Misc Correction SkyVegas Warning

[Jasminebed]

Bryan and Maxd.

I do hope in light of the recent warning of non-cooperation in the PAB process they will be removed from the accredited section.

 

[jetset]

I guess this is what can happen when a private equity outfit takes over an operation like Skybet - but I thought they had retained the staff, so this silly "no cooperation" decision is puzzling.

 

[maxd]

I do hope in light of the recent warning of non-cooperation in the PAB process they will be removed from the accredited section.

Good catch! Obviously this is something that needs to be cleared up ASAP. Thanks for bringing this to our attention.

Problem is there's some confusion as to whether they are Accred or not. I usually check the side-bar list -- as I understand it that is auto-generated from the current data and therefore most up to date -- but I do see that they are included in the full page listing. That said they don't appear in the "Previously Accredited" section of the Reservation. AFAIK there is no rep listed so ... ???

I'll red flag this to Bryan's attention right now.

PS. for something like this we'd welcome you to "Report" your post, that ensures we'll see it and get on it quickly. I've just done exactly that.

 

[Casinomeister]

No longer accredited. They have an issue about keeping a rep in the forum. I don't have the time to consistently track people down. This is a major problem with most large entities - the marketing team is totally separate from the casino management side of things, and they really just don't care. Marketing is primarily focused on acquisition - can't be bothered with a forum unless there is something in it for them.

This is why we require forum reps to be directly in touch with the player account managers - or that they are casino managers themselves. This is stated in our standards. Most large operations have problems with this - this is why WH, Betfred, Ladbrokes, Betfair, and now Skybet won't be found in the accred section. Thanks for the heads up.

 

[Nicola]

Considering the amount of advertising Sky Vegas are doing across TV here in the UK and their 100% weekend money back campaign I am surprised at their decision not to enter into PAB claims.

Fully agree with the decision CasinoMeister have made and hope Sky Vegas correct their ways at some point in the future. For now I will no longer play there.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Part of this may be down to the new UK rules. Why deal with Max when they can hide behind the UKGC and the requirement to have only minimum access to third party dispute resolution services as laid out by UKGC standards. However, on the plus side it is now EASIER for UK players to take the legal route as they can more easily be sued in the UK courts, rather than insisting on players suing them in Malta, Gibraltar, Curacao, etc. An alternative is to complain to the ASA where the issue has arisen from an advertisement that mislead the player into breaking the rules.

Other alternatives for dealing with large companies is via their social media pages, the more followers they have, the more effort they will expend in ensuring a positive spin is maintained at all times on PR. A carefully crafted post is needed, not a rant but a clear and inoffensive description of events. It should be timed so that if it gets removed in an attempt to cover up an issue, as many followers as possible will have first seen it and then be able to wonder why such a well thought out and sensible post was removed rather than being addressed. However, this could be against the rules of the UKGC authorised dispute resolution services, so such an action might mean the next step has to be taking them to court.