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. 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!

plaza win scam

Discussion in 'Casino Complaints - Non-Bonus Issues' started by mouna drissi, Jun 20, 2013.

    Jun 20, 2013
  1. mouna drissi

    mouna drissi Dormant account PABnononaccred

    Occupation:
    house wife
    Location:
    united kingdom
    hello
    I have registered at plazawin mobile casinoand deposited 40 £
    won just under 500 £ and withdrawaled the money.the following day I had a message from plazawin saying that they are gonna send me pnly my deposit because I was registered at their sister casino and self excluded myself.
    I've read their terms and conditions and ther is nothing about sister casinos or not sendinf winnings because of self exclusions in other casinos.its the first time I play at their website so they should send me my money.
    they said the matter was sent to a higher department to review it.but it's taking a long time as they are just looking for reasons to not send me my money abd it's not fair.they r just making me wait and wait.
    I want them to send me my withdrawals back as I didn't breach any of their rules or terms and conditions.
     
  2. Jun 20, 2013
  3. dobbul

    dobbul Experienced Member MM

    Occupation:
    Nurse
    Location:
    Greenock, Scotland. UK
    Hmmmmmm....

    Hi,
    I'm not sure whether they have a legitimate reason for not paying you, given the circumstances you've described. The only advice I can give you is to stick with casinos which are accredited on here; deposit with those instead - but I do hope you get your money :)
     
  4. Jun 20, 2013
  5. mouna drissi

    mouna drissi Dormant account PABnononaccred

    Occupation:
    house wife
    Location:
    united kingdom
    They said they won't pay me.the decision had come from the higher department.
     
  6. Jun 20, 2013
  7. DepositSpinLose

    DepositSpinLose Experienced Member

    Occupation:
    self employed
    Location:
    british columbia
    aaaaaaan daaaaaaaaan

    cmon nifty getem!





    geeeez just jokin to all
     
  8. Jun 20, 2013
  9. vinylweatherman

    vinylweatherman You type well loads CAG MM

    Occupation:
    STILL At Leisure
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    1) Have you actually self excluded at ANY casino?


    It seems they are connected to a group of questionable casinos, but they will not say so.

    This is rogue practice when a casino claims it is not part of any group, but then says it IS when confiscating winnings due to some action at a "sister casino".

    With an active self exclusion, they can argue that they are protecting a problem gambler, but the fact that they hide the connection means they could use this excuse to void winnings by using a term that a player could not possibly know about.

    A self exclusion is NOT the same as merely asking for an account to be closed, it is relating to a player feeling they need help controlling the urge to gamble.

    One problem with self exclusion is that players could easily find somewhere else to play, and there have been calls to introduce a more robust system that helps a self exclusion to be effective at ALL casinos, not just those in a particular group.
     
    1 person likes this.
  10. Jun 20, 2013
  11. mouna drissi

    mouna drissi Dormant account PABnononaccred

    Occupation:
    house wife
    Location:
    united kingdom
    Yes I did self exclude myself from few casinos.but still played in others and self excluded again.but never played at this plaza casino.this is the first timr
     
  12. Jun 20, 2013
  13. lotusch

    lotusch Noob Webby webby PABaccred mm2

    Occupation:
    Fraud & Underwriting Team VRP / YapStone
    Location:
    Dún Dealgan
    Sorry but why do you keep subscribing to casino's while you have slef excluded yourself already a few times in other casino's?
    Seems to me you have an issue with gambling buddy. :cool:
     
  14. Jun 20, 2013
  15. dunover

    dunover Unofficial T&C's Editor Staff Member CAG PABnononaccred PABnonaccred PABinit mm3 webmeister

    Occupation:
    International Money Launderer
    Location:
    the bus shelter, opposite GCHQ Benhall
    This is an iGlobalmedia group casino. This group was quite reputable as far as I know, and are Licensed and based in Gibraltar. They own several Playtech sites and have been around 16 years. They own Party poker, Golden Stars, Ace Club, Star Luck, Planet Lucky, Empire Poker, but most of those are merged now into 'Party Casino'.

    Since then they have these sites:
    VIP Casino, Noble Casino, Enter Casino, Casino Las Vegas, Swiss Casino, 50 Stars, Magic Box Casino, Casino King, CLub Dice and Carnival Casino.

    I would, in all fairness refrain from calling this casino a 'scam' in the thread title until you check your facts - have you in the last 2 years self-excluded from any of those casinos, most likely the biggie there Party Casino? If yes, then it's likely they are within their rights and you have no beef.

    It does however, bring up the same old question:

    'WHY was I allowed to register there with the same old details, deposit and play before my account was only flagged at the time of withdrawing a win?'

    There was another thread recently for an identical situation at another casino.
     
    1 person likes this.
  16. Jun 20, 2013
  17. Blathaon

    Blathaon Meister Member

    Occupation:
    Student
    Location:
    Norway
    The only thing i could find in their terms about this was.

    You must register/login in order to see the link.
     
    1 person likes this.
  18. Jun 20, 2013
  19. mouna drissi

    mouna drissi Dormant account PABnononaccred

    Occupation:
    house wife
    Location:
    united kingdom
    I did deposit with the same details and card.so if I would have lost with them it could have been fine for them.and the self exclusion from the other casinos wouldn't have mattered then.that is why it is a scam
     
  20. Jun 20, 2013
  21. Sovietsky

    Sovietsky Senior Member

    Occupation:
    Live
    Location:
    Swe
    It is an interesting subject. I did close my account at a MG casino (accredited) because I didn't like the choice of the currency so I opened a new account with my prefered cuurency at their sister casino. Is it possible for the sister casino to void my winnings for same reason?
     
  22. Jun 20, 2013
  23. FAZI1

    FAZI1 Experienced Member

    Occupation:
    worker
    Location:
    Punta Cana
    Hm how this player can know - This Place - Plaza Casino is connectect with any Other casino ?
    If somone look on this site - or click in affiliate sections - check IN affiliate->t- Their Brands - See only Plaza casino no other brands.

    So even if they have other brands then - How somone can know this ? they have olso some other brands?

    For me this looks bad and casino shoud pay players winings.

    And if player make in past self exclude for Other casino - (They say casino" from their brands fammily) This still look a little bad .
     
  24. Jun 20, 2013
  25. vinylweatherman

    vinylweatherman You type well loads CAG MM

    Occupation:
    STILL At Leisure
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    This does not cover where a PLAYER asks for an account to be closed. Operators tend to close accounts where they feel the player is "up to something".

    The term also says nothing about "sister casinos".

    They may be doing the right thing here, but only because it suits them.

    A PROPER self exclusion system should trigger at the point of registration, and in some ways this casino has shot themselves in the foot by claiming this was a self exclusion at a "sister casino", because this means they should have known almost the instant the account was registered via internal database checks, so WHY were they more than happy to take money from what they consider a "problem gambler" whilst they were losing, and thus making their problems even worse.

    They are failing in their duty of care in ensuring that "problem gamblers" are not able to gamble at their properties.

    Had there been no win, they would never have had to refund the deposits, and indeed could have made things even worse by sending this player further inducements to deposit and play. For problem gamblers, the REAL problems come when they lose control and spend too much money and can't pay the bills. Catching this only when they win is akin to shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. Many problem gamblers don't even have the willpower to cash out a decent win, and end up losing it back trying for more. These problem gamblers are never going to get caught by the current system, and are going to hit rock bottom before they receive help in stopping.
    This can be very bad for casinos, as it is possible that their regulators will look into how a player with self exclusions on record at other casinos in the group was able to gamble to the point of devastation before the system caught them. There is a requirement to "look for signs" that someone has gambling problems, and a self exclusion from a sister casino is a pretty obvious sign right from the start.

    There have been cases where problem gamblers have sued casinos for not preventing them from playing, and such cases involve examining whether or not it is reasonable for the casino to have known that the player was a problem gambler, rather than merely a high roller. I'd like to see a "couldn't reasonably be expected to know" defence working where there is a self exclusion on file at the same group for that player.
     
  26. Jun 20, 2013
  27. dunover

    dunover Unofficial T&C's Editor Staff Member CAG PABnononaccred PABnonaccred PABinit mm3 webmeister

    Occupation:
    International Money Launderer
    Location:
    the bus shelter, opposite GCHQ Benhall
    This, as I just said, goes back to the old question - does the casino (group) act ex-post-facto due their less-than-stringent checks which allow excluded players to deposit and then base their actions on whether the player wins or loses???

    It is clear that some like 32red/PP/SkyBet/Gala/Virgin/Boyles do it right, like an accredited casino should and void bets REGARDLESS of win or loss on the new account, and return the deposits.

    It is also clear now that some do not. IMO that is more than disingenuous; plain dishonest and a no-lose account for the casino!
     
  28. Jun 20, 2013
  29. Blathaon

    Blathaon Meister Member

    Occupation:
    Student
    Location:
    Norway

    I agree, this was the only thing in their terms that is remotely related to this.
    And yes nowhere in the terms are sister casinos or self exclusion mentioned,
    but with such a vague term as the one i quoted i guess they could say that
    this term also applies if you self excluded.

    Also i might be wrong on this but i don't think any casino has a legal obligation to prevent problem gamblers from playing, Of course most reputable ones do.
     
  30. Jun 20, 2013
  31. vinylweatherman

    vinylweatherman You type well loads CAG MM

    Occupation:
    STILL At Leisure
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    It seems so in this case, because no real checking was needed, everything was clear and on an internal database, yet it was not spotted until withdrawal, therefore a problem gambler check was only performed upon withdrawal, rather than deposit.

    This would depend on their regulator. Any legal obligation would be not absolute, but based on "exercising due care" in making the appropriate checks before taking the bets.
     
    1 person likes this.

Share This Page