it was given to the claimant as prescribed prior to the hearing.

On their license, it is Jetbull and EM who are listed jointly as holders, which could not be the case if EM was not "a legal entity".

Paying the measly £650 as soon as possible after the hearing would have been the best move in terms of damage limitation, or at least mounting a formal legal challenge in an effort to have the CCJ set aside and the case reheard. Instead, they chose the worst possible option, completely ignoring the CCJ and failing to pay by the deadline. Now, even if they DO pay, they cannot have the CCJ removed from the public record, so for the following 6 years it will be seen that EM had a CCJ awarded against it, and at present it's going to be marked as "unsatisfied", so people will also be able to see that they don't pay up even when a court tells them to. For businesses that supply services to EM on credit this will be seen as a warning sign (if they bother to do their due diligence that is). This may make it harder for EM to obtain services from other firms on credit.

If this ends up with the bailiffs, it only makes matters even worse, and in an extreme case, a creditor can petition for a company to be wound up by the high court in order to recover monies owed from a CCJ. In theory, this can even happen with a CCJ for as little as £650.

The efforts to obtain this £650, if they fail, may well uncover a dodgy corporate structure (as per Purple Lounge) being used by EM in order for them to avoid their obligations. In the Purple Lounge case, players found that a shell company with no assets supposedly had, and lost, all their money, whereas their money was really mostly intact, but in a separate "box" (Media Corp), where it had ended up having been syphoned off from the PL casino business, the act which caused it's failure.
 

spintee

Ueber Meister
webby
mm2
Joined
Mar 21, 2012
Location
Northants
Well done Daz,

Like its been pointed out you can now get a high court ritz, Bailiffs for a set fee, You will get this back if and when they pay or goods are sold, There is no messing about now you won the court battle.

Just make sure the paper work is in order so the bailiffs hit the right people, I whached a program once where they went into Barclycard main office, They soon come up with the ready's,

EV have been messing around for a long time, Its about time something was done
 
Top