Hi Dan, sorry for the delay but i was travelling yesterday plus it has taken a little time to work through the timeline of this and also to go through the customer service chats too to understand what happened.
As you know there is a very changing landscape with almost daily recommendations and interpretations of what the UKGC want. Our latest understanding and procedure is that wherever possible we return funds to the originating payment source to "close the loop". However when your initial withdrawal was processed, our procedures were that we could process funds back via Trustly to your Bank Account as we had the required documentation we needed from you.
We are clear in the description of the Withdrawal Lock that this is one situation that it doesnt cater for (funds returned to the account for failed or refused withdrawal) and it cannot be locked as there is no withdrawal requested at that time. I also went through the chat logs that you had and whilst the above could have been explained better, Amy also told you that if you requested your withdrawal again via Visa then she would have the payments team process it there and then.
I am sorry that you find yourself in this situation due to changes in policy that have occurred in a relatively short space of time and how that has affected you. I have added something to your rewards account by way of an apology for the low level of experience that you received
Given how hot the UKGC have become on these issues, you may actually be walking into another issue by operating what is perceived by players as a RG measure in this manner. The argument would be that if there was absolutely no option for the player to choose a withdrawal method, then there is no reason not to simply redirect the withdrawal to the only permissible method, which would achieve the exact same result but in addition would also maintain the RG capability of the "lock withdrawal" function.
Given how often the issue comes up where a player has made a withdrawal, but having had problems getting the casino to process it has ended up giving in to temptation upon seeing the money staring at them from their login page, I would not be surprised if this is something that will be next on the list for examination, and possibly may already be part of the current examination into whether players are facing unnecessary and even deliberate obstacles to withdrawals in an attempt by casinos to keep the money in play.
This "closed loop" system also has a flaw. Sometimes, a player will no longer have access to the initial deposit method, they may have switched banks, had their card replaced, etc. This can cause a withdrawal to end up "in limbo" in the banking systems, being bounced back to the casino because the account is no longer active, or simply delayed for several days because bank staff have to manually retrieve it from a now closed account and forward it. To the player, this will look like they are being "jerked around" by the casino, especially if they have been lead to believe they have a choice, or they have notified the casino that their original deposit details are no longer valid.
Although it's the player's responsibility not to play off a balance in frustration and then blame someone else, it is becoming pretty clear that the UKGC IS placing the burden of responsibility of preventing this more and more onto the casino operator though the ever more intrusive RG measures that are being introduced.
