vinylweatherman
You type well loads
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2004
- Location
- United Kingdom
But we're talking two years here, not just six months...
We need more info from the OP on WHY he just decided to let this linger. Maybe he ASSUMED the withdrawal would be processed eventually, and was just incredibly patient. So patient that he ended up forgetting all about the withdrawal.
I keep records of my pending withdrawals, date, amount, and casino. I cross them off once I have confirmed receipt. I also know roughly how long withdrawals are meant to take.
Despite this, through an oversight I have occasionally forgotten to add a withdrawal to my list, only remembering it a while later. It is quite possible that this player did simply forget in the end, and only remembered some time later, and had kept no records.
I also keep records of all accounts I have ever opened, and where, and the total of all deposits and withdrawals per casino.
Although this player left it an exceptionally long time, discussion seems to point to Rushmore making no effort to get in touch with this player to give him a chance to prevent the account becoming dormant.
Most casinos that do deactivate a dormant account WILL return the funds to the player if asked, and say that the removal from the account, and it's deactivation, is merely to PROTECT the player's funds from unauthorised access. These casinos have NO INTENTION of profiting from dormant funds.
I would like to hear from Rushmore what efforts were made to contact this player before the decision was made that he was uncontactable, and the account was deactivated.
Given the wealth of personal info we have to give upon registration, not just email, but our postal address, and phone number, I find it hard to believe that the casino had no means to contact the player long before this situation reached 2 years. They could have easily used the post if emails didn't seem to work, or even phoned the player.
Removal of funds on a permanent basis should be a LAST RESORT, and something that a casino "almost never does" in practice.
Perhaps this is something we missed in the recent discussion of what standards should be set for accredited casinos. We dealt with many things, but how dormant accounts are dealt with I don't recall being one.
Had I thought of it, I would have suggested allowing the casino to cover it's costs for keeping a dormant account on the books, and any costs in tracing the player, but that they should NOT simply take the entire balance as pure profit after a set period of time - this only encourages them to take a minimal approach to tracing the player for fear of being too thorough, and losing the chance to pocket a profit.