LGA Directive: Dormant Account Fees?

[Simmo!]

As part of our terms and conditions if you don’t not use these funds in the next month you will unfortunately start incurring a monthly administration fee** of $5 per month for up to 19 months, as per the Lotteries and Gaming Authority (LGA) directive.

Intrigued as to why the LGA insist a casino applies dormant account fees or have I misinterpreted it?

 

[Matti]

Intrigued as to why the LGA insist a casino applies dormant account fees or have I misinterpreted it?

The MGA (previously LGA) directive states that the maximum fee an operator can charge for an inactive account is €5.

Old / Expired Link

 

[Simmo!]

The MGA (previously LGA) directive states that the maximum fee an operator can charge for an inactive account is €5.

Old / Expired Link

Ah OK thanks - I read it as the casino saying the LGA were the ones responsible for the fee implementation.

 

[spintee]

Anything to make it look like there not the ones responsible for the charge, & to add to that they have also took full advantage of the max 5

 

[vinylweatherman]

The LGA are the ones responsible for capping it at €5, which must be irksome for this casino as it probably wants to grab the whole lot.

The issue might be that the LGA requires operators to pass dormant funds into it's care after 18 months or so, from where the owner can retrieve them at a later date. The admin fee, on the other hand, allows the casino to drain dormant accounts and keep the funds for themselves.

As the "directive" only states a maximum, there is nothing to stop the casino taking NOTHING for 18 months, and then passing the whole balance into the care of the LGA.

 

[Matti]

The issue might be that the LGA requires operators to pass dormant funds into it's care after 18 months or so, from where the owner can retrieve them at a later date. The admin fee, on the other hand, allows the casino to drain dormant accounts and keep the funds for themselves.

As the "directive" only states a maximum, there is nothing to stop the casino taking NOTHING for 18 months, and then passing the whole balance into the care of the LGA.

I checked the MGA page. The remaining funds ARE required to be passed to MGA after 30 months.

I believe that the majority of accounts that become inactive has very small balances and that neither MGA, or the casino, want the administrative burden to keep track on these. Remember a casino also has the obligation to contact the player before the fee is charged.

I think all this is quite fair.

 

[Simmo!]

The LGA are the ones responsible for capping it at €5, which must be irksome for this casino as it probably wants to grab the whole lot.

Maybe, maybe not. It's Intercasino who are generally very fair.

I checked the MGA page. The remaining funds ARE required to be passed to MGA after 30 months.

I believe that the majority of accounts that become inactive has very small balances and that neither MGA, or the casino, want the administrative burden to keep track on these. Remember a casino also has the obligation to contact the player before the fee is charged.

I think all this is quite fair.

Yes agreed. Although I think the whole administration fee thing is a bit stupid. Firstly, it costs nothing to administer a dormant account. Secondly, I quite often go back to a casino after a long break of a couple of years or more - in fact I did here at Intercasino after about a 4 year break. But obviously not again if they close the account. But hey-ho, their choice. Plenty more fish in the sea

 

[Webzcas]

If they don't want details of their dormant players in their database as it is causing them an ahem financial burden, hence the charge, I'll look after the details for them for free.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Well, surely the 30 month limit after which the MGA assumes the burden of looking after dormant account funds removes the burden from the operator, so surely they don't need to apply a fee in any case as all they have to do (other than nothing for 30 months) is the task of transferring the account over to the MGA.

Perhaps it IS mostly a case of the vast majority of dormant accounts only having "pennies" in them that the fee is charged. By removing all the "pennies" after 6 months or so, all administrative burdens are gone, and the account can be removed from their database.

HOWEVER, isn't there also a requirement to store players' account details for 6 years, due to anti money laundering laws, so surely there is still no easy way out of the burden of looking after the data from inactive accounts.

The main benefit of a fee seems to be that where more substantial balances have been abandoned, the casino can remove up to €60 for themselves before having to transfer the remaining funds to the MGA.

If a player has already withdrawn, what's to stop the casino paying out all remaining funds to the last withdrawal method used, or even just sending a cheque to the player at the last known address. It would appear that only an email is sent, and this is easily missed by a player who hasn't played for some months.

 

[Matti]

UKGC rules are a lot more vague than MGA's.

"Operators may deduct fees or other charges from customer accounts, so long as the fees
or charges are in line with the operator’s terms and conditions and are fair and open to the
consumer "

Old / Expired Link

 

[vinylweatherman]

UKGC rules are a lot more vague than MGA's.

"Operators may deduct fees or other charges from customer accounts, so long as the fees
or charges are in line with the operator’s terms and conditions and are fair and open to the
consumer "

Old / Expired Link

This is probably down to consumer law that has a similarly vague "must treat the customer fairly" principle, coupled with a lazy UKGC that can't come up with something more specific in the interests of protecting customers.

There are many businesses here that "try it on", and even get away with it for years, but then someone comes along to upset the apple cart using this principle of "fairness" under consumer law. Companies then face giving back the excess fees and charges.

The worst offenders are parking companies, who seem (erroneously) to assume that they can pluck a number out of thin air, and levy it as a charge for "breach of contract". Many people just pay up, but those who challenge it often find the parking company has no stomach for a fight to test the law in court, and will often substantially reduce, or even cancel, the charge. If it went to court, they would have to demonstrate the charge represented the reasonable cost of remedying the breach of contract, which is probably why many offer a reduced charge for quick payment, or when they feel the motorist is not bluffing about taking it all the way.