LeoVegas locked my account with over £2300 in it

[dionysus]

However this isn't on the subject of how a casino does business, its on the subject of legislation which is there in black and white for anyone to read, which Mark has knowledge on. If he had came in and said LV are shit because xxx then I would agree it was out of order.

*shrugs - ive no idea WHAT he said
its been edited out


edited - because it isnt an lvmatter and no point on derailing

 

[colinsunderland]

*shrugs - ive no idea WHAT he said
its been edited out
but, we've also seen a hundred plus pages how a lot of that legislation is up to interpretation

Does

Not cool of me to comment on another reps use of a GDPR excuse.

Not give you a clue

There is nothing in the GDPR that stops someone carrying out customer service on a forum like this. I asked Videoslots which section of the act they thought applied months ago, still waiting for a response. If a casino makes the decision not to, then thats fine, but to use the GDPR as an excuse is misleading.

 

[dionysus]

edit - not going to derail further

 

[dunover]

Does

Not cool of me to comment on another reps use of a GDPR excuse.

Not give you a clue

There is nothing in the GDPR that stops someone carrying out customer service on a forum like this. I asked Videoslots which section of the act they thought applied months ago, still waiting for a response. If a casino makes the decision not to, then thats fine, but to use the GDPR as an excuse is misleading.

Yeah, that's my understanding too - as long as the respondent is deemed to be part of the business they are perfectly free to discuss things in private, by PM with a member here at the instigation of the member/customer.

What the LV rep stated as far as the public forum goes is of course correct, but privately as a concerned member of the business and via PM is not forbidden at all. They may prefer to do it via their own e-mail address but aren't obliged to, I have seen no stipulation regarding the means of communication.

Regardless, I still think a big site like LV could and should have resolved this and paid by now. This isn't a small site with 9-5 staff Mon-Fri.

It's like a high street bookie manhandling you out of the door when you're winning or picking horses and saying "Right, it's a quarter to 11 so bugger-off over to Starbucks, have a smoke and a coffee or do some shopping and I don't want to see you back in here until after half 11..."

If a casino is going to use arbitrary pop-ups and shut people's accounts temporarily in the middle of play then the pop-up should come with a CS box too, so you can immediately be told privately why and engage in some chat to resolve it immediately. I'm speaking as a player here and how I expect to be treated by a casino I'm spending money at.

 

[colinsunderland]

Yeah, that's my understanding too - as long as the respondent is deemed to be part of the business they are perfectly free to discuss things in private, by PM with a member here at the instigation of the member/customer.

What the LV rep stated as far as the public forum goes is of course correct, but privately as a concerned member of the business and via PM is not forbidden at all. They may prefer to do it via their own e-mail address but aren't obliged to, I have seen no stipulation regarding the means of communication.

As far as I'm aware they can actually discuss it in public, as long as they have consent. Consent is the main word in the GDPR, as long as you have it then tbh, you can do pretty much anything. For discussing it in public though I would make doubly sure I had full consent first and as a casino operator probably wouldn't do it at all just to be doubly safe

 

[irish-ranger]

stick with bookmakers if in the uk

Funny you said that whilst reading thru this thread it came to me that none of the big bookies have active reps on any forums and most problems which arise are sorted unless the punter is taking the piss.

 

[colinsunderland]

edit - not going to derail further

It's not a LV matter yet it was the LV rep who brought it into the conversation, and the OP also commented on it.
As far as I'm aware, there are only 2 or 3 casinos who won't deal with CS via PM on here, casinos stating they can't because of the GDPR are, in effect, saying all the other casinos are breaking the law.

 

[colinsunderland]

Funny you said that whilst reading thru this thread it came to me that none of the big bookies have active reps on any forums and most problems which arise are sorted unless the punter is taking the piss.

Coral have a rep on here not sure what he is like, but the previous one was excellent. Think he is possibly the only one though.

 

[mack341]

Thinking more on what snorky wrote, I'm now of the opinion this message popping up with no proper explanation and then disappearing by itself after 45 mins, could definitely have the potential to disconcert and confuse someone, especially if they're fairly new to gambling or just to this casino.

Once the account unlocked and the balance was playable again, they'd only probably need to get south of £2,000, combined with worrying about the meaning of the message, to fall into a negative state of mind, and then start chasing to get back their original win with disastrous results...it's not 100% certain to happen but it's a dice throw for a casino, there's a chance of it working to their benefit.

If the LV rep can give a more sane reason than the live chat it would be helpful, as there must be a reason for it occurring in general ?

 

[colinsunderland]

If a casino is going to use arbitrary pop-ups and shut people's accounts temporarily in the middle of play then the pop-up should come with a CS box too, so you can immediately be told privately why and engage in some chat to resolve it immediately. I'm speaking as a player here and how I expect to be treated by a casino I'm spending money at.

I'm going to test this now, have just logged in and going to leave it for an hour, see if I get blocked, was going to deposit there tonight to have a go on the new BTG game, so if they block me I won't be able to

@ChopleyIOM how long were you logged in for?

 

[nutnut]

Funny you said that whilst reading thru this thread it came to me that none of the big bookies have active reps on any forums and most problems which arise are sorted unless the punter is taking the piss.

This site offers amazing help to players. But sadly the casinos dropping like rain atm as rules and taxes become stricter.

Too many of these casinos re getting ridiculous. Casumo other date after 1 second of depositing gave me 24hrs to verify or account blocked.

None of these bookies ever ask for docs and all pay within hours and all in my bank in 24hrs. Also you never worry about them giving enough funds and busting.

Willhil betfair paddy power bet victor and sky vegas offer everything and more than these stand alone casinos.

Casumo will never see another penny after the stunt other day. I will give credit to trada casino who verified me paid me all within 24hrs.

But unless these casinos give me deposit offers I never used them why would I when the bookies give no hassle ever.

 

[dionysus]

It's not a LV matter yet it was the LV rep who brought it into the conversation, and the OP also commented on it.
As far as I'm aware, there are only 2 or 3 casinos who won't deal with CS via PM on here, casinos stating they can't because of the GDPR are, in effect, saying all the other casinos are breaking the law.

where did LV say they cant deal via pm because of GDPR?

 

[SlotGrinder]

Honestly they probably indirectly did you a favour with the 45 mins timeout thing because it gives you time to reflect and think hmm actually I'd quite like that £2300 in my bank account (depending on how much that amount means to you)
The other delays etc is annoying ofc

 

[pinnit2014]

where did LV say they cant deal via pm because of GDPR?

Don't know if explicitly stated but implicitly given the fact they say they 'can't access their account information from here' in another thread i guess.

 

[colinsunderland]

where did LV say they cant deal via pm because of GDPR?

LeoVegas locked my account with over £2300 in it

Unfortunately, as this is a public forum I am unable to directly discuss your account here due to GDPR.

Question - Leovegas asking for copies of expired bank cards

Unfortunately, due to GDPR reasons I am unable to access your account/personal information from here in order to look into this for you.

 

[dionysus]

LeoVegas locked my account with over £2300 in it

Unfortunately, as this is a public forum I am unable to directly discuss your account here due to GDPR.

Question - Leovegas asking for copies of expired bank cards

Unfortunately, due to GDPR reasons I am unable to access your account/personal information from here in order to look into this for you.

yes?
Unfortunately, as this is a public forum I am unable to directly discuss your account here due to GDPR.

The fact they opted to ask the op to email vs pm is their prerogative - they said they wont discuss it here - choosing to do it via email is their choice.
Dunover actually reiterated that with -

'What the LV rep stated as far as the public forum goes is of course correct, but privately as a concerned member of the business and via PM is not forbidden at all. They may prefer to do it via their own e-mail address but aren't obliged to'

the reverse applies - A casino may prefer to do it via pm but arent obliged to.

I don't see the issue here (I'm not referring to the case but the response) - they replied and invited the op to reach out to discuss it further - the casino opted for email as the means of discussion

 

[Mark_32Red (retired acct)]

I’ve started a GDPR debate here so i’ll add another thought.

From my limited knowledge of GDPR I believe the main reason that a rep wouldn’t want to help via a forum is because it isn’t possible to exercise the “right to erase” - we don’t own the forum so that adds a bit more complexity.

It all depends on what information is being passed however. A username passed via PM isn’t always personal information - I say “always” as if your username was firstnamesurnameDOB that then it is. And it adds complexities. If your username is ilovemycat24 then it’s fine. In our case it’s a bit easier as quite a few have an anonymous 32REXXX account number.

It adds complexities but as someone else said, the consent is a huge part and I’m sure Bryan has his own responsibilities when it comes to the GDPR regs and the right to erasure. And I don’t mean the band.

Mark

 

[colinsunderland]

yes?
Unfortunately, as this is a public forum I am unable to directly discuss your account here due to GDPR.

The fact they opted to ask the op to email vs pm is their prerogative - they said they wont discuss it here - choosing to do it via email is their choice.
Dunover actually reiterated that with -

'What the LV rep stated as far as the public forum goes is of course correct, but privately as a concerned member of the business and via PM is not forbidden at all. They may prefer to do it via their own e-mail address but aren't obliged to'

the reverse applies - A casino may prefer to do it via pm but arent obliged to.

I don't see the issue here (I'm not referring to the case but the response) - they replied and invited the op to reach out to discuss it further - the casino opted for email as the means of discussion

So you agree they won't discuss it on here then?
And that they clearly stated this was because of the GDPR?

So feel free to point out where in the GDPR it states they cannot do this, which was what I initially said, they can do it if they want, if they make the choice not to it is up to them, but that is not due to the GDPR. If you are cherry picking other people's posts to prove your point, did you miss this 'via PM is not forbidden at all'?

 

[dionysus]

So you agree they won't discuss it on here then?
And that they clearly stated this was because of the GDPR?

So feel free to point out where in the GDPR it states they cannot do this, which was what I initially said, they can do it if they want, if they make the choice not to it is up to them, but that is not due to the GDPR. If you are cherry picking other people's posts to prove your point, did you miss this 'via PM is not forbidden at all'?

And again, LV nowhere here said via pm is forbidden due to GDPR- they said, publicly/here.
It's right there in their post. Are you now cherry picking?
Opting to use email vs pm is prerogative. Noone has a right to demand a pm

 

[colinsunderland]

I’ve started a GDPR debate here so i’ll add another thought.

From my limited knowledge of GDPR I believe the main reason that a rep wouldn’t want to help via a forum is because it isn’t possible to exercise the “right to erase” - we don’t own the forum so that adds a bit more complexity.

It all depends on what information is being passed however. A username passed via PM isn’t always personal information - I say “always” as if your username was firstnamesurnameDOB that then it is. And it adds complexities. If your username is ilovemycat24 then it’s fine. In our case it’s a bit easier as quite a few have an anonymous 32REXXX account number.

It adds complexities but as someone else said, the consent is a huge part and I’m sure Bryan has his own responsibilities when it comes to the GDPR regs and the right to erasure. And I don’t mean the band.

Mark

Surely the right to erase wouldn't come into it though as you have a legal obligation to keep account information for a period of time (6 years isn't it?) after your lawful right to process it ends? Therefore any PM's shouldn't be erased from your end until at least that time period has ended, is that correct?
Also, from memory of how the database works on Zenforo, if you delete a PM then it is deleted from the database and no record would be stored, so that would satisfy the act surely? Thanks for replying Mark

 

[dionysus]

Hi!

I'm sorry to hear that you were locked out of your LeoVegas account.

Unfortunately, as this is a public forum I am unable to directly discuss your account here due to GDPR. In the case you require any further assistance with accessing your accounts or completing your withdrawal, I kidnly ask that you send an email to support@leovegas.com with the subject FAO: Nicola/Sabina and we will then be able to assist accordingly.

Thank you and enjoy the remainder of your weekend!'

 

[colinsunderland]

And again, LV nowhere here said via pm is forbidden due to GDPR- they said, publicly/here.
It's right there in their post. Are you now cherry picking?
Opting to use email vs pm is prerogative. Noone has a right to demand a pm

So a PM doesn't mean here? How do they deal with a customer query if they can't access an account using information sent to them on here?
Simple way to solve this @LeoVegas Rep if I send you an account query via PM will you reply with the answer?
Videoslots have also stated the exact same thing and refuse to deal with anything via PM.

 

[dionysus]

here may well mean HERE..this thread.
How do they deal with customer queries? They have an email - it was clearly posted.
A member posts or pms a rep. Rep either A - responds in detail via pm or B asks the member to kindly email them
Both get the same results

If youv internet to access the forum, youve internet to forward info via email

 

[dionysus]

I don't see why this is an issue. What does it matter if the rep wants you to email them? Reps literally ask this of me ALL the time

 

[colinsunderland]

here may well mean HERE..this thread.
How do they deal with customer queries? They have an email - it was clearly posted.
A member posts or pms a rep. Rep either A - responds in detail via pm or B asks the member to kindly email them
Both get the same results

And my point was, the GDPR does not stop them replying on here, here as in on this forum. I've clearly said if they WANT to only deal via email they can. I have no problem with that. I don't like it when they say the reason they can't is because of a law they either haven't read, haven't understood or have made up for whatever reason. If nothing else it makes it look like other reps have no regard for the GDPR.
Again though, feel free to link to the section of the act that shows I'm wrong if thats what you believe.