Jetbull/Everymatrix Scam Update - Non payment of Court Order

Just to let everyone know - I have now contacted Jetbull and pointed their attention to this thread. This communication has been acknowledged by my contact there so my hope would be that there will be movement on this issue or some form of response in the near future.

TP
 
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.


Of course they are a legal entity - they are registered with Companies House and are filing accounts!

em.jpg
 
I'm just getting to this now. Honestly, I am baffled why no one has taken care of this. It's not we're talking about thousands of pounds - we are talking about £765.

The episode of either gross negligence, stupidity, or "lights on - nobody's home" is going to seriously damage an already faltering reputation for Everymatrix. And the worst - trust. How can anyone trust these guys anymore?

If I was an operator using the Everymatrix backend, I would be livid.
 
I'm just getting to this now. Honestly, I am baffled why no one has taken care of this. It's not we're talking about thousands of pounds - we are talking about £765.

The episode of either gross negligence, stupidity, or "lights on - nobody's home" is going to seriously damage an already faltering reputation for Everymatrix. And the worst - trust. How can anyone trust these guys anymore?

If I was an operator using the Everymatrix backend, I would be livid.

Even if they take care of it now, the damage is done. The CCJ will remain on record, albeit marked "satisfied", so anyone doing a search on the company will see that they were taken to court and lost. They should have paid up, or made arrangements to pay, on the day they lost in court.

Operators need to understand this is a new regulatory regime, it's no longer the "wild west" of old where they can ignore players and even national court rulings with impunity. Operators are also picking up a slew of "upheld" complaints at the ASA for not ensuring that the ways of old when it comes to marketing are changed to reflect the national rules of the countries they are marketing to. However, this is not as damaging as picking up a CCJ.

This should also tell Everymatrix that the current way they handle self exclusion is a recipe for trouble, and it needs to be changed before they end up with a flood of CCJs.
 
I'm just getting to this now. Honestly, I am baffled why no one has taken care of this. It's not we're talking about thousands of pounds - we are talking about £765.

The episode of either gross negligence, stupidity, or "lights on - nobody's home" is going to seriously damage an already faltering reputation for Everymatrix. And the worst - trust. How can anyone trust these guys anymore?

If I was an operator using the Everymatrix backend, I would be livid.

Do you think they are botherd is the question? After the SE bull crap, they started adding the min bet £1 on alot of sites, when using bonus, or better still £3 bet if playing certain games,

I am no expert on this subject, I leave that to you and the crew, & the pogg, I do abit of research for my own safety :) and knowledge, They have been funny for a good while now, Why risk a CCJ (county court judgement) against there name over a few 100 quid?

Not only that but look at all the others that will go down that route and go court, Who was that fat chap who got done in where all he's house got raddied, The one that had the p2p sharing sites, I can see this happing to EV


They even let sites run from them and give a white label licence, They did come on here to state that the licence is revoke but still let them use the platform???
 
I'm just getting to this now. Honestly, I am baffled why no one has taken care of this. It's not we're talking about thousands of pounds - we are talking about £765.

The episode of either gross negligence, stupidity, or "lights on - nobody's home" is going to seriously damage an already faltering reputation for Everymatrix. And the worst - trust. How can anyone trust these guys anymore?

If I was an operator using the Everymatrix backend, I would be livid.

yeah, i'll agree.....But, in general i think it's mostly "gross negligence" or simply no time to deal with all these cases of SE.

As the OP Daz said "Jetbull accepted my registration and waited to see if I won anything before flagging up a problem" which i think it's not true and certainly not trying to steal money from SE peoples......and there is soo much abuse by fraudster, they need to Protect themselves as well.

Also, some website have so much Registrations everyday....checking everyone ID or do background check on everyone would be wasting soo much resource/time ....therefore that's why before a withdrawal, normally most Casino will do a quick ID check ects, which is why the OP got caught up into this mess. (yes, i know... we have talked about this a millions time....Personally, still think all Casino should demand before depositing any money atleast 1x ID check.....imo, this will solve 95% of SE case)

But Overall this has been poorly managed...as soon this case got into court, i'll agree....Truly a Poor job of Everymatrix and Jetbull, i would have personally met with Daz and gave him the rightful amount due...Indeed, with some Extra to cover the time loss and court fee ect.
 
the thing is they can have a thousand CCJ's as casino player are not going to look at them when they see a casino site, Yes when it comes down to doing business any one with abit of brain will check, But in this casino land no one will be botherd to search for that, maybe and just maybe do a google search,

And I doubt a fe CCJ is going to come up on top of the list, I said before and say over agin, They want players in than thats it,99% of the time complaints roll in after the fact, and take note only a very small % come on fourms even after they been stung

Even if they take care of it now, the damage is done. The CCJ will remain on record, albeit marked "satisfied", so anyone doing a search on the company will see that they were taken to court and lost. They should have paid up, or made arrangements to pay, on the day they lost in court.

Operators need to understand this is a new regulatory regime, it's no longer the "wild west" of old where they can ignore players and even national court rulings with impunity. Operators are also picking up a slew of "upheld" complaints at the ASA for not ensuring that the ways of old when it comes to marketing are changed to reflect the national rules of the countries they are marketing to. However, this is not as damaging as picking up a CCJ.

This should also tell Everymatrix that the current way they handle self exclusion is a recipe for trouble, and it needs to be changed before they end up with a flood of CCJs.
 
This EMSEB business was always going to end up like this. I'm surprised they got away with it so long. As Richas pointed out, their denial of being a legal entity is plain nonsensical. Perhaps the UKGC should read that when considering the status of their license. :rolleyes:

Yes, EMSEB is down equally to the lack of due diligence of the UKGC as well as the fundamental design of the scam. One couldn't exist without the complicity of the other. I personally KNOW the UKGC have been aware of this for at least a year.

As the judgement wasn't satisfied within 28 days a High Court warrant can be executed on their registered office any time.
 
This EMSEB business was always going to end up like this. I'm surprised they got away with it so long. As Richas pointed out, their denial of being a legal entity is plain nonsensical. Perhaps the UKGC should read that when considering the status of their license. :rolleyes:

Yes, EMSEB is down equally to the lack of due diligence of the UKGC as well as the fundamental design of the scam. One couldn't exist without the complicity of the other. I personally KNOW the UKGC have been aware of this for at least a year.

As the judgement wasn't satisfied within 28 days a High Court warrant can be executed on their registered office any time.

Its bull shit mate, like you and another pointed out their denial of being a legal entity is plain nonsensical Of course it is , It boils down to some arss wipe lawyer that do not know what there on about,

Even if they claim this I am sure there office will state different, Where there office is situated is another story,

I will give it 6 months at best before its sold on, most likely to there brother inlaw or gone completely
 
Also, some website have so much Registrations everyday....checking everyone ID or do background check on everyone would be wasting soo much resource/time ....therefore that's why before a withdrawal, normally most Casino will do a quick ID check ects, which is why the OP got caught up into this mess. (yes, i know... we have talked about this a millions time....Personally, still think all Casino should demand before depositing any money atleast 1x ID check.....imo, this will solve 95% of SE case)

The bottom line is, if you are going to have a cross-brand Self Exclusion policy, you need to have the tools in place to stop self-excluded players being able to deposit and play at another of the brands. If you can't do that, you shouldn't deploy the policy until you are able to.

I am sure most players use the same name, DoB, address and maybe even contact details to register. It can't be that difficult to match registrations with a reasonable degree of certainty, surely?
 
The bottom line is, if you are going to have a cross-brand Self Exclusion policy, you need to have the tools in place to stop self-excluded players being able to deposit and play at another of the brands. If you can't do that, you shouldn't deploy the policy until you are able to.

I am sure most players use the same name, DoB, address and maybe even contact details to register. It can't be that difficult to match registrations with a reasonable degree of certainty, surely?

I would expect the judge and the UKGC would hold this view if they were told by EM that it is "impossible" to do any kind of SE check for the "thousands" of registrations they get. This is because they have 72 hours to do certain basic checks under the UK licence, primarily aimed at catching minors, but in order to effectively manage this, they would at least need to verify that the registration details were for a real person, and then for SE purposes it would be a simple matter of them running an internal check against their own cross brand SE dataset for a close enough match. In order for this to be "impossible", the player would have to be knowingly using a strategy designed to foil such simple data matching, which is rather difficult given that this would also make it likely they would fail the electronic ID check, which under the UK license requires the operator to lock the account pending a proper KYC through other means.

As well as the half arsed system, EM and their operators are deliberately trying to deceive players by lying about who is associated with whom. So players are told that casino A is "completely independent" of B, which means that in law they should not be sharing data, yet they clearly ARE sharing data, and when it comes to a payment issue, all of a sudden it seems it's EM that calls the shots, not the "independent" casinos.

It's rather similar to the old Rival system, and that lead to all sorts of trouble, although not SE related.
 
What can he say? His masters have an outstanding CCJ against them. Perhaps they think the issue will 'go away' but we need answers about this, because it makes a loud statement about their potential attitude to players. I expect CM will make a statement abut this, then we should know.
 
I've only just stumbled across this thread. Excellent work OP.

I've had a SE issue with everymatrix. I think overall I ended up around £400 out of pocket and everymatrix were particularly unhelpful even with me forwarding on correspondence from UKGC to whom I complained.

If the op could make the case material available it might be useful as a template for others to take action. From a purely personal point of view, I really don't want to have to go through legal proceedings because I could do without the aggro. But, in the spirit of the community I almost feel obliged to in the hope that ultimately EM will he held accountable for their actions.

Feels shitty writing this message. I cannot understand why EM would be so blatant in screwing people over - surely it can't be worth THAT much to them in terms of revenue?
 
Another thing I have not figured out is who gets the money?

Does EM take the deposited funds of the casino or just do not simply pass on the funds to them?

I believe EM has made a fortune from this and telling sites that they cannot pay them due to legal reasons or what other BS they come up with
 
Another thing I have not figured out is who gets the money?

Does EM take the deposited funds of the casino or just do not simply pass on the funds to them?

I believe EM has made a fortune from this and telling sites that they cannot pay them due to legal reasons or what other BS they come up with

My EM story involved playhippo. Based on the correspondence I had with them it appeared to be the case that playhippo received my confiscated winnings. And it was definitely confiscated winnings and not all bets voided otherwise there would have been nothing for them receive.
 
Update:

Everymatrix have made contact with me and are making the right noises about paying the court order. I've therefore put enforcement action on hold, although I have an idea of when and where I will try to arrange the action for, if needed.

I will update again when I have further news.

Slotter999 - If you are interested in making a claim, I would be happy to send you my witness statement which may be of some help. Just PM me an email address. If you are UK based, you can kick the process off by using www.moneyclaim.gov.uk. You just need to provide the key facts to begin with, and they will decide which legal track, if any, is most appropriate. There are fees involved, but you can go through the whole process for around £140 if you do everything yourself, and depending on the size of the claim being made.

Meanwhile, I noticed this article on the BBC website yesterday, which is also widely reported in today's UK printed press. See the last few paragraphs which explains how Maria Casino apparently withheld £35,000 from a customer under the same circumstances I had with Jetbull/Everymatrix. In his case, they paid up when the BBC started sniffing around. I wonder if the floodgates are about to open;

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

Everymatrix have made contact with me and are making the right noises about paying the court order. I've therefore put enforcement action on hold, although I have an idea of when and where I will try to arrange the action for, if needed.

I will update again when I have further news.

Slotter999 - If you are interested in making a claim, I would be happy to send you my witness statement which may be of some help. Just PM me an email address. If you are UK based, you can kick the process off by using www.moneyclaim.gov.uk. You just need to provide the key facts to begin with, and they will decide which legal track, if any, is most appropriate. There are fees involved, but you can go through the whole process for around £140 if you do everything yourself, and depending on the size of the claim being made.

Meanwhile, I noticed this article on the BBC website yesterday, which is also widely reported in today's UK printed press. See the last few paragraphs which explains how Maria Casino apparently withheld £35,000 from a customer under the same circumstances I had with Jetbull/Everymatrix. In his case, they paid up when the BBC started sniffing around. I wonder if the floodgates are about to open;

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


I hope so. The fact they will or will not pay you is irrelevant to their conduct (of course I want you to get the lolly!) as they failed to adhere to the CCJ within 28 days. You must IMO report this matter to the UKGC along with the statement where they deny being a 'legal entity'....

They are only making noises because they are being shamed in public. I look forward to hearing the response they make to Max/Bryan regading this matter too. Silent at the moment, but hopefully they will tell us something.

In fact I can use your CCJ off of the general register and report it to the UKCG too as an addendum to my complaint. :)
 
I think its utterly disgusting that a player should have to resort to court action to get their money. It also shows what a bunch of scammers this group are if they are prepared to lie in court to steal a customers money. I honestly hope they actually lose their license over this. If EM aren't a legal entity, who replied to the claim?
Who did you actually list as the defendant, was it Jetbull or EM?

The fact they changed their defense suggests to me they thought the original one would fail, as thats the one they tell customers, I would suggest they know they are lying when they take the money.

One thing I will point out, it is unlikely this can be used as a precedent, firstly its in the lower court and it's rare any decision made there would be used as one, and secondly, it was a default judgement. As the case wasn't argued by both sides then no court will use it to decide another.

I would have no problem taking them to court if I had this problem though as I don't think they would have a valid defense, but anyone else thinking of taking them to court make sure you have all your info together rather than thinking you can just quote this case and win, which I've seen people do in the past, and lose.
 
I wonder if it was part of EM's strategy to act and manipulate things in such a manner that the outcome was a default CCJ, knowing that this cannot readily be used as a precedent.
 
I wonder if it was part of EM's strategy to act and manipulate things in such a manner that the outcome was a default CCJ, knowing that this cannot readily be used as a precedent.

No, that would make no sense. :)

Pay before judgement, have to pay £625 + costs. The end.

Put a defense in, more costs, amended defence, more costs, get a default judgement against them, still have to pay but now have a CCJ that will show for 6 years and allows the claimant to post a thread that 100's if not 1000's of potential customers will see.
 
I wonder if it was part of EM's strategy to act and manipulate things in such a manner that the outcome was a default CCJ, knowing that this cannot readily be used as a precedent.

If this was a strategy, they royally screwed up. They should have taken it all the way in the hope that the player will fold first, but once the player had a CCJ because EM's own legal team effed up, they should have conceded and paid up on the spot so there was at least no CCJ that would stick with them for the next 6 years on the register.

Of course, the next time they won't be so stupid, they will ensure that their defence is correctly served to the court and the claimant, and they won't use one they know is doomed to fail in an argued case.

Like the banks (and Betfair;) ), they may even switch tack to paying up quietly once they are served notice from the courts that a claim has been lodged, rather than risk losing a properly argued case on merit, rather than on a technicality. This may carry on until they accept that the cheaper option is to fight and obtain a precedent in a higher court, rather than carry on paying up quietly.
 
If this was a strategy, they royally screwed up. They should have taken it all the way in the hope that the player will fold first, but once the player had a CCJ because EM's own legal team effed up, they should have conceded and paid up on the spot so there was at least no CCJ that would stick with them for the next 6 years on the register.

Of course, the next time they won't be so stupid, they will ensure that their defence is correctly served to the court and the claimant, and they won't use one they know is doomed to fail in an argued case.

Like the banks (and Betfair;) ), they may even switch tack to paying up quietly once they are served notice from the courts that a claim has been lodged, rather than risk losing a properly argued case on merit, rather than on a technicality. This may carry on until they accept that the cheaper option is to fight and obtain a precedent in a higher court, rather than carry on paying up quietly.

I highly doubt it - given that they have breached UK consumer legislation by having incomplete terms with VITAL information omitted, their case would be futile. This is nothing like the banks, as they had the relevant charge info in their terms, but the terms were contested as unfair. This whole EMSEB business doesn't even have the imperative info in the terms so they are inherently unfair before they even get to be contested. EM and others who do similar are up shit creek without a paddle here.
 
I highly doubt it - given that they have breached UK consumer legislation by having incomplete terms with VITAL information omitted, their case would be futile. This is nothing like the banks, as they had the relevant charge info in their terms, but the terms were contested as unfair. This whole EMSEB business doesn't even have the imperative info in the terms so they are inherently unfair before they even get to be contested. EM and others who do similar are up shit creek without a paddle here.

Well, their only option seems to be damage limitation. Change their SE systems and rewrite their terms so that they don't carry on creating further cases where, if taken to court, they player will most likely win. They should also go through their entire player base and check that they don't have players that they will never pay winning to currently depositing and losing.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Meister Ratings

Back
Top