Need help/advice with a dispute i am having with Voodoo Dreams

[mack341]

Yes i already replied to the MGA representitive. Mayby hè will act on it mayby not.

For voodoodreams this is exactly what they want. They know that 99% of the people wont follow up and take it to court. I’ll wait a few for the MGA representitive to respond before i start the court case.

My patience is running out.

If you've got the money and believe in the principle enough to take it court then good on you and I hope you win.

 

[pinnit2014]

Surely the spirit of this term is about stopping fraud etc. To rule like they did, getting into the realms of company law, is pure semantics.

There’s a term in company law called ‘piercing the veil’, which basically means looking at a Co. and seeing who it is/behind it. In this case it’s quite obviously you.

 

[vinylweatherman]

So, if a player LOST having used their sole proprietorship account to deposit, the same would apply, bets voided and deposits refunded due to a breach of this term. As this is very common in the Netherlands, there may be a fair few players due a refund.

 

[stokes]

Typical MGA complaint handling. I had a very similar experience with them, I even had to write this to them:

"It is no use to have a complaint handling at MGA if you don't go into details and accept everything what a casino says."

Don't expect any further answer from them after their verdict:

"Malta Gaming Authority will not be in a position to provide you with further support concerning this matter and will not enter into further dispute about this case."

They don't bite the hand that feeds them.

 

[colinsunderland]

Typical MGA complaint handling. I had a very similar experience with them, I even had to write this to them:

"It is no use to have a complaint handling at MGA if you don't go into details and accept everything what a casino says."

Don't expect any further answer from them after their verdict:

"Malta Gaming Authority will not be in a position to provide you with further support concerning this matter and will not enter into further dispute about this case."

They don't bite the hand that feeds them.

Which is most likely the reason @Erik ignored the decisions of both here and elsewhere and only accepted the one that went his way.
Nothing but theft, disgusting behavior from a casino and I hope people finding this thread through google release they are thieves and don't play there. Lets pop a couple of things here to get it higher in google ranks
Voodoodreams casino review
Voodoodreams casino bonus
Voodoodreams casino not paying
Voodoodreams casino

 

[Mouche12]

I hope we can add to this list: Voodoodreams brought to court and sentenced to pay winnings

 

[Harry_BKK]

I hope we can add to this list: Voodoodreams brought to court and sentenced to pay winnings

I see no other verdict TBH.

The card is in the name of the OP in the bank records, it only has the company name typed on it. That's actually one "downside" of S.P.'s, anything bank related impacts your personal credit score and when things go south you are liable with all your personal wealth.

 

[mack341]

so my understanding is he's opened an account in his personal name and when he made a deposit he used 'his' sole trader business card which is only used and owned by himself. His business and personal account are directly linked so he can at any time transfer funds between them but due to the urge to have a quick deposit he used the business card [perhaps at that time he had more of 'his' money to use available on that card] he didn't forsee this to be a problem as he was still using 'his' money no one elses. Where is the harm to the casino in the chain of events that they must void his winnings?

 

[maxd]

That's the point, there is no harm. As I've said before the decent solution would have been to pay him, modify the Terms to be more explicit and move on. No harm done.

As it is they're left defending this ridiculous legalese about a company being a "person" -- which may not even be true in the player's jurisdiction -- and thereby the player is in violation of "sole holder" Terms. If that isn't a crap excuse for refusing to pay winnings, not to mention being a monumentally bad idea, then I'm Santa Claus and my fluffy cat is the Queen of Sheba.

 

[Harry_BKK]

so my understanding is he's opened an account in his personal name and when he made a deposit he used 'his' sole trader business card which is only used and owned by himself. His business and personal account are directly linked so he can at any time transfer funds between them but due to the urge to have a quick deposit he used the business card [perhaps at that time he had more of 'his' money to use available on that card] he didn't forsee this to be a problem as he was still using 'his' money no one elses. Where is the harm to the casino in the chain of events that they must void his winnings?

No harm whatsoever.

VoodooDreams' legal team seems to insist that in their view a "sole proprietorship" is a legal entity, which it is not. The person owning the S.P. is the legal entity in any disputes.

 

[SpinUk]

No harm whatsoever.

VoodooDreams' legal team seems to insist that in their view a "sole proprietorship" is a legal entity, which it is not. The person owning the S.P. is the legal entity in any disputes.

Exactly - for their amateur hour legal team:

Look up a limitied company definition.
Now look up sole proprietorship.
Now pause and reflect the key differances.
Now pay the player.

Or what you could do is ignore basic legal /business terms that have been around for about 100 years, continue treating your players with contempt, still exploit the forums for a bit of free PR when you feel like it and act like nothings happened.

Oh you took the second option. Nice of you.

 

[NickG84]

The saddest thing in everything is that i just received a talk to the hand from the MGA. Aren’t they suposed to protect us against these practices? Seems like there still as useless and corrupt as they have always been. Thank god for communities like casinomeister.

—
Dear Mr. Groenewegen,

Please be informed that the MGA's Player Support Unit is expressly a mediatory platform and does not offer arbitration. In simple terms, unless an operator breaches the remote gaming regulations (S.L.438.04) which is the law that governs remote/online gaming, the MGA cannot trigger enforcement procedures against the operator but will seek to conduct a negotiation process between the parties where such is warranted. Your statutory rights are unaffected and you are free to seek legal counsel in relation to your case.

 

[NickG84]

@Erik From a business point perspective i would question the competence of your legal team as what would happen if shit really hits the fan? If mistakes are made on these simplest of legal cases i would not feel so confident about the legal SOP owner.

 

[NickG84]

I have just wrote another email to the MGA with some simple facts. I'm hoping they will fact check as a neutral party. If not then it is clear that the MGA is in the casino's pockets. From a business perspective this is a monumental failure on behalf of SuprPlay Limited. They are wrong in every aspect in this dispute.

I will take this to court if the MGA fails but i will take my time to prepare as much as possible and make sure all EU legal entities(European Consumer Centre etc.) will have this on record. Forcing a person to go to court in such a trivial matter is highly unprofessional and incompetent.

---
Dear ****,

I would like to point you out to:

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

'section liability'.

The provider is therefore incorrectly assigning corporation status to my sole proprietorship in order to void winnings. There T&C is perfectly reasonable and needed but in this specific case it is incorrectly enforced. Therefore i am in believe that they did/do not comply to the remote gaming regulations when it comes down to providing appropriate services. The provider has failed there KYC and legal duty. And i would like to point out to

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

I'm reaching out to the MGA in the hope that the MGA will act as neutral party and fact check said case.

Best regards,

Nick Groenewegen.

---

 

[mack341]

I have just wrote another email to the MGA with some simple facts. I'm hoping they will fact check as a neutral party. If not then it is clear that the MGA is in the casino's pockets. From a business perspective this is a monumental failure on behalf of SuprPlay Limited. They are wrong in every aspect in this dispute.

I will take this to court if the MGA fails but i will take my time to prepare as much as possible and make sure all EU legal entities(European Consumer Centre etc.) will have this on record. Forcing a person to go to court in such a trivial matter is highly unprofessional and incompetent.

---
Dear ****,

I would like to point you out to:

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

'section liability'.

The provider is therefore incorrectly assigning corporation status to my sole proprietorship in order to void winnings. There T&C is perfectly reasonable and needed but in this specific case it is incorrectly enforced. Therefore i am in believe that they did/do not comply to the remote gaming regulations when it comes down to providing appropriate services. The provider has failed there KYC and legal duty. And i would like to point out to

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

I'm reaching out to the MGA in the hope that the MGA will act as neutral party and fact check said case.

Best regards,

Nick Groenewegen.

---

This MGA response is worse than the uk ombudsmen I've experienced, who will normally layout the two different positions [yours and the casino's] and then give their brief reasoning for which one their plumping for. I hope you can take it through the netherlands court system as malta is part of the EU, maybe you could write to your mep as it is a issue with an official regulator in another member state, who does not accept the netherlands definition of a sole proprietorship, but accepts the casino's definition, in a consumer dispute.

 

[NickG84]

What do you mean with MEP?

I might be inclined to hire a Maltese law firm to handle the case as it will probably be handled by the matese First Hall of the Civil Court.

Thank god i’m insured for these matters.

 

[ed skull murphy]

Malta is also a common law land, so you could maybe explore that avenue.

It could be as easy as exchanging a few simple but well-crafted letters with the man or woman (you would need a name) who also acts as managing director, and then presenting those exchanges as exhibits in a common law claim, along with transaction details from your account, and evidence of your sole trader status.

It would be a lot cheaper than hiring a local lawyer, who would more than likely just throw you under the bus anyway.

Common law is just common sense, using basic, simple language while making sure to avoid using any legalese terms, two or three sentences maximum, using no embellishments or otherwise extraneous words.

All the complicated stuff you can present as exhibits, but keep the letters and the claim itself simple.

PS: Letters need to be hand written, signed and sent by registered post, keep copies of the ones you have sent.

 

[mack341]

What do you mean with MEP?

I might be inclined to hire a Maltese law firm to handle the case as it will probably be handled by the matese First Hall of the Civil Court.

Thank god i’m insured for these matters.

A MEP is a member of the european parliament : Outdated URL (Invalid)

Glad you've got insurance.

I suppose you could have a bit of a holiday in malta and do the court hearing at the same time.

I think possibly if consumers have to use the maltese court system to challenge a casino decision, then that's precisely why some of these casinos behave the way they do knowing the extra hassle and cost will deter most people. If the Casino are able to offer remote gambling to dutch consumers, where is the eu consumer protection if you can only take your legal dispute to court in malta when you [the consumer] are in the Netherlands.

On this logic heaven forbid anyone challenging a decision by a curacao licensed casino, you would have to fly thousands of miles to south america. Just had a thought ... maybe you don't actually need to be physically present in malta to have your case heard there?

 

[TheAverageGuy]

um... what??

So your first statement is yes, you're right, you and the company are one in the same.
Then the second statement says.. but your credit card is in a different name?

If both names are the same person.... how are the TOS violated??

This statement alone should be all the evidence you need to support a court case....

Wow..

 

[ed skull murphy]

Upon further investigation, I find that the law system in Malta is a unique mixture of Roman civil law, common law, and with aspects of English law also absorbed:

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

Perhaps it would be just as well to find an honest lawyer to help you out, as long as your insurance will cover it.

 

[mack341]

to find an honest lawyer

That's a challenge right there, my experience is be very careful but as its the insurance firm paying the bill maybe its less likely the lawyer will inflate their fees or give duff advice.

Edit: no offence to ternur intended, my view is only of the british legal system and practioners, overcharging here is commonplace practice so much that we have specialist cost lawyers and courts to go over solicitor's bills.

 

[NickG84]

Since it will be a civil court case and the case is simplistic i might be able to represent myself. I'm slowly gathering information from practitioners and my insurance on what the next steps will be.

 

[NickG84]

um... what??

So your first statement is yes, you're right, you and the company are one in the same.
Then the second statement says.. but your credit card is in a different name?

If both names are the same person.... how are the TOS violated??

This statement alone should be all the evidence you need to support a court case....

Wow..

And there T&C actually helps my statement. They have turned this into a complete wtf. I don't understand why @Erik is allowing them to damage there reputation as much as there doing.

 

[NickG84]

Upon further investigation, I find that the law system in Malta is a unique mixture of Roman civil law, common law, and with aspects of English law also absorbed:

[LINKHL]3334[/LINKHL]

Perhaps it would be just as well to find an honest lawyer to help you out, as long as your insurance will cover it.

Thank you for all the information!