MrQ retaining £115 withdrawal funds with SoW request

[Sirbigwin]

Hi,
I recently requested a withdrawal of £115 from MrQ, but within the same hour I got a source of wealth request. The funds have been on hold since the 12th October, and retaining them until the documentation has been sent. Is it possible for me to get my funds sent and the account to be closed going forward? It's not even the amount i'm concerned about, it's them retaining money when the source of wealth was requested after the withdrawal request. I am in a net position over £1100 and never had a source of wealth when i'm in a net positive position.

 

[johnnybagel]

Their hands are tied by regulation aren't they?

 

[jasonuk]

Their hands are tied by regulation aren't they?

Yes and no, the UKGC has

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

on what they should and shouldn't do. If the OP is based outside the UKGC jurisdiction (since they mention UK and Ireland), then the following will be useful but may not be directly applicable (NI tend to utilise UKGC guidance but are their own jurisdiction for gambling purposes).

Operators have a tendency to try and strong-arm customers into compliance to make their own lives easier - sometimes referring to Anti-Money Laundering (AML) legislation instead of Customer Due Diligence (CDD) to make it sound scarier, or holding onto the funds for days and weeks citing the process is mandatory (which is only true if you wish to continue playing there).

The UKGC seem to be somewhat of a hypocrite in this regard, because at the time CDD is triggered you are allowed to deposit and bet, but not allowed to withdraw - so customers will inevitably feel aggrieved when the same UKGC states "players must not be asked for information at the point they request a withdrawal from their account if the operator could reasonably have asked for this information at an earlier time."

Anyway, back to CDD:

• Once CDD is triggered, funds are locked - players are allowed to deposit and bet, but not allowed to withdraw.
• If CDD is completed successfully, the funds are unlocked and the account returns to a normal status.
• If CDD cannot be completed or the player refuses, the operator must terminate the business relationship (close your account) - the UKGC are very clear that "this does not prevent money deposited in a customer's gambling account being repaid to the customer" unless there are concerns regarding the origin of funds (as in, they expect to have obligations under the Proceeds Of Crime Act).

So it may take some time and persistence, but you should be paid even if you refuse CDD.

 

[Sirbigwin]

Yes and no, the UKGC has

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

on what they should and shouldn't do. If the OP is based outside the UKGC jurisdiction (since they mention UK and Ireland), then the following will be useful but may not be directly applicable (NI tend to utilise UKGC guidance but are their own jurisdiction for gambling purposes).

Operators have a tendency to try and strong-arm customers into compliance to make their own lives easier - sometimes referring to Anti-Money Laundering (AML) legislation instead of Customer Due Diligence (CDD) to make it sound scarier, or holding onto the funds for days and weeks citing the process is mandatory (which is only true if you wish to continue playing there).

The UKGC seem to be somewhat of a hypocrite in this regard, because at the time CDD is triggered you are allowed to deposit and bet, but not allowed to withdraw - so customers will inevitably feel aggrieved when the same UKGC states "players must not be asked for information at the point they request a withdrawal from their account if the operator could reasonably have asked for this information at an earlier time."

Anyway, back to CDD:

• Once CDD is triggered, funds are locked - players are allowed to deposit and bet, but not allowed to withdraw.
• If CDD is completed successfully, the funds are unlocked and the account returns to a normal status.
• If CDD cannot be completed or the player refuses, the operator must terminate the business relationship (close your account) - the UKGC are very clear that "this does not prevent money deposited in a customer's gambling account being repaid to the customer" unless there are concerns regarding the origin of funds (as in, they expect to have obligations under the Proceeds Of Crime Act).

So it may take some time and persistence, but you should be paid even if you refuse CDD.

Thanks for this. Yes MrQ were allowing me to bet and deposit, but the withdrawals are on hold until the verification is complete. They only disabled me from depositing the day after, because I said I wanted them to send the funds and close my account going forward, but before then there was no limit on deposits.

 

[nfehily]

Their hands are tied by regulation aren't they?

When it suits THEM they are

 

[Sirbigwin]

Is anyone able to help regarding this? It's not even the amount, they're holding my deposited funds, I deposited £200 and wanting to withdraw at a loss (£115), they're not releasing the funds despite me requesting to close the account and terminate the business relationship with them. I might have to go through an ADR, i've never had a casino hold funds during SoW, they've always sent the funds in the meantime. Terrible company

 

[L&L-Jan]

@Sirbigwin its the deposit volume that triggered the request, not that one withdrawal. But why not provide the docs? I do the same at PokerStars and Party each year and i'm not even a UK player.

Just drop them 3 months of bank statement, proof of income and you're done?

 

[Sirbigwin]

@Sirbigwin its the deposit volume that triggered the request, not that one withdrawal. But why not provide the docs? I do the same at PokerStars and Party each year and i'm not even a UK player.

Just drop them 3 months of bank statement, proof of income and you're done?

I shouldn't have to provide documentation for a withdrawal of my own deposit (which I took an £85 loss on), and especially considering i'm in a £1000+ net positive position on the site. I've never had to provide documentation when in a positive position with a casino; with the rare exception of Platin casino which sent me the withdrawal after requesting to close the account. Closing my account and cutting ties with them should be enough for them to return my funds.

 

[Sirbigwin]

Yes and no, the UKGC has

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

on what they should and shouldn't do. If the OP is based outside the UKGC jurisdiction (since they mention UK and Ireland), then the following will be useful but may not be directly applicable (NI tend to utilise UKGC guidance but are their own jurisdiction for gambling purposes).

Operators have a tendency to try and strong-arm customers into compliance to make their own lives easier - sometimes referring to Anti-Money Laundering (AML) legislation instead of Customer Due Diligence (CDD) to make it sound scarier, or holding onto the funds for days and weeks citing the process is mandatory (which is only true if you wish to continue playing there).

The UKGC seem to be somewhat of a hypocrite in this regard, because at the time CDD is triggered you are allowed to deposit and bet, but not allowed to withdraw - so customers will inevitably feel aggrieved when the same UKGC states "players must not be asked for information at the point they request a withdrawal from their account if the operator could reasonably have asked for this information at an earlier time."

Anyway, back to CDD:

• Once CDD is triggered, funds are locked - players are allowed to deposit and bet, but not allowed to withdraw.
• If CDD is completed successfully, the funds are unlocked and the account returns to a normal status.
• If CDD cannot be completed or the player refuses, the operator must terminate the business relationship (close your account) - the UKGC are very clear that "this does not prevent money deposited in a customer's gambling account being repaid to the customer" unless there are concerns regarding the origin of funds (as in, they expect to have obligations under the Proceeds Of Crime Act).

So it may take some time and persistence, but you should be paid even if you refuse CDD.

Hey, can I ask where you found that information regarding CDD? They seem to be ignoring the request to close my account and repay my deposited money, it seems they're not releasing until i've sent documentation. MrQ are some of the worst i've dealt with, L&L were terrible for SoW response times, but luckily didn't have funds on hold.

 

[Guntis]

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

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

 

[jasonuk]

Hey, can I ask where you found that information regarding CDD? They seem to be ignoring the request to close my account and repay my deposited money, it seems they're not releasing until i've sent documentation. MrQ are some of the worst i've dealt with, L&L were terrible for SoW response times, but luckily didn't have funds on hold.

It's linked in the first sentence of that post - "

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

". Much of which will be constrained by the corresponding gambling and AML legislation (which the UKGC links to, albeit lots of legalese).

The one thing I would recommend here is to be patient, as frustrating as that can be. Time and fear are the biggest tools the operators have against you in this situation - and escalating it to a complaint can arguably make it worse (because that can be strung out for 8 weeks before it can go to ADR).

Additionally, they will be on high alert given

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

last month...

While I respect Jan's opinion as an operator, having heard some of the horror stories in terms of data requests and data handling, I can appreciate why customers are unwilling to play that game... if it was clear cut what was required then customers might be more receptive, but in some cases it is being used as a stalling tactic, in others they are likely breaking the law (e.g. the accepted route is sending via unsecured email), and in the rest customers may consider it a considerable overreach.

 

[Sirbigwin]

Thank you both @jasonuk @Guntis , i'll compose an email to them now.

 

[Sirbigwin]

Still not received the funds. I will continue to send them an email every few days requesting to send the money. The email support from the complaints team really has been atrocious.

 

[rackley1005]

How did this end up?

 

[Sirbigwin]

How did this end up?

Hey, I gave up with them in the end. It was the same representative from MrQ responding to the email with a robotic response, wasn't getting anywhere!

 

[essuk]

I have the same issue. Happy to provide id docs but not bank ac access. Have requested a cashback from my bank and raised the issue with the ukgc

 

[essuk]

Worth noting mrq claim it will take 10-12 days to verify your docs which is an absurd time to wait for a withdrawal

 

[TheSchwad]

Still got an £80 withdrawal of mine as refuse to link bank account to the third party app, and they won't action till I do.

 

[jasonuk]

Still got an £80 withdrawal of mine as refuse to link bank account to the third party app, and they won't action till I do.

That is disgusting...

I would never use such apps because they can - and will - hoover up lots of financial information way beyond the scope of the request, and the casino can - and probably will - use that against you.

The "joke" statement that a casino will demand more information than a mortgage is rapidly becoming true... which is scary.

I have the same issue. Happy to provide id docs but not bank ac access. Have requested a cashback from my bank and raised the issue with the ukgc

If you mean a chargeback, that should always be the absolute last resort. It's considered a T&Cs breach at many casinos, so if your bank says no (because the casino can hide behind "it's our regulatory requirements") then you now have a bigger problem because the casino has a way to void your balance.

 

[rackley1005]

I have supplied everything and been told that they will sort within 96 hours… watch this space