Probably meant 32Red Plc accounts - 32red, Dash, Golden Lounge, Nedplay.
Yes, I agree this is very disappointing. It was a business decision based on the fact that flushing accounts is costly,
especially when people (me included) would have the balance flushed, and then redeposit maybe in the same day ( when I could have just reversed some of it). There are payment processing costs for each transaction. So blame it on me. Sorry.
The rules in almost every casino REQUIRE players to do this, and telling the casinos that it would save them processing costs to allow reversals to count as fresh deposits under the rules always falls on deaf ears.
The silly fresh deposit rules have always been around, casinos have brought this on themselves, so shouldn't complain about players now having gotten into the habit of having their withdrawal flushed and then making a fresh deposit almost straight away.
Even the change to allowing partial reversals rather than all or nothing was "ignorant", as the real problem was the fresh deposit rules, not whether or not you could easily reverse portions of a withdrawal.
In the long term, there is always going to be a cost for a deposit, whether it's done today, tomorrow, or next week. A casino is not going to make any money from a player until they make a deposit, so by delaying their deposits by a day or two simply means that less is deposited overall in any given time frame.
This is again "corporate speak", and this excuse has been trotted out year after year, yet whenever it is suggested that simple rule changes could get players reversing parts of recent withdrawals for the next day's deposit, casinos just don't want to know.
Perhaps there should be an effort to persuade the UKGC to outright ban the practice of players being able to reverse all or part of a previous withdrawal as a "responsible gambling measure". If this happened, I bet the arguments about processing costs being the reason for ever longer pending periods would evaporate very quickly, and casinos would have to compete for fresh deposits only, leaving them with the only way of winning money back from a player being to persuade them to deposit again whilst they are still enjoying the "rush" of having had a decent win. This would be best achieved by paying out the winnings faster than the player comes down from the high of winning.
As an industry, they can also put the squeeze on the banks and other financial institutions over the excessive charges. The EU has already made a start by attacking the high fees being charged by the banks on card transactions. They want these fees limited to the actual costs of making the transaction, plus a reasonable level of profit. This would mean pennies in the case of the 99.9% that are processed electronically by payment terminals, not the pounds now charged on larger transactions due to calculating a fee based on a percentage of the amount, rather than the cost of transacting.
One downside would be a likely end to all these incentives to use a particular card over another or cash. For businesses like casinos, this would be an end to players being able to make a couple of percent purely through "churning" their money in and out of casinos with no real intent to play, which I understand can be a HUGE problem in terms of generating excessive processing costs with no real chance of making money from the player. However, casinos already protect themselves from this by making players actually play the money deposited, else face recovery of the charges upon withdrawal, which would negate any money they can generate through the perks being offered by any particular card or wallet provider. They don't need to add in pending periods, which for players with large bankrolls isn't much of a deterrent in any case as they don't tend to find themselves relying upon casino A paying out quickly in order to play casinos B and C the next day.