Sky Vegas Confiscates big wins on their new slot???

[Seventh777]

It's the "banking code", more of a voluntary arrangement. Scammers can empty your bank account simply by getting hold of your account number, sort code, and name on the account. There is nothing in place to check that you have given specific permission for the transaction.

casinos running chargebacks on ewallets is easy, as the ewallet will return a payment made by a merchant on request, without even informing the player, let alone allowing them to dispute the matter. It is uncommon, but cases have arisen here.

During the Betfair incident, a Portuguese player was paid out, and 2 days later had the money taken back from his BANK, not Betfair account. The bank said it should not have happened, but it nevertheless DID happen because the system runs on trust. There is nothing in place to actually block such a snatch back of a transactions by the payer's bank.

It even happened to my Niece's husband over his salary payment. They paid two lots in, and then decided he was not entitled to the amount representing overtime and unused holidays, so simply took it back out of his bank account later the same day, leading to a financial "crunch" for the family. The fact this was against the banking code didn't stop it happening. It clearly CAN be done, and the reason it is done by big companies is to take the advantage in a dispute by forcing the "little person" to take the legal initiative and take the company to court, rather than the company having to go to formal dispute in order to have the "little person" accept that the money needs to be returned.

Betfair would have had to go to court in Portugal and win a case for recovery against this player, but they decided to exploit the system and snatch the money back, which left the player having to fight a dispute through the system. He was told it shouldn't have happened by his bank and the countrie's regulators, but they could do nothing to help because it HAD happened, and had no powers to order the return of the money.

I was quite astonished to read that banks would pay back monies to merchants, so I have just spent the best part of an hour ringing up the 4 banks I have accounts with, and where applicable, speaking to my personal manager, here are the results........

Barclays, RBS, Natwest, LLoydsTSB - Neither of these four would return any monies whatsoever to any merchant unless authorised by me, the only time any of the aforementioned 4 banks would get involved with debits, are if/when wages are deposited and an identical duplicate amount has been paid, and all four had very similar protocols in place for if this happened, each had one similar aspect, I would still be notified and could contest this, but the cash would remain frozen until an amicable decision had been reached, I will hasten to add, three of those accounts are business ones.

 

[threescatters]

Barclays, RBS, Natwest, LLoydsTSB - Neither of these four would return any monies whatsoever to any merchant unless authorised by me.

We are derailing this thread here but just to clarify something.

All a merchant needs to debit your account is your name, bank account number and sort code. THATS IT. It is possible for them to get the money out of your bank then, no matter what your bank or anyone else says. See Jeremy Clarkson's now famous column about this for proof, or the betfair debacle.

 

[jetset]

Either way, I doubt that we're going to get to the bottom of this issue here.

The sums of money involved, according to the complainants, are considerable, and in their shoes I would be taking some urgent and drastic action over this...this is not some small amount of cash you would be tempted to shrug off as not worth the expense or aggravation to pursue. And Sky Vegas is definitely identifiable and 'pursuable'.

It would be interesting to hear from the complainants what steps they have taken so far to address this intriguing and unfortunate situation they find themselves in.

 

[Jasminebed]

I wouldn't have so readily believed it was removed from the player's bank account if not for the Betfair incident.

Jeremy Clarkson's incident was not so famous that I'd heard of it, an interesting read:

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

 

[A Passer By]

Yes Vinylweatherman, this is what happened to one of the complainants, same as the portugese man on betfair. SV was able to retrieve from complainants actual bank account - money hadn't gone in in a few hours, had been confirmed, processed and put through to the bank then took 2-3 business day to reach account so was in account balance. SV then retrieved money from the bank. So their line about not being able to access bank accounts is bull.

 

[threescatters]

Yes Vinylweatherman, this is what happened to one of the complainants, same as the portugese man on betfair. SV was able to retrieve from complainants actual bank account - money hadn't gone in in a few hours, had been confirmed, processed and put through to the bank then took 2-3 business day to reach account so was in account balance. SV then retrieved money from the bank. So their line about not being able to access bank accounts is bull.

Are you stating here that the 6 figure sums being banded about on here had been verified, processed and sent to the customers bank account in a matter of hours?

It is most definately possible, but I am sceptical.

 

[A Passer By]

Part of the 6 figure balance yes. You see, SV would not allow withdrawal of more than 23,xxx (not sure of exact numbers beyond the 23k but each withdrawal could only be of that amount) at one time. So player made multiple withdrawals . When spoke to sv full balance of win was confirmed so player was withdrawing. So two of the amounts that were verified then withdrawn were processed in the few hours sv takes to do it and had made it to bank account but then were withdrawn by SV from bank account after showing up in b/a balance. No reason to be skeptical, I've no reason to lie to you I never even played on SV very often, as I never seemed to ever win anything so gave up, but was just so horrified at what happened to these people.

 

[threescatters]

Thanks for the clarification, I did not expect the full amount that was banded about on here to be verified, processed and sent as was alluded to in other posts.

Well if what you say is true (and it seems like you either know more about the individuals involved than you are letting on, or you are just going off random facebook posts - both of which are a bit dodgy imo) then I would guess there is a possible legal claim to the 2 lots of 23k, but not the rest. There is no way they would have "cleared" in the banking system though, so again technically it was not in the customers account and I could well be wrong.

I am not attempting to discredit you here and I am grateful for your posts btw, I just like to try and get facts clear.

 

[GrandMaster]

We are derailing this thread here but just to clarify something.

All a merchant needs to debit your account is your name, bank account number and sort code. THATS IT. It is possible for them to get the money out of your bank then, no matter what your bank or anyone else says. See Jeremy Clarkson's now famous column about this for proof, or the betfair debacle.

If you had read it more carefully, you would have found that the correct statement is that it is possible to set up a paperless direct debit. It is not possible just for anybody to debit your account this way, and if it happens to you, apart from the general obligation of the bank to refund your money if the transaction was not authorised by you, you can also claim under the direct debit guarantee.

 

[threescatters]

If you had read it more carefully, you would have found that the correct statement is that it is possible to set up a paperless direct debit. It is not possible just for anybody to debit your account this way, and if it happens to you, apart from the general obligation of the bank to refund your money if the transaction was not authorised by you, you can also claim under the direct debit guarantee.

it does not need to be a direct debit, that was just what happened to clarkson. It is possible to debit the bank account in other ways (although imo it is theft) - read about the betfair scandal for proof.

 

[Seventh777]

All a merchant needs to debit your account is your name, bank account number and sort code. THATS IT. It is possible for them to get the money out of your bank then, no matter what your bank or anyone else says.

They would also need IBAN and BIC codes, whilst the BIC code of any bank is readily available the IBAN code is unique to the individual customer, in theory you can withdraw to your bank using a debit card and thus never revealing your number, they could not withdraw using your debit card without your verified by visa PIN/security code numbers either, if they did then your bank becomes liable for this payment.

Jeremy Clarkson`s example was a direct debit set up, a completely different scenario altogether than a bank transfer.

 

[huny2]

We are derailing this thread here but just to clarify something.

All a merchant needs to debit your account is your name, bank account number and sort code. THATS IT. It is possible for them to get the money out of your bank then, no matter what your bank or anyone else says. See Jeremy Clarkson's now famous column about this for proof, or the betfair debacle.

Ayup. Direct TV did it to me. The Direct TV account was in my son's name (he had it for two years) but I used my bank card a few times to pay the monthly fees. He canceled the account and they took $600 out of MY bank account because they said he owed it for the equipment and my card was listed on the account. I did not authorize the debit or sign any type of contract with them. I called my bank. They froze it but it went to arbitration. We settled several months later (sent the equipment back) but that debit caused me to be overdrawn. Google Direct TV class action suit because this is a common practice of theirs. I would never deal with Direct TV again. But it has caused me to be very suspicious of banks.

 

[GrandMaster]

It's the "banking code", more of a voluntary arrangement.

You are out of date by more than 2 years. The banking code was superseded by The Payment Services Regulations 2009.

 

[Nifty29]

I'll bet the value of seventh777's last visit to the brothel that there's something dodgy going on from the player end. (Don't worry I can afford $2.50)

Surely nobody expects sv to lay out all the evidence in a public forum? Just because they haven't produced anything, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

 

[Seventh777]

Ayup. Direct TV did it to me. The Direct TV account was in my son's name (he had it for two years) but I used my bank card a few times to pay the monthly fees. He canceled the account and they took $600 out of MY bank account because they said he owed it for the equipment and my card was listed on the account. I did not authorize the debit or sign any type of contract with them. I called my bank. They froze it but it went to arbitration. We settled several months later (sent the equipment back) but that debit caused me to be overdrawn. Google Direct TV class action suit because this is a common practice of theirs. I would never deal with Direct TV again. But it has caused me to be very suspicious of banks.

This was an ongoing payment method and a completely different circumstance, if your bank gives out money to any merchant via transfers or debit card withdrawals without the relative codes (IBANS and verified by Visa pin numbers) you really do need to change banks .

They took cash out of your account whilst you still owed them money, even though this card was in your name it had been used to pay for this equipment, therefore it was a perfectly legitimate course of action for them to take, why did your son cancel the account when he still owed them money?, this must have been the case as you have stated this case was resolved when you returned the goods, a stand not necessary to take if no cash was still owed.

 

[Seventh777]

I'll bet the value of seventh777's last visit to the brothel that there's something dodgy going on from the player end. (Don't worry I can afford $2.50)

Surely nobody expects sv to lay out all the evidence in a public forum? Just because they haven't produced anything, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

It`s gone up to £5 now, I use the two girl special (or one girl one goat), this used to be a BOGOF special, but they`ve stopped this now .

 

[vinylweatherman]

I was quite astonished to read that banks would pay back monies to merchants, so I have just spent the best part of an hour ringing up the 4 banks I have accounts with, and where applicable, speaking to my personal manager, here are the results........

Barclays, RBS, Natwest, LLoydsTSB - Neither of these four would return any monies whatsoever to any merchant unless authorised by me, the only time any of the aforementioned 4 banks would get involved with debits, are if/when wages are deposited and an identical duplicate amount has been paid, and all four had very similar protocols in place for if this happened, each had one similar aspect, I would still be notified and could contest this, but the cash would remain frozen until an amicable decision had been reached, I will hasten to add, three of those accounts are business ones.

In the case of my niece's husband, it was wages, but it was NOT duplicate amounts. The two sums were around £600 and £800, and he thought the larger sum was overtime and holiday pay. It turned out the company decided the second was a mistake, and simply took it back after a load of bills had been paid, which plunged the account into the red. They did not ask, nor was there any opportunity for him to plead for staggered repayments to ease the financial crunch, nor dispute the action until after it had happened.

The common factor seems to be that in all cases this was a payer taking back money they had paid to the payee earlier, rather than someone taking "new" money based on bank details, however obtained. This seems to be the loophole being used. Someone who pays money to someone CAN recall it for a time afterwards, even if the money has already been posted and made available to the payee. It seems that transactions may only be reversed, rather than changed. In the case of my niece's husband, they reversed one of the two amounts, and in the Betfair case, the WHOLE payment was reversed exactly as it had been made, rather than being part reversed to leave only the original deposit. It seems the banks will only allow this if the money is still there, as I read of another case where the player was smart enough to move the money out of the account as soon as it was paid in, and when Betfair went after it, it had gone and the bank wouldn't give it back. This was when Betfair started sending demands for repayment to players, and threatened legal action. Those players who didn't fall for the threat quickly found that Betfair let them keep the money, rather than take them to court. I see this as an indication that Betfair had legal advice to bluff in order to scare players into paying it back, but not to actually let this go before a court. It neatly explains why they decided that where possible, they would snatch the money back so that the player had to issue legal threats.

Far from being a "one off", this kind of snatch back from monies already paid into a bank is not that rare after all, and is not confined to online casinos. This is probably something the banks do NOT want to become common knowledge, which is why they did not volunteer the full truth to Seventh777 when he asked several banks. The closest they came was to mention "protocols" that were in place that would allow wages to be reclaimed first, and disputed later.


Maybe the best course of action would be for the player who had 2 lots of 23K removed to complain to the Financial Ombudsman that this was not authorised by him, and that his bank failed to notify him or allow him to dispute the reclaimed money. This was probably illegal, or will reveal another uncomfortable banking secret that matches the problems faced when someone just makes ONE payment on behalf of someone else using a debit card, and finds they have made themselves jointly responsible for the entire debt. Debit card regular payments are NOT protected at all, unlike direct debits, so it is VERY dangerous to have your card details fall into the wrong hands.

The Clarkson case proves that if someone has your bank details, the bank assumes they have the authority to set up paperless direct debits without the need to contact the account holder for final confirmation that they have been authorised to use these details in this way.

Clarkson's mistake was to believe the reasurrances of the government that what was lost was not enough to cause problems, when they knew damn well that it was enough if used creatively. The fact that Clarkson lost £500 to a charity indicates that whoever did it bore no malice, but did so to prove a point, prove Clarkson and the government wrong, and benefit a charity, rather than himself. The further admission that the bank could not only not assist in tracing the thief because it would be illegal for them to do so, but could do nothing to prevent leaked details from being used repeatedly to set up such payments. shows how wide open this "loophole" in the system really is.

In the case of online casinos, we have banks from abroad initiating these snatch backs, making no one country have jurisdiction over the process as a whole. We also have those cases where rogue casinos debit deposit methods repeatedly after having been given the details for at least one deposit by the player. There was the case where the rogue offered a player a number of "free chips" in a row, only for the player to discover from their bank statement that they had been debited for every one of these "free chips". By accepting these "free credits", they had been tricked into authorising deposits, and these clearly had to have been made manaually by casino staff, rather than directly by the player through the banking interface. For a player who deposits via their bank, it opens the way for an operator to use the details to recover outstanding debts in the same manner that Direct TV did, although they would have to take care that the amounts requested were in the account at the time, else the bank would refuse, and the customer might be alerted and cancel the permissions from that processor.

Given that neither Betfair or SKY Vegas were in any way considered rogue at the time, it shows that even when players have what they believe are legitimate wins, if there is the slightest doubt in their mind that the casino will later decide the wins were void, they should move any monies paid into any account of theirs the minute it arrives, so that if there is a dispute, the casino will have to lodge a dispute, rather than simply take back the money and leave the player looking for a lawyer.

 

[Seventh777]

@VWM, some interesting points there bud, now i`m pretty sure this is the normal practise for an reputable bank out there, a snippet from NatWest`s security measures.....

Our internet guarantee

It’s a horrible feeling - you discover a transaction has been carried out on the internet without your knowledge or consent. But there’s no need to worry - if you've registered with NatWest Secure, we guarantee not to hold you liable for the fraudulent transaction.

The loophole here must be what they deem to be fraudulent, I would estimate that a casino that does manage to withdraw from your account is stepping on very thin ice indeed.

 

[thelawnet]

I don`t pull figures out of my ass when I make a comment like that .

That's 'payout'.

If you deposit £50k, bet £1 million on slots, and end up with nothing, then the 'payout' is £950k.

From what I read of their 2010 report, they made £4.7 million in income from the Bonne Terre (SkyVegas) company.

Actual withdrawals processed by Skyvegas are not even close to £17m/week...

 

[jenniferfrench]

How has my opinion changed?, I have thought from the start that this is a case of foul play, and still do, whilst yours is based purely on personal conjecture, i`m afraid that if you go through life using facebook as the basis of your presumptions you`re not going to see the forest for the trees.

I`ve been a Sky customer for many years also and never had problems with their CS, I am not an avid fan of Rupert Murdoch`s work ethics but i`m not letting that cloud my judgement, you sound like you have had many poor run-ins with Sky CS over the years, but have never felt the need once to post your gripes on the largest and by far the best gambling related website out there, I find this truly amazing.

Rather than character assassinate you would do far better showing some sort of proof relating to your claims of poor CS from Sky, screenshots or logs from chat are good pointers here, for someone with a vast array of poor relations with them you bring very little to the table backing them up?, in fact your behavioural pattern with them is even more bizarre, why keep using a place you are far from happy with?.

Your opinion has changed, as anyone reading through your posts can see.

Do please excuse me for not taking "screen shots" of each time a member of the SV "help" staff were rude or unhelpful. Why should I need to "back up" my "claims"? - I merely mentioned them as a past issue - They happened, end of story. I'm thrilled you have had better transactions with them.

I mentioned Facebook because others were questioning what had been said.

From your post I'd say you are far more experienced in character assasination than myself. A lot of insults and jibes in there simply because I dared to suggest that your opinion had altered.

Thanks for making my short stay at this forum so entertaining.

PS. "Truly amazing", "character assasination", "bizarre": Do you write for a tabloid or just naturally OTT?

 

[Seventh777]

Your opinion has changed, as anyone reading through your posts can see.

As I have replied many times in this thread regarding other matters, we`ll stick to ones relating to my opinion on what happened.....

My 1st post, disregarding the payout part as this is under debate, and early days, but picking up on how only those playing in Euro`s were affected.

WoW, this is something that you would not expect from a site that regularly pays out more than £19million a week, also like VWM i`m very interested in how this anomaly only affected those playing in Euro`s , is this is a case of hacking?,

My next post, it is now clearly evident that Sky Vegas were the only casino affected.......

I really cannot see this as a malfunction...

1). It would affect all casinos that have this slot.

2). Why would it just be Euro`s that are affected?.

To me this looks like a server hack, and as not to bring to much attention to it, was somehow hacked to only payout to those using Euro`s as their currency, either way though, hacking or a software error are reasons to confiscate winnings, but surely, if it were a software glitch than those that lost would receive some form of recompense, whereas, there isn`t many casinos out there that are going to admit to being hacked.

My following post......

Yep, this company is huge, they even took Skype to court a few years ago for a trademark misdemeanour, this really does stink of some form of cover up imho, if this was a real case of the software bugging out then surely a highly detailed report of how/why/what/when should have been released, the more I look at it the more i`m leaning towards a hack, a company this size and knowing the knock on affect bad publicity would bring, would surely just brush it under the carpet, wouldn`t they?.

You have to ask this question also - Just how many people were playing this slot at the exact time it malfunctioned, using Euro`s as their currency?.

The next.....

Somewhere along the line this is a hack, be-it a well camouflaged one hidden well deep in the software and set to trigger on a specified date to those playing in Euro`s or a live hack (less unlikely), if this were a slot malfunction there would have been an intricately detailed analysis released by now, and endorsed by the software providers, those that have lost their winnings are entitled to a thorough explanation as to why, but atm this has all the signs of a Lawyer restricted information censure - hardly the road to take for a dysfunctional slot related problem.

And next, where I break down what little evidence there is......

Thanks for those who have posted just how much money these wins involved, from what I can see we have two players whom accumulated wins of over 868,000 Euro`s, an average return of 434,000 Euro`s per player, it is reported there were 6 players in total, so taking what little evidence we have it is suffice to say that the amount won could be around 2.6 million Euro`s, let`s skim over the sparse evidence.......

1). There are many casinos that have the slot in question in their portfolio of slots, as of yet there are no other casinos reported to have suffered this malfunction, so it appears that Sky Vegas was the only casino affected.

2). All six players were using Euro`s as their default currency.

3). All were playing the exact same slot at identical times using hit and raise strategies, using Euro`s.

4). Sky Vegas are the only entity whom knows those affected betting patterns and possible irregularities - Including bet stakes and games that would be played during a normal session for them.

5). When registering at any casino it is written in their respective T&C`s that monies won resulting from software malfunctions will be null and void.

6). The above includes hacking also.

7). There would have been a cooling off period between the time of withdrawal and the confiscating of funds by Sky Vegas, during this time the players who won would be in a state of euphoria after a once in a lifetime win of this magnitude, although it is not mandatory to post screenshots of wins totalling upto and over of half a million Euro`s, it is pretty much par for the course that these wins could be broadcast all over the internet curtsy of gambling related websites or the main Sky site, were there any screenshots of these hits posted anywhere?, if so, where?

8). Of course it is possible that this odds defying anomaly could have occurred perfectly legitimately, but, were there other players playing the exact same time using other currencies whom were not affected (this appears to be the case as they have listed this as a preference), thus causing Sky security personnel to have grave enough concerns to confiscate winnings pending an official enquiry?.


This scenario can only have 3 possible endings........

A). It was a software malfunction meaning that Sky were well within their rights to confiscate the winnings (check their T&C`s).

B). It was not a case of a software glitch or hacking - Players will receive their winnings.

C). It was proved to be that the relevant wins were induced via some form of hacking.

As bad as this case appears, Sky are well within their rights to have taken the course of action they have undertaken.

So, after my 1st post where I stated it may have been a hack, and the following posts where I personally believed it was a hack, or at the very least a software malfunction, so my opinion changed very little as the thread grew imho.

Do please excuse me for not taking "screen shots" of each time a member of the SV "help" staff were rude or unhelpful. Why should I need to "back up" my "claims"? - I merely mentioned them as a past issue - They happened, end of story. I'm thrilled you have had better transactions with them.

You`re excused , and thank you.

I mentioned Facebook because others were questioning what had been said.

So, Facebook is your sole source for information regarding this issue?.

From your post I'd say you are far more experienced in character assasination than myself. A lot of insults and jibes in there simply because I dared to suggest that your opinion had altered.

No insults and a few jibes, I will ask once again though, as you have failed to answer my question - Why did you carry on playing at a site you are far from happy with?, it is not my intention to character assassinate you, all I asked for was some factual based evidence from you.

Thanks for making my short stay at this forum so entertaining.

You`re welcome, glad you enjoyed it.

PS. "Truly amazing", "character assasination", "bizarre": Do you write for a tabloid or just naturally OTT?

Nope I do not write for a tabloid, but when I do I will make sure I visit Facebook for some good scoops, guess I am naturally OTT.

 

[Seventh777]

That's 'payout'.

If you deposit £50k, bet £1 million on slots, and end up with nothing, then the 'payout' is £950k.

From what I read of their 2010 report, they made £4.7 million in income from the Bonne Terre (SkyVegas) company.

Actual withdrawals processed by Skyvegas are not even close to £17m/week...

Then my apologies as I took their claims for face value .

 

[Nifty29]

You are out of date by more than 2 years. The banking code was superseded by The Payment Services Regulations 2009.

Good info GM.

I almost thought Vinylweatherman was going to thank you....but alas....

 

[jetset]

Part of the 6 figure balance yes. You see, SV would not allow withdrawal of more than 23,xxx (not sure of exact numbers beyond the 23k but each withdrawal could only be of that amount) at one time. So player made multiple withdrawals . When spoke to sv full balance of win was confirmed so player was withdrawing. So two of the amounts that were verified then withdrawn were processed in the few hours sv takes to do it and had made it to bank account but then were withdrawn by SV from bank account after showing up in b/a balance. No reason to be skeptical, I've no reason to lie to you I never even played on SV very often, as I never seemed to ever win anything so gave up, but was just so horrified at what happened to these people.

It is interesting to see this additional information, which effectively claims that SV is being economical with the truth...a serious allegation that the company's spokesman is flat-out lying or has been kept in the dark by Management.

A Passer By certainly seems to have an extraordinarily detailed knowledge of the affair, but I would like to hear from the players involved themselves rather than hearsay from someone who claims to have obtained the detail from Facebook.

Why are these complainants not coming forward - once again I would note that large sums of money appear to be involved here, surely a motivation for action and direct disclosure?

In the meantime, I intend to put these accusations of lying to the SV spokesperson. These are serious attacks on the integrity and credibility of the company, and that merits the privilege of a response.

 

[GrandMaster]

In the case of my niece's husband, it was wages, but it was NOT duplicate amounts. The two sums were around £600 and £800, and he thought the larger sum was overtime and holiday pay. It turned out the company decided the second was a mistake, and simply took it back after a load of bills had been paid, which plunged the account into the red. They did not ask, nor was there any opportunity for him to plead for staggered repayments to ease the financial crunch, nor dispute the action until after it had happened.

Interesting. I had the opposite experience. Once I was paid an extra month's salary by an employer I had already left. I asked if they could somehow reverse the transaction, but they said no, so I had to send a cheque.

 

[A Passer By]

It is interesting to see this additional information, which effectively claims that SV is being economical with the truth...a serious allegation that the company's spokesman is flat-out lying or has been kept in the dark by Management.

A Passer By certainly seems to have an extraordinarily detailed knowledge of the affair, but I would like to hear from the players involved themselves rather than hearsay from someone who claims to have obtained the detail from Facebook.

Why are these complainants not coming forward - once again I would note that large sums of money appear to be involved here, surely a motivation for action and direct disclosure?

In the meantime, I intend to put these accusations of lying to the SV spokesperson. These are serious attacks on the integrity and credibility of the company, and that merits the privilege of a response.

I'm not just someone that has claims from hearsay on facebook. I did see the posts on facebook and there were many unhappy people involved. All posts of which were deleted by SV. I happen to be a friend of one of the complainants and have first hand knowledge. She is not here to speak anymore because she has a solicitor involved now and I do not want to give away too much information either.. but when I saw SV flat out lying in their spokesperson statement it had to be resolved.

 

[jetset]

Thank you - that explains why you have such apparently detailed knowledge on the issue, albeit at one remove from the player involved, making your statements hearsay.

For the record, I again contacted SV, linking to this thread and asking for a response on the accusation that they are lying about retrieving funds from the player's private bank account.

48 hours on I have had no reply, which I find surprising and not a little disappointing.

I am pleased to see that the player involved has sought legal redress on this - that is a course that is all too often not taken, and in this case could make for some interesting court reportage - unless there's a settlement and an NDA

 

[TheLastCylon]

This is amazing. Sky Vegas is huge. Are there any casino companies out there that are completely upstanding? You'd think that this was all still run by the mob. I've got news for these casinos, this isn't Vegas, and it isn't 1972.

Thank god for 3Dice and, for me anyway, NordicBet.

 

[huny2]

This was an ongoing payment method and a completely different circumstance, if your bank gives out money to any merchant via transfers or debit card withdrawals without the relative codes (IBANS and verified by Visa pin numbers) you really do need to change banks .

They took cash out of your account whilst you still owed them money, even though this card was in your name it had been used to pay for this equipment, therefore it was a perfectly legitimate course of action for them to take, why did your son cancel the account when he still owed them money?, this must have been the case as you have stated this case was resolved when you returned the goods, a stand not necessary to take if no cash was still owed.

Hello Seventh777,
Just to clarify. He did not owe money but when he canceled his account he did not send back the equipment as he was under the understanding that he had purchased it. He paid cash for the equipment. But they said that he did not own the equipment and had to return it. Once we returned the equipment, then they did a reverse of the debit. I will still never deal with Direct TV again!!!!! Ever!!!

Once I had my paycheck deposited twice, they later came in a few days later and reversed the electronic deposit. That was another bank account. Acutally Bank of America.
Thanks for your input.
huny2

 

[Seventh777]

Hello Seventh777,
Just to clarify. He did not owe money but when he canceled his account he did not send back the equipment as he was under the understanding that he had purchased it. He paid cash for the equipment. But they said that he did not own the equipment and had to return it. Once we returned the equipment, then they did a reverse of the debit. I will still never deal with Direct TV again!!!!! Ever!!!

Once I had my paycheck deposited twice, they later came in a few days later and reversed the electronic deposit. That was another bank account. Acutally Bank of America.
Thanks for your input.
huny2

Ty for clearing that up Huny .

I have business accounts and many merchants have my banking details, if it were that easy to skim cash form people`s accounts I would have been bankrupt years ago, if any bank out there releases cash to a third party without following the relative security measures then those banks are not worth a toss, they have these strict protocols and regulations in place for a reason, and to completely ignore them and allow vast or small sums of money to be debited from their customers accounts, without doing security checks, would be financial suicide for these banks, and guaranteeing the staff responsible to be dustbin emptier's at the nearest McDonald`s the following week .

 

[Trens]

I am another player

I am a woman actually, a mother, i dont know who that poster was, i am not long home from the hospital with my little girl. The proof has been given to the solicitor who is dealing with the situation and has all the proof. I am not going to broadcast it on here when he is dealing with it. I dont really mind you disbelieving me really all that matters is that I know and my family knows and the solicitor. Sky are well aware as well. I am not bashing sky if you were in my shoes you would want your winnings also.

The amount I won is by far not the size of Traceyfitz, nevertheless, I was playing the game 2 day`s and won a certain amount. I really thought I was finally a lucky winner!!!!
I received an email from their Legal department(a letter was send also to my address-not received yet), claiming that I was already notified via email(was in my junk email folder-from Customer care department) that I should return the funds immediatly(I withdrew them), as the game was malfunction. They are giving me five working day`s to return the funds or they will take legal action against me. I should contact their Customer care team to arrange the funds transfer. But this not all, no, Sky legal is actually scanning network sites, I had a visitor of them on my profile.
I will now involve a solicitor also.

 

[vinylweatherman]

The amount I won is by far not the size of Traceyfitz, nevertheless, I was playing the game 2 day`s and won a certain amount. I really thought I was finally a lucky winner!!!!
I received an email from their Legal department(a letter was send also to my address-not received yet), claiming that I was already notified via email(was in my junk email folder-from Customer care department) that I should return the funds immediatly(I withdrew them), as the game was malfunction. They are giving me five working day`s to return the funds or they will take legal action against me. I should contact their Customer care team to arrange the funds transfer. But this not all, no, Sky legal is actually scanning network sites, I had a visitor of them on my profile.
I will now involve a solicitor also.

So, they can't take the money straight out of your bank like they have done in another case

YOU are in the driving seat here, not them. They have yet to prove this malfunction took place, so at present they are jumping the gun. Unless it was "bleedin' obvious" to you during play that the game was paying the wrong amounts, you can say you took the results "in good faith", just as you would have if you had lost.

Sit tight, await the court summons. (Do not confuse their solicitor's letter with a court summons).

Could be a long wait

When Betfair tried this tactic with the "happy hour" fiasco, it was a bluff, and players who refused to give the money back never got their threatened court summons. The worst they could do is try to blacklist you from as many casinos as they can influence.

For you to be reguired to pay the money back, they would need to "prove the debt" in court, and get a court judgement making you liable to repay the money. Until they manage this, it is a game of bluff and counter bluff.

Initial legal advice shouldn't cost too much, and is as far as you should go now, perhaps just to have your solicitor reply to theirs when the letter arrives.

 

[Nifty29]

Initial legal advice shouldn't cost too much, and is as far as you should go now, perhaps just to have your solicitor reply to theirs when the letter arrives.

...or you could just get a private consult from VWM....



(Sorry couldn't resist...)

 

[vinylweatherman]

...or you could just get a private consult from VWM....



(Sorry couldn't resist...)

Just been given

A formal letter from a solicitor in reply to theirs should be enough to shut Sky Vegas up. Without this, they may continue to pile on the pressure. It is common practice to insist that all further communications are via the solicitor once one has been engaged. This would mean that Sky Vegas could find themselves in trouble if they continue to harrass the player directly in order to put the pressure on and bypass the "due process" that has begun.

Sky Vegas started it by passing the matter to THEIR solicitor.

It is also possible to write a good formal letter oneself that carries the weight of a solicitor's letter, but without the cost, which could be £150 per hour, plus a fee starting at £25 per letter. If the amount is still significant, it could be a price worth paying. The chances of Sky Vegas going all the way would depend on the amounts involved, and their desire to keep this as much out of the mainstream public eye as possible.

If they take players to court, there is bound to be coverage in newspapers and even TV news programs, and it will undermine confidence in the security of online casinos because it is a case of a game paying out without any obvious evidence of malfunction, but a few days later the casino realises that the short term RTP over all players shows that something has gone seriously wrong. If the CASINO didn't notice for 2 days, and then only after seeing aggregate data, the PLAYER can reasonably use the "good faith" defence for continuing to play in the belief they had just been lucky. Sky Vegas even went as far as irreversibly paying this player, another clear demonstration that at the time, they didn't believe there had been a problem.

Even now, there has been no further information from Sky Vegas about what happened, so at present, we only have their opinion that the game paid out too much. When PLAYERS claim a game has malfunctions because they lost their money too fast, and for too long, they are told it is nothing more sinister than bad luck, and that their low RTP is "normal". Sky Vegas have not substantiated their claim that the high RTP over these 2 days is enough to be deemed evidence that there was a malfunction, rather than just bad luck for the CASINO.

One thing that should be done right away is to request the full detailed playlogs for the disputed 2 days of play. These can be used to show whether it is reasonable to rely on the "good faith" argument. Given that this was a new game, the players cannot be argued to have any expectation of what is "normal" for a session on it, and thus should not be expected to question their winning session as "abnormal".

If Sky Vegas persist, the next request should be for a full description of the game, it's reel strips, and any probability tables behind the "pick" features. If they ask why, say it is to run a statistical analysis on the results from the playlog to see if there is any abnormality that is "statistically significant".

With luck, this request should scare the proverbial out of Sky Vegas, and they will keep this WELL away from a court

This should limit the costs for the player to a couple of solicitor's letters, and a couple of consultations. With luck, this should come to less than £1K, and could always be claimed from Sky Vegas for failing to substantiate their claim further.

The fact that the player was told they had a mere 5 days to settle the matter shows that Sky Vegas do NOT want this player to have time to think about it, get advice, nor see a solicitor. Sky Vegas always have a team of solicitors on call, so they would have immediate access. Most players tend to employ solicitors when the need arises, and in everyday life this is not all that often.

 

[BustedFlush]

Just been given

A formal letter from a solicitor in reply to theirs should be enough to shut Sky Vegas up. Without this, they may continue to pile on the pressure. It is common practice to insist that all further communications are via the solicitor once one has been engaged. This would mean that Sky Vegas could find themselves in trouble if they continue to harrass the player directly in order to put the pressure on and bypass the "due process" that has begun.

Sky Vegas started it by passing the matter to THEIR solicitor.

It is also possible to write a good formal letter oneself that carries the weight of a solicitor's letter, but without the cost, which could be £150 per hour, plus a fee starting at £25 per letter. If the amount is still significant, it could be a price worth paying. The chances of Sky Vegas going all the way would depend on the amounts involved, and their desire to keep this as much out of the mainstream public eye as possible.

If they take players to court, there is bound to be coverage in newspapers and even TV news programs, and it will undermine confidence in the security of online casinos because it is a case of a game paying out without any obvious evidence of malfunction, but a few days later the casino realises that the short term RTP over all players shows that something has gone seriously wrong. If the CASINO didn't notice for 2 days, and then only after seeing aggregate data, the PLAYER can reasonably use the "good faith" defence for continuing to play in the belief they had just been lucky. Sky Vegas even went as far as irreversibly paying this player, another clear demonstration that at the time, they didn't believe there had been a problem.

Even now, there has been no further information from Sky Vegas about what happened, so at present, we only have their opinion that the game paid out too much. When PLAYERS claim a game has malfunctions because they lost their money too fast, and for too long, they are told it is nothing more sinister than bad luck, and that their low RTP is "normal". Sky Vegas have not substantiated their claim that the high RTP over these 2 days is enough to be deemed evidence that there was a malfunction, rather than just bad luck for the CASINO.

One thing that should be done right away is to request the full detailed playlogs for the disputed 2 days of play. These can be used to show whether it is reasonable to rely on the "good faith" argument. Given that this was a new game, the players cannot be argued to have any expectation of what is "normal" for a session on it, and thus should not be expected to question their winning session as "abnormal". If Sky Vegas persist, the next request should be for a full description of the game, it's reel strips, and any probability tables behind the "pick" features. If they ask why, say it is to run a statistical analysis on the results from the playlog to see if there is any abnormality that is "statistically significant".

With luck, this request should scare the proverbial out of Sky Vegas, and they will keep this WELL away from a court

This should limit the costs for the player to a couple of solicitor's letters, and a couple of consultations. With luck, this should come to less than £1K, and could always be claimed from Sky Vegas for failing to substantiate their claim further.

The fact that the player was told they had a mere 5 days to settle the matter shows that Sky Vegas do NOT want this player to have time to think about it, get advice, nor see a solicitor. Sky Vegas always have a team of solicitors on call, so they would have immediate access. Most players tend to employ solicitors when the need arises, and in everyday life this is not all that often.

Funny you should say that VWM. If you followed my posts on the other thread about how slot progs operate, you'll see that example I mentioned about the old bar-x problem years ago. I wonder if this new slot went 'live' without being primed properly.....?? If that were the case, it is Sky's negligence and the slot has been operating exactly as it will do without checks.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Funny you should say that VWM. If you followed my posts on the other thread about how slot progs operate, you'll see that example I mentioned about the old bar-x problem years ago. I wonder if this new slot went 'live' without being primed properly.....?? If that were the case, it is Sky's negligence and the slot has been operating exactly as it will do without checks.

If it is a completely random slot, it wouldn't need to be "primed" before launch. If it's a compensated AWP game though, I bet they would NOT want to release this information, and it would not help them in court to recover monies already paid out.

I have been kicked out of quite a few places for "doing the fruities", but NEVER have they tried to recover the money I already won (and walked out with)

 

[Trens]

Thank you all!

Just want to say, thank you all for the last postings!!!!!
Brilliant advise and information given!
Many thanks and I will keep you posted!

 

[jenniferfrench]

Any further on this?

Or have Sky used their 'clout' to muffle the outcry?

Interesting that nothing was reported outwith the gambling community. I would have considered this quite a big story, especially when it involves "the brand we can trust". The irony is hilarious.

Quite disturbing and depressing the stranglehold Murdoch still has on the press in this country.

Did I read that Sky Vegas' annual profit for 2010 was just £4.7m? No wonder it is impossible to win anything there with those pitiful figures. I notice they have removed the all time payout total they used to have emblazoned on their front page.

The recent winners initials and amounts also have not changed for months.

 

[jenniferfrench]

As with this thread, I see this one has died a death too.

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

How odd.