Should My Bank Have Done More?

[jasonuk]

Regarding the MC statement - it sounds like that may cover most of the scenarios, particularly any use of the "chips" or balance is covered (e.g. people filing fraudulent chargebacks because they lost).

It's worth mentioning with the change in liability rules for VISA/MC, it forces them to tighten up because that money can leave the system faster than before (via improved merchant rights). Otherwise, banks have to deal with more gambling-related complaints and potentially be chasing ghosts because a merchant could have cleaned out the balance long before the chargeback procedure comes to a conclusion. There's a reason the rogue casinos keep stalling out players for weeks and months...

If the "casino" is an outright scam, then the intent was to participate in gambling (which is the first part), but you can demonstrate that it isn't a gambling account (which is the last part) - so perhaps there's a little more wiggle room. Also as dunover mentions, the law takes priority so those rights are not eroded in situations such as this.

Much like self-exclusion fraud of recent years, chargeback fraud has been a problem in the gambling sector for decades at this point... both for the operators, and for the card providers - and that headache has only increased as criminals on both sides (fraudulent operators and fraudulent players) have accelerated that trend.

 

[Guntis]

OP, check the FOS site - they're apparently familiar with cases like yours. If you dig through it a bit, you might find out what to expect.

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

:

Going through these PDFs could also give you an idea of what to do:

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

.

You'll see many cases are from people on Gamstop who are essentially just trying to get their money back because they lost. But there are also cases where people got some money back because casinos circumvented gambling blocks by using incorrect MCC codes, and the banks were made to pay. Like the case here -

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

- where NatWest had to refund 70% of the disputed transactions plus 8% interest.

 

[Disconet]

Any updates on this one? Did the OP manage to go through with a chargeback, hopefully some good news.

 

[Lucky Loser]

Just accept your losses and move on.

Banks aren't the money spending police and the attempted card chargebacks will get declined for good reason.

 

[Avernite]

Just accept your losses and move on.

Banks aren't the money spending police and the attempted card chargebacks will get declined for good reason.

Bit harsh.

Banks aren't exactly innocent here either (it's not rocket science to see what's going on), and operators who deliberately use incorrect merchant codes need to be held to account.

 

[Disconet]

Just accept your losses and move on.

Banks aren't the money spending police and the attempted card chargebacks will get declined for good reason.

Lol disagree with this completely. There are allot of variables and also a chargeback doesnt affect the banks its merely a tool for the OP to recover his money from the shady casinos. Bleed them dry for all I care.

 

[Educated_ant]

It's been a slow process. I have a complaint with Lloyds which was initially rejected but has been escalated to a higher team and they seem to be taking it seriously. Had a lot of dialogue with them and they seem sympathetic to what happened but whether they decide it's something to compensate on, I don't know.

Chargeback dispute is also ongoing and taking some time. Will update when I know more.

 

[Educated_ant]

Another update on this. My bank are sympathising with me in regards to a scam case if I can prove Donbet (or whenever they have advertised as Santeda International) are not a legit company. Do they actually have a license in Curacao? I've seen some suggest online that it's a fake license? I've already proven via the gambling commission that they don't have one in the UK.

Has anyone got any evidence, past experience or anything they've seen online about Donbet or Santeda operating as a scam casino in not actually doing what they should in terms of rules, regulations and licenses?

 

[conker]

@mulven is very hot on this subject. If he is about I am sure he will share some of his knowledge on this subject.

Glad to hear you are getting somewhere - hopefully you can keep going!

 

[mulven]

Another update on this. My bank are sympathising with me in regards to a scam case if I can prove Donbet (or whenever they have advertised as Santeda International) are not a legit company. Do they actually have a license in Curacao? I've seen some suggest online that it's a fake license? I've already proven via the gambling commission that they don't have one in the UK.

Has anyone got any evidence, past experience or anything they've seen online about Donbet or Santeda operating as a scam casino in not actually doing what they should in terms of rules, regulations and licenses?

It's a valid licence, I believe they hide it from UK players. Unfortunately this seems to be a common practice among quite a few GCB licencees and theres no sign of it being cracked down on. In lieu of the actual company the footer/terms will either be left blank or in some cases replaced with a costa rica company. In Santeda's case they actually keep their name their but use old copy on purpose that mentions their previous sub-licence from 1668/JAZ (Curacao E-Gaming, one of the five old master licences). On the proper website the terms and conditions are changed and properly cite the new GCB licence.

They are technically a legitimate company however hiding their licence while taking illegal play is a very rogue practice.

It's displayed properly in other markets.

I'll hyperlink when I get home. In LIDL.

EDIT:

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

This footer was obtained by visiting with a VPN

This footer was obtained by visiting with my actual IP (UK)

 

[Educated_ant]

Many thanks for this. This is all very helpful.

Can I ask, why would Donbet/Santeda do this? What benefit to them is showing an old license for UK customers and then something else when under a VPN?

If they are illegally accepting customers from the UK, what difference does it even make as neither license would presumably be backed by the UK gambling commission?

 

[Avernite]

Many thanks for this. This is all very helpful.

Can I ask, why would Donbet/Santeda do this? What benefit to them is showing an old license for UK customers and then something else when under a VPN?

If they are illegally accepting customers from the UK, what difference does it even make as neither license would presumably be backed by the UK gambling commission?

Presumably it's a feeble attempt at not losing their CGB license, as they may crack down harder on casinos going after the US/UK market.

 

[mulven]

Many thanks for this. This is all very helpful.

Can I ask, why would Donbet/Santeda do this? What benefit to them is showing an old license for UK customers and then something else when under a VPN?

If they are illegally accepting customers from the UK, what difference does it even make as neither license would presumably be backed by the UK gambling commission?

As Avernite said it's an attempt to shield their licence while taking illegal play.

They don't need a UK licence to be legitimate and not a scam, however without one it does mean taking UK players is illegal. Unfortunately I don't think thats what your bank need.

 

[Disconet]

Many thanks for this. This is all very helpful.

Can I ask, why would Donbet/Santeda do this? What benefit to them is showing an old license for UK customers and then something else when under a VPN?

If they are illegally accepting customers from the UK, what difference does it even make as neither license would presumably be backed by the UK gambling commission?

 

[Educated_ant]

At the beginning of this thread I mentioned that I had lost £80k+ in a few days with an unlicensed overseas casino and had contacted my bank about chargebacks as they were done on my debit card. I have put in a dispute with my bank because PH Casino are knowingly advertising to and accepting UK customers and withholding payments due to their "Swagger level" ladder. I.e. - the limits what you can withdraw based on how much money you deposit, not something that the UKGC would allow.

My bank agreed on putting through a dispute for me. Right up until the deadline to respond (literally hours before it expired), PH replied to my bank suggesting that because I accepted their T&Cs, I should not be due anything. I found their arguments really weak to be fair but nevertheless they have challenged it, which feels ballsy considering they are not supposed to accept customers from the UK. And presumably VISA/Lloyds shouldn't knowingly allow these transactions either.

I've got 10 days to respond to their rebuttal. As I say, their arguments feel week and ignored much of what I highlighted but obviously I'm not a solicitor. And probably not many on this forum are.

My question is, considering that there's potentially £80k here at stake, should I seek a solicitor on perhaps a no win no fee to look over my case over a few hours and write my response to Lloyds? If this cost me 10-20%, it may be worth it to them and very much worth it to me if it gets me my money back.

Hiring a solicitor who would likely charge me £1k+ if it was a normal basis is obviously risky if I get nothing. And may not be necessary if it's possible I'm going to win anyway? And is this even anything a solicitor would ever do? I hear about solicitors doing this with romance scams/fraud etc, i.e. - contacting banks on your behalf. Is this a field they would too?

I've not done this before. If my bank is siding with me to the point they allowed me to put the case together and have given me a further chance at a rebuttal, that has to be a good thing right?

Don't know if anyone has ever experienced this before. Just very surprised the merchant is challenging me when presumably their own bank would not want illegal payments being filtered through them?

 

[Guntis]

Maybe try

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

- at least to see what they say, there is a live chat option in the corner. To find similar services, search for "gambling chargeback solicitors." Just prepare a concise, to the point message and send it to them all.

 

[Educated_ant]

Thanks for that. I've spoke to a few solicitors and got a bit nervous about paying essentially a few K to reply to my bank, with absolutely no guarantee it will help.

Has anyone on this forum ever done what I've suggested? Hire a solicitor to try and engage with a bank over chargeback? Is it as mad an idea as it sounds? I can't find anything at all on google for gambling chargeback solicitor searches.

Also, has anyone got any experience in a chargeback request rebuttal from a casino providing illegal transactions? I honestly thought it would have been a pass/fail procedure when I made my initial claim. I can reply easy enough myself to most of the points raised (i.e. - the merchant saying that "it's the customer's responsibility to ensure gambling is legal in their jurisdiction" - which is fine - but they are using that to suggest it's the customer's responsibility to ensure the operator they use is a legal company to do so, which isn't the case according to UKGC - and stuff like the withdrawal limits not being in their T&C) but I don't know how close I am to being refunded here and don't want to lose the best chance of getting a substantial amount of money returned because I miss a key argument.

How are these disputes usually adjudicated? Is the fact my bank has given me another opportunity to provide more evidence a good thing?

I'm just stunned a company involved in illegal transactions is openly challenging a chargeback like this.

 

[essuk]

Im going through something similar. Based on your posts ( so I may be wrong here but from my interpretation of what you wrote) I think youre missing a number of key points. Given the size of the claim I personally would engage a solicitor as you cant afford to get things wrong. To pick a simple point. From what you write Im not sure if you are aware that according to my bank your bank's feeling on the matter is ultimately irrelevant. I believe its a good inidicator of the strength of your claim as they deal with large volumes of chargebacks and should know the rules very well. However if the merchant doesnt accept the dispute its my understanding from the bank that ultimately its VISA who determines the outcome not your bank. The point being are you relying on the fact you think the bank supports you?
My big concern is how much new info/factors you are allowed to introduce at this point in the proceedings.
There are a lot of case specific factors that I believe need to be considered.
Please note Im not a solicitor so nothing written is meant to be legal advice.
My personal feeling is with such a large claim you need to make sure your are covering all the points correctly and advancing the right basis for your claim....they got Al Capone on tax avoidance rather than say murder or bribery.

 

[Betreels Casino & Sports]

Did you get a letter from the UKGC stating this casino was operating without a UKGC license? If yes, then your bank should be able to use that and *do the chargebacks for you. If no, then try and get one asap.

If all else fails, then please hire a Solicitor, to issue a letter of demand to the bank. You can use AI to draft the letter (to save costs) and your solicitor can send it, along with all evidence gathered, to the bank/s and the Financial Ombudsman.

*note: as the casino is aware of your chargeback attempt, there is strong likelihood, they have emptied and closed the account where the money went. Not sure what a bank does in this event. Read more

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

 

[Educated_ant]

Yeah I provided the UKGC's message in regards to PlayHub in my initial dispute with my bank. My bank then put in a dispute (which I think is a chargeback??) but then the merchant has challenged it with a rebuttal. I have then been given 10 days to respond to their response.

I guess I'm just in a situation I didn't expect to be in where I have to provide more evidence. It just feels more real somehow. I don't want to miss any key argument I could include in my response. Maybe it's because I feel close to winning as the bank initially were on my side (I think?) with the chargeback, so they must think I have a strong claim.

 

[Educated_ant]

In relation to this, does anyone know why they don't have a full license and only an "application" of license? What is the difference fundamentally if they are still able to operate anyway?

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

 

[mulven]

In relation to this, does anyone know why they don't have a full license and only an "application" of license? What is the difference fundamentally if they are still able to operate anyway?

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

Certificate of operation is given to casinos whilst their application is in progress.

A licence is given once their application has been approved.

P*rnhub casino have a certificate of operation from GCB not yet a licence.

Pertaining to your case there is not a difference between the two

 

[Educated_ant]

Like a provisional drivers license? But in this case the casino can effectively do everything a fully licensed one can?

 

[essuk]

My understanding is that the merchants bank is liable to pay the cashback ie if you win the chargeback claim you get paid but not an expert so may be wrong.
Also is the mere fact they are operating illegally enough to win a charge back? In my case I used this as only a tertiary reason. You could ask VISA on that one. Im not sure if VISA gets involved in awarding chargebacks on questions of legality as it could involve a lot of legal stuff and a can of worms - but if you ask them they should be able to tell you. My fear is they will deny the chargeback on the basis of it being a legal dispute. In other words do you need a stronger basis for your claim than just simply they were unlicenced? I simply dont know. I would hope a solicitor could help you examine whether there is a stronger basis for your claim and what is needed.

 

[mulven]

Like a provisional drivers license? But in this case the casino can effectively do everything a fully licensed one can?

So they were licenced (probably 1668/JAZ) before the new Curacao overhaul.

This is just them getting a new licence from the new system.

They are equally sketchy with and without a licence.

I wouldn't compare it to a provisional per se, it's more so to give continuity whilst their application is under review. When all the casinos lost their old sub licences, it was a way to prevent them all from being "unlicenced" whilst they starting to go through all the applications.

A Curacao licence doesn't change too much before and after. It looks better for the casino but apart from recently a push for kyc, there's not much of a difference.

 

[Educated_ant]

How hard is it to obtain this application license? A fee and a website? Like it's strange to me they can have a license from simply applying and I'm keen to find out how far you need to go for that.

I do realise what everyone is saying though that a real curaçao license isn't much better

 

[mulven]

How hard is it to obtain this application license? A fee and a website? Like it's strange to me they can have a license from simply applying and I'm keen to find out how far you need to go for that.

I do realise what everyone is saying though that a real curaçao license isn't much better

Depends on when they applied as parameters will be slightly different. Either way barrier for entry won't be too high but the fee is more expensive than places like Anjouan.

 

[Guntis]

There should be a difference between a temporary certificate and a proper Curaçao GCB license. Otherwise, it's just illogical and inadequate. I couldn't find it through search, but i certainly remember that somebody received a reply from Curaçao stating that [some casino] was not licensed with them and they couldn't help proceed with their matter.

---

For your case, as i mentioned earlier, i would try comparing it with similar successful Financial Ombudsman cases to understand what they take into account. So in case you lose with your banks, you can almost certainly win through the ombudsman because you know how things work in advance.

There are quite a few of them on Google here:

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

To speed things up and save you time with checking each PDF you can use

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

. It goes directly in and checks URL content, like this:

For better responses and more requests you may need to get a pro version and pick Claude.ai a to do searches.

If you find a case that's very similar to yours, use the following prompt. There you'll need to insert your case info at the top and paste or attach the successful case in, and it will compare them and create a letter for you.

I hope it helps!

 

[Educated_ant]

So I'm still going back and forth with my bank in regards to Donbet and Santeda.

So Santeda have shared with Nucleus 365 (who I've never heard of) my transaction history in attempt to challenge my push payment fraud complaint against them. My bank say Nucleus 365 are a UK based payment getaway essentially, who facilitated the payment to Falcora Finance who then facilitated it to Santeda. I believe that's how it works?

Is it against data protection for Nucelus 365 (who again, I have had no forewarning would have my data) to have been sent my transaction history from Donbet/Santeda and for them to share it with my bank?

Also, if I make a bank transfer (via SEPA) to Santeda (or with the intention of going to Santeda) is it illegal for it to have been sent to Nucleus 365.

And finally, with Nucleus 365 being well aware I'm a customer in the UK and Santeda should not be accepting registrations or bets from me, should they instead be more concerned about facilitating illegal payments than sharing my transaction history with my bank?

And in all honesty, I have to say "alleged" transaction history. Because Donbet/Santeda refuse to share with me any information about my transaction history.

 

[justdoit]

So I'm still going back and forth with my bank in regards to Donbet and Santeda.

So Santeda have shared with Nucleus 365 (who I've never heard of) my transaction history in attempt to challenge my push payment fraud complaint against them. My bank say Nucleus 365 are a UK based payment getaway essentially, who facilitated the payment to Falcora Finance who then facilitated it to Santeda. I believe that's how it works?

Is it against data protection for Nucelus 365 (who again, I have had no forewarning would have my data) to have been sent my transaction history from Donbet/Santeda and for them to share it with my bank?

Also, if I make a bank transfer (via SEPA) to Santeda (or with the intention of going to Santeda) is it illegal for it to have been sent to Nucleus 365.

And finally, with Nucleus 365 being well aware I'm a customer in the UK and Santeda should not be accepting registrations or bets from me, should they instead be more concerned about facilitating illegal payments than sharing my transaction history with my bank?

And in all honesty, I have to say "alleged" transaction history. Because Donbet/Santeda refuse to share with me any information about my transaction history.

new rules about scam is coming soon

 

[Educated_ant]

I think that was last October those rules came in. My bank is still not convinced I was scammed despite all the evidence I’ve sent over. Feels like a case of semantics to me but in any event if anyone knows anything about santeda acting in a way to deceive customers from the outset that may help me.

And particularly what I said about nucleus 365 and the sharing of my personal information when I had no business with them. Santeda funnelled my funds through them without my knowledge or consent. I am not a customer of nucleus yet they have all my information and are sharing it with anyone

 

[Educated_ant]

Hi everyone,

I realise my thread here has two cases mentioned, which is confusing. Both are still in various stages but it's the first one I wanted to bring up.

So my bank agreed to fight my chargeback battle with an unregulated and unlicensed to operate in the UK casino. My bank are defending my dispute of many thousands of pounds worth of transactions which were made on my debit card to this overseas operator.

After over 4 months of back and forth evidence gathering and endless waiting they told me it's now in the pre-arbritation stage and a decision should be due next week. They said, I believe, VISA were essentially the third party going to make the decision to either side with myself and my bank or the merchant (I.e. the casino).

I'm trying to do my research on how cases like mine have usually ended up. Is this something I'm likely to win? A big part of my case is these payments should never have happened because I'm on GAMSTOP and all payments to gambling operators legally allowed to operate in this country would be blocked for that reason.

Surprisingly this casino did not mask their MCC code. So they have been up front that they were gambling payments they accepted and up front that they don't have a license to operate with UK customers. I've also provided evidence from UKGC that confirmed this casino has acted illegally and these payments should never have happened.

Are VISA now essentially duty bound to side in my favour? Because if they don't they are endorsing illegal payments essentially?

I have read most of the time VISA side with a customer if a bank agrees to defend a customer's case but that could be credit cards and it may be murkier with debit cards?

 

[conker]

Once again, thanks for the update!

As to your question, I guess you - and hopefully us, will find out next week. You would hope that common sense, logic, and everything else prevails here and you are in some way compensated. However, the wheels of justice do not always work in that way, so it would be remiss for anyone to give you a categorical yes or no at this stage. Ultimately VISA have to decide what side they come down on in this situation.

I do wish you all the best and I really hope you come back and tell us the outcome, whichever way it goes.

 

[Educated_ant]

I received notification today that VISA had sided with the merchant. That's literally the full extent of the notification. No reason, nothing else given. Just that.

I called my bank and they told me there was nothing else they can do. They said that was it. They said they couldn't even find more information and were no obligation to contact VISA further.

How can that be so? Surely I have a right to find out why VISA ruled that way?

Presumably I still have a case here with the ombudsman and potentially a solicitor. VISA have ruled for a non-licensed in the UK to operate casino who are using the gambling MCC Code for the UK? Does that not automatically break their T&CS, let alone the law in this country?

 

[Webzcas]

Thanks for updating us with this latest news and really sorry it is not the outcome which you hoped for. Unfortunately I do believe you have reached the end of the road now that VISA have made their ruling on the issue.

However, if you do try and progress this further, please keep us updated.

 

[conker]

If you want to avoid the solicitor fees for now you could raise a complaint with the Ombudsman. I personally feel you deserve an explanation and Visa should clarify why they sided with the merchant. My gut feel is that they are trying to avoid any backlash from merchants. A bit like how an estate agent would side with a landlord rather than a tenant.

My advice would be to try and avoid solicitors if you can help it. They will take your money with no guarantees of anything.

 

[Educated_ant]

I could understand that logic if it was a UK casino but with it being illegal, unregulated, unlicensed operator not in the UK. Why on Earth would they side with them over my bank/myself? Surely there's more chance of backlash with them siding with illegal activity. I saw Revolut got ran through the coals in newspapers lately for such activity.

I guess what im trying to say is by VISA allowing an unregulated operator to use the correct gambling MCC Code... they are making a mockery of the whole MCC code thing? And essentially, now, anything goes?

 

[conker]

I guess what im trying to say is by VISA allowing an unregulated operator to use the correct gambling MCC Code... they are making a mockery of the whole MCC code thing? And essentially, now, anything goes?

I agree with a lot of what you are saying, we just don't know why Visa would side with them.

I think the next move is the Ombudsman for you. It is my understanding that either your bank of Visa has to pick up the costs of this part of the process. My guess is that is going to get really embarrassing for Visa at some point. If you can stay the course then you will at least get some answers. I believe you have got the energy to do this, I just don't want you wasting money on solicitors, who really would happily take a few thousand off you to write a few letters.

Get on ChatGPT and get it to write you a decent letter if you don't feel confident. You have come this far now, it needs explaining, it may help other gamblers if you know why Visa would feel they need to take the side of an unregulated operator.

 

[Educated_ant]

So after three weeks of Lloyds essentially pissing about and only just now assigning me a complaints case manager, they have told me that I need to complain to VISA directly about the ruling as it's not something the bank could help with now. I spoke to VISA who were adamant they can't take complaints directly from a customer and it had to come from the bank. I then spoke to the Financial Ombudsman who also wasn't really clear on what I have to do but did tell me that their scope does not cover VISA. They have no power or ruling over them as they are not a financial institution.

Lloyds have said they have asked VISA for why they made their ruling but they can't force VISA to give an answer.

Any idea on what I should do? I can complain to the Ombudsman but only about Lloyds. And Lloyds were kind of on my side in terms of trying to get this money back for me. Why they don't just refund me, I don't know however if they defended me strongly enough to believe this money was scammed from me and I guess I could argue that but it's really VISA, who have broke their T&C in siding with the merchant, who I'm really angry with.

I can't see anyone who has found themselves in the same position as me. Using a debit card for gambling to an unlicensed casino, getting the bank to side with you for a chargeback but then this casino having the correct MCC Code somehow, they've managed to fight it and win.

Complaining about VISA feels a very unclear path to take.

 

[essuk]

I dont know for certain ( and further research would be required ) but I would assume that since your relationship is with Lloyds not visa it would be Lloyds who are liable to you in the case that a liability to refund exists. I think the FOS can only rule on parties between whom there is a direct relationship. But this is where it gets more complex. What do their terms say re Visa decisions, what rights of appeal do you have etc? I would go back to the obudsman and enquire whether you can bring a case against lloyds re the decision regardless of who made that decision. It could well be that the FOS will examine the decision and determine whether it was correct and fair. If they determine it was unfair they may hold lloyds liable and it may be that Lloyds then have to pursue Visa.

 

[Educated_ant]

I will research those points. I guess I should give Lloyds the chance to answer the complaint fully and see if they can get VISA to respond in the allotted time. It's just so absolutely draining. I know it's my fault for getting into this mess but it's so exhausting fighting it. I'll see what Lloyds say and then likely go to the FOS from there. Thank you!

 

[essuk]

One thing ive never been clear on is what exactly are your grounds for disputing the charges?

 

[satchnz]

Any idea on what I should do? I can complain to the Ombudsman but only about Lloyds. And Lloyds were kind of on my side in terms of trying to get this money back for me. Why they don't just refund me, I don't know however if they defended me strongly enough to believe this money was scammed from me and I guess I could argue that but it's really VISA, who have broke their T&C in siding with the merchant, who I'm really angry with.

Sorry, but could you explain the scam part of this again?

 

[Educated_ant]

They wouldn't allow me to withdraw my balance is the main one. So their T&C does not mention anything about withdrawal limits. They have a ridiculous "VIP Swagger Level" where the more money you gamble, the more you are allowed to withdraw each month. However this is not at all in their T&C and not something you know when you sign up, which to me is something they should side with the customer on as your money ends up trapped without you knowing.

This caused me all kinds of nightmares because they have no limit on what you can deposit. So I would deposit lots and lots and lots. And when I would break even or even win a bit and wanted out, they wouldn't let me withdraw it. To climb the swagger level you have to wager 500k+ to then be able to withdraw a little more. So you can kind of get an idea of just how high my balance was in there.

I asked them many times on the live chat to allow me to withdraw and what I could do, telling them it just wasn't at all reasonable that it would take six months to be able to withdraw money. I told them about my gambling addiction, being on gamstop and I just wanted to have my money and close my account. They would just tell me there is nothing I could do to get my money sooner but deposit/gamble more to hit a higher level so I could withdraw.

This led to me panicking and continuing to gamble long after I wanted to exit. I complained and they shut my account. My account also still had money in the balance but they didn't care. They wouldn't send me a copy of my betting history.

Hilariously when I complained to VISA, the casino showed transactions as part of their evidence. But the numbers didn't even make sense. I had more losses on my bank statements than what they can prove I gambled away. So how I did not win this or partly win this I don't know. Unless they managed to find/fabricate some evidence at the death, I really don't know how I lost.

But beyond this these payments were against VISA's T&C as they don't have a license to take payments from UK customers and they should never have got this MCC Code.

 

[conker]

I'm with @essuk on this one. You have to go after Lloyd's. Other than speaking to the press about this, you don't appear to have any other options.

They appear to be hiding behind this VISA decision, as they seem to think that puts them in the clear. However, the bottom line is that Lloyds allowed you to make debit card deposit(s) to an unlicensed casino.

The ombudsman cannot go after VISA, so you have no other choice it appears.

You can only go after Lloyd's, as this is the only party involved that the Ombudsman can investigate.

I am almost certain that Lloyd's do not want to be investigated over this, its unlicensed gambling products, its large amounts of money, and its really not a good look for them.

I do also want to say, fair play for your perseverance. I know many people will think 'you should know better and another disgruntled gambler chasing losses', but there is something wrong when a high street bank is facilitating large chunks of money being spent at rogue casinos.

 

[satchnz]

I am tempted to try a chargeback request with Lloyds over the payments as Playhub Casino made no mention in their T&C of their ridiculous withdrawal limits / their "swagger vip" level which basically means the more you gamble the bigger the level you can reach to withdraw. Which is where my problem came in... wanting to hit those levels to withdraw the stupid amount of money I had deposited in the first place only to then inevitably lose it.

I don't think there will be anyone harsher than myself for the mess I've got myself into. But at the same time the "swagger level" that Playhub Casino promote where you have to keep depositing and wagering to withdraw the money you have deposited / won... just is impossible to deal with when you have a gambling problem. It makes one really bad impulsive day turn into days, weeks, months of temptation, stress, fear that you won't get the money.... making you gamble and gamble in order to hit a level so you can withdraw everything and get out of it. But with that kind of activity it only ends one way.

I somehow missed the above two points in this thread.

I decided to take a quick look at Playhub casino for the first time to see what their T&Cs did say. Upon going immediately to the bottom of the homepage (that’s where most casinos keep their T&Cs etc links) and found this link at the top of the list:

I clicked on the Swagger link and was presented with this page:

I’m assuming this page was added to their site after you had joined and played there?

 

[Educated_ant]

No that page was there but my point is that was not part of their T&C. It's also not exactly a link to me that screams withdrawal limits when you are on the homepage. Cashback sounds like a bonus? It doesn't, at least to me, suggest it would be the one page that tells you you have a withdrawal limit. Once I became aware of the withdrawal limits it was too late for me as too much money was deposited.

It seems unreasonable to expect withdrawal limits to be on that page and not in the T&C page?

 

[satchnz]

No that page was there but my point is that was not part of their T&C. It's also not exactly a link to me that screams withdrawal limits when you are on the homepage. Cashback sounds like a bonus? It doesn't, at least to me, suggest it would be the one page that tells you you have a withdrawal limit. Once I became aware of the withdrawal limits it was too late for me as too much money was deposited.

It seems unreasonable to expect withdrawal limits to be on that page and not in the T&C page?

Their T&Cs don’t mention anything about deposit and withdrawal rules. If I were looking for that information prior to joining a casino (I do, as it’s helpful to know bonus terms and deposit wagering requirements), I’d go back to their information section. Circled below in the same list is a link to accounts and bonus terms. It takes you to the very same Swagger VIP table I posted above.

 

[Educated_ant]

If that is the reason VISA ruled in their favour then hopefully they will tell me so. As far as I was told by Lloyds what mattered was what was in their T&C but who knows. I guess just wait to see what VISA and Lloyds come back with.

 

[essuk]

So heres where I see your issues.

Your claim is essentially if I understand correctly

a) that you didnt receive the advertised service. Use of a casino entails being able to withdraw winnings so if youre unable to do this then they are not providing the normal expected service HOWEVER here withdrawal limits seems to be clearly stated on the site and by your own admission you seem to have continued to deposit after you were clearly aware of this fact. In my opinion on this front VISA made the right decision.

b) the casino was unlicenced. Here is where your greatest chance lies in my opinion. The services rendered were illegal in the UK from the operators point of view. Therefore one can argue that a refund is due. I havent read visas terms but I would imagine that they prohibit payments for illegal services.
Issue is whether illegality renders the transaction void or unenforceable. Im not a lawyer but as I understand it ( and I may be wrong ) if its voidable the money is owed back to you but if unenforceable the contract having been performed the money belongs to the casino. In other words illegality doesnt necessarily translate to you being due a refund. You would need to ask a lawyer if the contract is void or unenforceable. In terms of visas terms this is an issue between the merchant and Visa and doesnt necessarily translate to you being due a refund.
Im not a lawyer but I would guess if the contract is void you have a strong case but otherwise you have a very weak case.

However if complaining to the FOS you could also bring up the issue of the bank failing to intervene. You spent large sums. Were these normal? Did they escalate? Did the bank query them? Its a longshot but worth a try as nothing to lose.

I think you missed a big trick in terms of your grounds for challenging the transactions but its too late now as a new claim is presumably past the 120 day window.