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

[MaltesePlayer]

It's a talk to the hand when it's against them and open ears when its in their favor.. Roguish..

 

[Borgie]

I agree. No point if they don't accept the PAB outcome unless it goes their way .

 

[SpinUk]

I agree. No point if they don't accept the PAB outcome unless it goes their way .

I agree, without being all Mafioso about it what they have done - i.e ignore the PAB outcome as its not gone their way is massively disrespectful both to the CM community and also Maxd personally.

It basically makes a mockery of their entire presence here.

Rogue pit without a doubt.

 

[SpinUk]

Duplicate

 

[colinsunderland]

I'm told the case is now with the MGA and Erik says they'll respect the ruling there.

As others have said, should be rouge then, thats 2 places have said they are unfair, 2 times @Erik has ignored them. Also he hasn't answered my question of which term was actually broken. Shouldnt have casinos like that on here when the rep just ignores PAB outcomes.

 

[maxd]

FTR I have no quarrel with a casino disagreeing with our ruling on a PAB. They're perfectly free to do so, as I would be free to post about it when they do.
If it's an Accredited casino though that's a different thing: we hold those casinos to a higher standard and would expect a fair resolution to any case we bring before them.

As to the Term the casino claims the OP broke I was told this was it:

2.13. With regards to deposits and withdrawals of funds into and from your Account, you acknowledge that you shall only use such credit cards and other financial instruments that are valid and issued by lawful institutions and that legally belong to you solely. The use of financial instruments whose ownership is shared with other individuals, is not tolerated and will result in voiding of winnings.

As already mentioned I don't believe the OP did break that Term and in fact I believe it supports his case. The casino sees it differently.

 

[Tirilej]

Since Eric was involved I thought it was an accredited casino, but it's not. I got them mixed up.
If they ever try to get accredited though I suspect we will remember this, so in the long run they will probably lose a lot more than the money they don't won't to pay.

 

[Mouche12]

Roguish indeed, I hope the MGA will rule in favour of the player.

 

[NickG84]

Thanks Maxd and the rest. I have contacted the MGA and they are already on the case. Did not expect them to respond as fast as they did.

Let’s see how this goes.

 

[nutnut]

This is down right theft and disgusting. Business should not be able to operate like this. I hope someone takes them down and that be only justice and karma they deserve(aswell as him being paid).

 

[SpinUk]

For the sake of 5000 euros I would say it wasn't worth tarnishing their reputaion on the two largest gambling consumer sites, particulalry in what isnt an especially tenuous case.

 

[mack341]

For the sake of 5000 euros I would say it wasn't worth tarnishing their reputaion on the two largest gambling consumer sites, particulalry in what isnt an especially tenuous case.

I can't see why they don't pay the 5,000 and then amend their terms to exclude any use of company bank cards if that is what they want and this is nothing to do with being a bad sport and welching on a bet. [no offense intended ]

 

[NickG84]

This is down right theft and disgusting. Business should not be able to operate like this. I hope someone takes them down and that be only justice and karma they deserve(aswell as him being paid).

No need to take them down right away. I’m staying positive. The one thing you can blanke them for is totally ignoring AG and the PAB. There legal department did not do their homework apparently. A thourough review on the matter when a PAB representitive is arbitrating would have be the least they could have done.

I can even use idin here in the netherlands to identify myself through my business account as my name, date of birth etc. comes out of it.

 

[NickG84]

For reference sake. This comes from the dutch goverment. Our tax department, and trust me they don’t fool around!
———
In a sole proprietorship you only drive the company. This is the case if you are self-employed (for example a notary or general practitioner) or if you are the sole owner of your company. ... The sole proprietorship is not a legal entity. If you have a sole proprietorship, you are therefore liable for the debts of your company.
——

Meaning the company is no legal entity only i am. The casino’s reasoning that a company is a legal person is plain wrong.

 

[mack341]

For reference sake. This comes from the dutch goverment. Our tax department, and trust me they don’t fool around!
———
In a sole proprietorship you only drive the company. This is the case if you are self-employed (for example a notary or general practitioner) or if you are the sole owner of your company. ... The sole proprietorship is not a legal entity. If you have a sole proprietorship, you are therefore liable for the debts of your company.
——

Meaning the company is no legal entity only i am. The casino’s reasoning that a company is a legal person is plain wrong.

I think they are playing with semantics, they say the card belongs to the company and then stop there, omitting the fact the company belongs exclusively to you therefore the card belongs exclusively to you.

 

[NickG84]

I think they are playing with semantics, they say the card belongs to the company and then stop there, omitting the fact the company belongs exclusively to you therefore the card belongs exclusively to you.

Yes and i could understand that they would believe that but with a sole propatory that is not the case for it is not a legal entity. In layman terms it does not exist. I have the feeling there legal department mixed something up and is to stubborn to admit it. It could well be an employee being stubborn and not admitting that he or she made a mistake.

Another reference comes from my legal advisor. I had to drop it in Google translate.

—
The sole proprietorship has no legal personality: this means that for the owner of the company, no distinction is legally made between corporate assets and private assets (from a tax perspective there is a distinction).
-

Now i’m no lawyer but in court i think they will 100% lose. The card used has been requested by me personally(all that can be verified through documentation and online services) and i placed my company name on it. (I could have named it Bassie en Adriaan if i wanted) That does not mean that the card belongs to the company (or Bassie en Adriaan) for there is no legal company with any liability.

As max pointed out, if they don’t want cards named with something other then the name on your identification(for kyc purposes) they must explicity state that in there terms. But that term would be fried air as it would not hold up legally.

This to me also sounds like lazy KYC. The dots can be connected fairly easily if you put a employee on it. I’ve been working for a fintech for the last 4 months automating there KYC and online identification and signage and in these cases when legally it is super simple you can completly automate it (here in the netherlands) we are actually building and implementing it in the upcoming weeks.

 

[mack341]

Yes and i could understand that they would believe that but with a sole propatory that is not the case for it is not a legal entity. In layman terms it does not exist. I have the feeling there legal department mixed something up and is to stubborn to admit it. It could well be an employee being stubborn and not admitting that he or she made a mistake.

Another reference comes from my legal advisor. I had to drop it in Google translate.

—
The sole proprietorship has no legal personality: this means that for the owner of the company, no distinction is legally made between corporate assets and private assets (from a tax perspective there is a distinction).
-

Now i’m no lawyer but in court i think they will 100% lose.

Max said the clause in question was:
2.13. With regards to deposits and withdrawals of funds into and from your Account, you acknowledge that you shall only use such credit cards and other financial instruments that are valid and issued by lawful institutions and that legally belong to you solely. The use of financial instruments whose ownership is shared with other individuals, is not tolerated and will result in voiding of winnings.

NB.my use of bold as presumably this is the key issue.

Most people understand the term individual(s) as referring to a person, there are no other individuals in this case. Use of a debit card for a joint bank account would be caught by this term, which is most likely what it is designed to be a measure against.

 

[NickG84]

Use of a debit card for a joint bank account would be caught by this term, which is most likely what it is designed to be a measure against.

Presumably. And if you as a depositer could provide a letter of consent from the different owner in those cases legally they would need to accept it i think.

 

[mack341]

Presumably. And if you as a depositer could provide a letter of consent from the different owner in those cases legally they would need to accept it i think.

I think its more of a deterrent clause, problem gamblers would definitely use a joint bank card but for the casino the money is jointly owned so they can't accept the bets made, if the gambler won the other person who shared ownership of the account would be overjoyed but if they lost a large amount of dough they would want the casino to void the bets because the deposit money wasn't soley owned.

If you had lost your bets and then tried to get the money back claiming it was the company's and not yours I know what the reply would be.

 

[NickG84]

I think its more of a deterrent clause, problem gamblers would definitely use a joint bank card but for the casino the money is jointly owned so they can't accept the bets made, if the gambler won the other person who shared ownership of the account would be overjoyed but if they lost a large amount of dough they would want the casino to void the bets because the deposit money wasn't soley owned.

If you had lost your bets and then tried to get the money back claiming it was the company's and not yours I know what the reply would be.

True. It is a perfectly valid and needed T&C if enfoced correctly.

 

[NickG84]

I just received a reply from the MGA.
—
Dear Mr. Groenewegen,



Further to the below case, please be informed that we have received information from the representative of SuprPlay Limited (

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

) who have informed the MGA that they have refunded all your deposits as per their Terms and Conditions stated below (

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

):

2.13. With regards to deposits and withdrawals of funds into and from your Account, you acknowledge that you shall only use such credit cards and other financial instruments that are valid and issued by lawful institutions and that legally belong to you solely. The use of financial instruments whose ownership is shared with other individuals, is not tolerated and will result in voiding of winnings.

4.7. You acknowledge that you shall only use debit or credit cards and other financial instruments that are valid and lawfully belong to you solely. The use of financial instruments whose ownership is shared with other individuals, is not tolerated and will result in voiding of winnings.

Please note that as for compliance reasons a company irrespective of whether it is wholly owned or not it is still a separate person from the individual who own it or manage it. Kindly note that it is irrelevant as legally the company is a distinct person having separate juridical personality.



We therefore trust that the case is closed.
—

In short they judge in favor of the casino because the casino misinforms them.

I really can’t believe how hard it is to look up laws and check them. Offcourse i replied providing information but it seems only court can make the final decision and that the provider is hoping for me to water off.

 

[Tirilej]

A clear case of stubborn individuals who works at a casino who doesn't know what they are doing, and who also send the wrong information to MGA. It's a sad case.

Max have already stated a warning about them so in case it's not possible to make MGA see the truth then I guess we just have to keep warning players that they might not be a safe place.
It's sad since I´ve always seen Eric as an honest person but maybe he isn't one of the people in charge there as I thought he was.

 

[TheAverageGuy]

This decision is ludicrous at best.

A sole proprietorship is not and should not be considered a separate legal entity,
the laws of the country the business is registered in state as much.

There are many distinctions between sole proprietorships and corporations,
most applicable here is that a corporation IS a separate entity under the law.. a sole proprietorship IS NOT.

Personally I have always disagreed with Corporations being considered separate people under the law (though they are) because it allows a corporation all the rights afforded an individual while assuming none of the consequences and provides a legal loophole for malfeasance ..

in this case, the reverse seems true..

the casino seems intent on creating/exploiting a legal loophole, assigning corporation status to a private individual/sole proprietorship for the sole purpose of forcing them to assume the consequences. (while pointing to a clause that entirely relies on the individual being considered a corporation for it to even begin to apply to the situation)

Ludicrous.

The fact that the MGA agreed with the Casino is a sad sad signal to players everywhere.

 

[mack341]

I just received a reply from the MGA.
—
Dear Mr. Groenewegen,



Further to the below case, please be informed that we have received information from the representative of SuprPlay Limited (

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

) who have informed the MGA that they have refunded all your deposits as per their Terms and Conditions stated below (

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

):

2.13. With regards to deposits and withdrawals of funds into and from your Account, you acknowledge that you shall only use such credit cards and other financial instruments that are valid and issued by lawful institutions and that legally belong to you solely. The use of financial instruments whose ownership is shared with other individuals, is not tolerated and will result in voiding of winnings.

4.7. You acknowledge that you shall only use debit or credit cards and other financial instruments that are valid and lawfully belong to you solely. The use of financial instruments whose ownership is shared with other individuals, is not tolerated and will result in voiding of winnings.

Please note that as for compliance reasons a company irrespective of whether it is wholly owned or not it is still a separate person from the individual who own it or manage it. Kindly note that it is irrelevant as legally the company is a distinct person having separate juridical personality.



We therefore trust that the case is closed.
—

In short they judge in favor of the casino because the casino misinforms them.

I really can’t believe how hard it is to look up laws and check them. Offcourse i replied providing information but it seems only court can make the final decision and that the provider is hoping for me to water off.

I'm afraid you've received the typical biased ombudsman verdict, they never give any detailed reasoning on purpose to give you less to challenge their ruling. [which also would cost a lot and can only be done via a court]
If it were me I would write back a scathing letter to the individual who wrote to you, just so its on the record, and then move on with life.

I have experienced very bad bias from the Local government ombudsman and legal ombudsman here in the UK, corrupt b'stards... there it still rankles me.

 

[NickG84]

I'm afraid you've received the typical biased ombudsman verdict, they never give any detailed reasoning on purpose to give you less to challenge their ruling. [which also would cost a lot and can only be done via a court]
If it were me I would write back a scathing letter to the individual who wrote to you, just so its on the record, and then move on with life.

I have experienced very bad bias from the Local government ombudsman and legal ombudsman here in the UK, corrupt b'stards... there it still rankles me.

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.