1. By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies .This website or its third-party tools use cookies, which are necessary to its functioning and required to achieve the purposes illustrated in the cookie policy.Find out more.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Dismiss Notice
  3. Follow Casinomeister on Twitter | Facebook | YouTube | Casinomeister.us US Residents Click here! |  Svenska Svenska | 
Dismiss Notice
REGISTER NOW!! Why? Because you can't do diddly squat without having been registered!

At the moment you have limited access to view most discussions: you can't make contact with thousands of fellow players, affiliates, casino reps, and all sorts of other riff-raff.

Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join Casinomeister here!

LGA Directive: Dormant Account Fees?

Discussion in 'Online Casinos' started by Simmo!, Mar 10, 2015.

    Mar 10, 2015
  1. Simmo!

    Simmo! Moderator Staff Member

    Occupation:
    Web Dev.
    Location:
    England
    Intrigued as to why the LGA insist a casino applies dormant account fees or have I misinterpreted it?
     
  2. Mar 10, 2015
  3. Matti

    Matti Senior Member MM

    Occupation:
    Business Development Tech
    Location:
    Sweden
    The MGA (previously LGA) directive states that the maximum fee an operator can charge for an inactive account is €5.

    You must register/login in order to see the link.
     
    3 people like this.
  4. Mar 10, 2015
  5. Simmo!

    Simmo! Moderator Staff Member

    Occupation:
    Web Dev.
    Location:
    England
    Ah OK thanks - I read it as the casino saying the LGA were the ones responsible for the fee implementation.
     
  6. Mar 11, 2015
  7. spintee

    spintee Meister Member webby mm2

    Occupation:
    gambler :)
    Location:
    Northants
    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 :)
     
  8. Mar 11, 2015
  9. vinylweatherman

    vinylweatherman You type well loads CAG MM

    Occupation:
    STILL At Leisure
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    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.
     
  10. Mar 11, 2015
  11. Matti

    Matti Senior Member MM

    Occupation:
    Business Development Tech
    Location:
    Sweden
    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.
     
    1 person likes this.
  12. Mar 11, 2015
  13. Simmo!

    Simmo! Moderator Staff Member

    Occupation:
    Web Dev.
    Location:
    England
    Maybe, maybe not. It's Intercasino who are generally very 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 :)
     
    1 person likes this.
  14. Mar 11, 2015
  15. Webzcas

    Webzcas Winter is Coming!

    Occupation:
    Webmaster
    Location:
    Block S25, South Stand, Ashton Gate, BS3
    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. :thumbsup:
     
  16. Mar 11, 2015
  17. vinylweatherman

    vinylweatherman You type well loads CAG MM

    Occupation:
    STILL At Leisure
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    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.
     
  18. Mar 11, 2015
  19. Matti

    Matti Senior Member MM

    Occupation:
    Business Development Tech
    Location:
    Sweden
    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 "

    You must register/login in order to see the link.
     
  20. Mar 30, 2015
  21. vinylweatherman

    vinylweatherman You type well loads CAG MM

    Occupation:
    STILL At Leisure
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    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.
     

Share This Page