Could be wrong here but surely you're entitled to use any ADR not just Promediate and regardless you still have the legal route and reporting to UKGC. If any of that ever comes to anything i'm sure you'll let us know.
Casinos
Casinos By Status
Popular Filters
By Banking Options
Games
All Games
Bonuses
Popular Bonus Filters
Forums
Popular Forums
Forum User Features
Complaints
Submit A Complaint (PAB)
PAB Rules and Guidelines
Browse PABs
Gambling News
Popular News Sections
Slotty Vegas - UK self-exclusion breach
- Thread starter funstopped
- Start date
- Status
No fight required at all nor wanted , just responding to remarks made that hold no basis in fact whatsoever with some form of reason
And just for the record it's my opinion that the OP should have his deposits returned in full. Not because i don't think he was trying it on, i absolutely do think that's EXACTLY what he was at and i make no moral judgement , but the rules are the rules and Slotty should have enough checks in place (as should all casino's) to have stopped him when he re-registered there where still enough matches in his info.
- Joined
- May 22, 2012
Two problems with that, although it would work - firstly players may not be experienced enough to realize that. I know I certainly wouldn't have when I started online gambling. The second is the legality of such terms - the vendor is responsible for their terms to be fully inclusive and complete, and not supplying vital information in their terms and then using a third party website for that information would never pass the muster of consumer protection laws. There's no way that in any consumer court case that vital information missing from terms which was prejudicial to the customer's purchase would be sanctioned. I am really surprised that after the 888/Cassava fiasco that the UKGC haven't acted upon this loophole.
Completely agree and now you have this game of cat and mouse where you have casino's taking deposits from SE'd players on a free spin (worst case scenario deposits back never intending on paying withdrawals and upside of keeping funds if player doesn't complain) and Se'd Players on a free spin (change a couple of details but not who you are , play hope to win and cashout out worse case scenario lose and request funds back under exclusion).
And the onus has to be on the operator to deal with this. Surely any name and DOB match regardless of any other info has to warrant a lock on an account and communication between the operator and signup to establish all is ok and above board?? Until then both sides are able to act the bollocks - and will
Agreed. But I'm pretty sure that the person I was quoting, knew exactly where to look
Nothing to hide mac72. Plenty of people here know Lisa. CM, Max and a host of casino reps. Anyone like to take a guess as to what Lisa's relationship to me is? I'm not sure it'll come as any great surprise to anyone. It comes with a ring. As to her 'profession', that's actually out-of-data information on Companies House. She was a teacher at the time ThePOGG was founded and I was running it as a sole trader. She now works full time for the site. When we incorporated she took the Director's role because I risked our savings chasing my dream. She's entitled to greater right of ownership because instead of paying off our mortgage she allowed me to take that risk. I try to be fair in all aspects of my life - as far as the limits of human perception allow - and that seemed fair recompense to me.
I serve as 'the face of TP' and deal with all public contact, whether that is with players, programs or regulators. Other people on our team have different remits. By ensuring I'm always the person people deal with we ensure that there is a consistent message delivered and that other team members don't get pulled away from the jobs we need them doing responding to things like this.
To make everything as transparent as possible - I'm also the manager of BetBlocker.org - this is a project that ThePOGG funds but isn't run as a business, so when someone contacts support there, I'm the one that responds.
The comparison you've drawn between the company structures in question is limp to say the least. We are a UK registered company, all our important people are identifiable and you can even see our accounts as submitted to HMRC. You are comparing this to a company with no public records of a comparable nature, who went to great lengths to deny any connection to the Vulkan properties that have been involved in distributing fake games (who another site has identified as having been operated out of Ukraine), who then went on to buy a Vulkan branded property running on an affiliate program that only represented two Vulkan branded properties, the other of which can be confirmed to have been hooked up to one of the fake game servers and whose new owners it turns out are also operating out of Ukraine. I totally accept your pov in that you don't feel these pieces of information are enough that any concerns should be raised. I disagree entirely. And I/we have a right to those opinions just as you have your rights. You feel that we are 'sloppy' and 'the lowest of the low' and I feel you are willing to turn a blind eye and dismiss more than can reasonably be dismissed as coincidence. Let's not drag all this up again here. I don't think there's anything new to say other than sniping at each other and that only makes the forum a less pleasant place for everyone.
As to the discussion of ProMediate - I'm taking no position on this what-so-ever. Note - I have not read this thread in full and may have missed the semantics of the discussion. UK approved ADR. I would strongly doubt they are in any way linked to BETAT or associated casinos beyond serving as their ADR (in fact the EU regulations governing ADRs specifically prohibit ADRs being set up to manage complaints related to a single issue/company). And as far as the operator responding to complaints very quickly - they always did even when we were their ADR*. I would suggest that regardless of how any members here may feel about the current Max Entertainment properties, it wouldn't seem particularly fair to me to call into question the reputation of the ADR simply because they represent Max Entertainment. They may be one of the smaller ADRs in terms of the number of clients they currently represent within the UK online gambling sector but while we were an ADR we had a small roster of clients and I would like to think that the community here wouldn't look to imply that we lacked impartiality on this basis alone.
TP
*Yes we were the UKGC ADR for NRR Entertainment for a time and in fact we effectively stepped down from our role with the UKGC - something that cost us greatly in a number of different ways - in their defence when the UKGC insisted on us taking action that we felt to be unfair to the operator over a group of complaints that had come in.
Last edited:
I wasn't making a direct comparison just pointing out that things weren't always black and white.
As for your explanation as to how you set up your own company that may well fly with joe public but unfortunately i'm not buying it. You could easily have given the "missus" full/majority ownership of the Company without sticking her in as a director- that carries a responsibility and no advantage.She could have had all the upside financially without any of the downside so actually what you did (if i believe you which i dont) was risk both your life savings and set Lisa up for any further downside should the business go belly up, a position she need not have been in if your premise was only to "be fair" financially. I don't know about the other "team members" as the last accounts i see allow for 2 people (inclusive of the director) and as you are the public face of the Pogg and with all thats on the internet bearing your name her being a Director would seem senseless anyway as you'd be regarded as holding a "shadow" Directorship role and that puts both parties in the firing line when theres's no need for it.Anyway how you setup/run your business is up to you . I note yes you are a UK Company and have a Maltese "Holding" Company but the accounts for the UK Company are not lets say"overly impressive" and the only reason that interests me at all is your "Deposit Guarantee". With the amount of signups you must have how do you ever cover that if something goes wrong??? Are you actually able to or is it really only on a wing and a prayer that you believe you'll always be able to get the Casino's to cough up?
I do and will continue to take issue with the "Betat/Vulkan Connection" but its not for the love of Betat or anyone who works there. Its because of trial by internet , loose statements being bandied about as facts (You say Betat acquired Vulkan , Bryan in his Christmas naughty or nice message says Vulkan acquired Betat as one example) . I don't care who owns them , i can't because nobody can tell me they actually know who owns most of the sites accredited on here or the Pogg but if you KNOW that its someone that i or anybody else shouldn't be dealing with then just say it's "MR X" and heres all you need to know about him. Just be right about it, say it as Duncan Garvie not "the pogg" as thats you saying it and Lisa taking responsibilty for it and surely thats not "fair" on the "missus"??
Incorrect. It was in fact clicking on the link and finding an entry for NRR on a bank statement from March that kicked this off. On the site there was NO clue that these companies were one and the same. Very clearly marked as Max Ent Ltd. To my surprise on clicking the link it brought up their name and Betat. I had many accounts previously but it was on viewing a bank statement that the link between Max Ent and NRR was discovered only. The casino, despite numerous back and forth emails, have never acknowledged once that I had an account at Betat in March which I sent them from bank statements, still unresponsive. We then have them coming on here and practically giving away full information to the wider world on an individual case. As said before, I now don't care about the money. This company and their methods need to be taken to task.
Think your around long enough to know Betat/Slotty are one and the same and remember that you had a Slotty Account that you SE'd from, but i make no moral judgement i think you should have your funds returned , Slotty should have stopped you when you registered and until SE results in a blanket ban with all UKGC licenced Operators this will just keep coming up time and time again. I'm sure there plenty of cute hoors in Glasgow,Belfast and London who are happy to take advantage
That's the thing though, I did not know they were one and the same initially. I made mistakes of course, I am far from pleading my innocence here. I have made numerous bad mistakes in the past 6 months so I am no angel. After this one is done I will be posting only and giving opinions. I would actually try and help operators in the UK if I could from experiences with this. I appreciate all comments on this thread even disagreeing with my points and correcting me. Life is a learning curve
Fair enough you've stated your position and anything i could say re your motives would only be guesswork. You wouldn't of been opening a thread had their SE procedures been watertight so unfortunately Slotty only have themselves to blame (as long as name,date of birth where the same your entitled to change address and email as much as you want)
Hi mac72,
Lisa's asked me to ask you to stop referring to her as the "missus". It's demeaning and pretty sexist. She is masters degree educated, not some 1950's housewife. It's one thing for someone who has a significant familiarity with a person to use that type of pejorative term in a fond fashion. It's entirely different used in the patronising manner you have engaged. She was going to post herself, but it'd come from the same IP so it'd just end up looking like me running other accounts.
I don't consider it unfortunate that you don't believe me. I never expected you to. You have a clear position and agenda. Despite literally being a response to you, my reply was really intended for everyone else. You're clearly quite emotionally evoked by this issue and that's coming through strongly in your posts that are coming over more and more as a personal attacks. Trying to reason with someone who's choosing their actions based on emotion never produces any positive results.
We've gone from you attacking us for making claims you don't feel we have sound ground for to you attacking us with claims that you've no grounds for. You see a double standard there? If you have some evidence of wrongdoing, please, lay it out for everyone. We're (and I do speak for both myself and Lisa in this respect) comfortable with our company structure and the motivations behind it whether you are or not. The Directorship gives Lisa certain rights and controls that a shareholder alone (to my knowledge - and I'll admit company structuring at this level isn't one of my areas of expertise) doesn't have.
As far as the Maltese Holding company goes - that's easy and I've actually discussed this with any number of people here. We couldn't get a business bank account in the UK when we incorporated (a jump I made before understanding that requirement). Banks in the UK are pretty reluctant to engage with anything in the gambling sector. A friend in the business set us up with a company in Malta that felt they could get us the necessary account, but we had to move the business to Malta. We got over there and when the first quarter's accounts were done I became aware of accounting practices that I was very uncomfortable with (in my uninformed opinion they skated very close to tax avoidance though they are apparently very common in Malta). As such we looked to move the company back. It's taken a lot of time and money but we did eventually get a business bank account open in the UK. As such we've moved back to the UK and have removed the Maltese holding company, which would be closed by this point if we didn't have funds trapped in Malta due to the Satabank issue. As soon as that issue is resolve there will only be a UK company.
As to us not being "impressive" financially by your standards, we've never made any grandiose claims about generating huge revenues. In fact we're a mid-level affiliate at best and we consistently handicap ourselves by refusing to work with huge sections of the market that hold problematic terms or practices. Would we like to be bigger? Of course, but not at the expense of sacrificing standards. I'd rather grow slowly and feel comfortable with the approach we've taken than gain increased growth at the expense of our reputation.
So let's move on - the Deposit Guarantee. I'd suggest you may want to read the terms of the seal. The answer to your question is clearly covered there. It has an upper cap of £5k. That was specifically set to account for our financial means. Regardless though, part of how the seal works is that we're careful about who we give it to. We won't give it to operators we do not trust. Because we are careful about who we issue it to we've only actually had a single instance where we had to pay out and that was against 18Bet and for a few hundred pounds when they enforced a vague 'system betting' term. The truth is that we have actually offered this kind of payout far more often against operators who didn't hold our seal and for far larger sums, some ranging up to mid-5 figures. This has been used as leverage where operators have tried to strong arm players, demanding that they get complaints removed before they'll be paid anything. We have never had to pay out in these circumstances, but had we it would have been an installment based approach as we could not cover a mid-5 figure sum immediately. And there have been other cases where we just felt that the player had slipped through the cracks - i.e. the operator weren't really in the wrong, but the player still have been caught up in a technicality - and as such paid them ourselves. Here's an example -
With respect to BETAT/Vulkan, your account is a little off. The company ownership says that MaxEnt now owns VulkanBet. They've not contested that. We can show that previously VulkanBet was running on 'V' branded affiliate program that only represented a single other Vulkan branded property that was hooked up to one of the servers being used to distribute stolen games. I have my own opinions on what may be going on behind the scenes here, but any public position we've taken is based on this connection. The bad Vulkan properties are being operated out of Ukraine. MaxEnt now own a Vulkan property that has shared an affiliate program with one of the bad Vulkan properties. The new MaxEnt owners are based in Ukraine. These are things we can demonstrate. Beyond that, who owns what isn't for me to say. I'm saying that these facts are enough that I don't think players should engage with this group as they are a significant concern to me.
The truth of this matter is you're doing the company you're trying to protect a disservice at this point. We were happy enough to let this issue rest where it was left before xmas, awaiting the response from MaxEnt's legal representatives if there was going to be any. By kicking this all up again, you actually just draw more attention to it, something that the operator probably doesn't want by this point.
I'm not actually sure why you're asking these questions given that you've been on our Companies House page. A bit redundant. Anyway:
i) You're absolutely right - we'll be launching a new design shortly and I'll ensure it's included in the footer information of our site.
ii & iii) There's a PO Box address on the Companies House page (and on the contact us page of the site) - that's allowed by UK regulations if your domestic residence is your registered office. As I mentioned above - mid-level affiliates. We deal with a variety of people in varying emotional states. In my opinion, having our domestic residence on a public register is a potential physical risk. We semi-regularly receive threats from complainants we haven't supported. It's a fact of life in this particular job.
I'm not going to respond to you further. I'm sure you'll have strong views on the why of that, but I don't think this conversation is really this is doing anyone any good and is simply fuelling further conflict. If anyone else here has questions about how we run our business, feel free to drop me a PM and I'll be happy to share.
TP
Lisa's asked me to ask you to stop referring to her as the "missus". It's demeaning and pretty sexist. She is masters degree educated, not some 1950's housewife. It's one thing for someone who has a significant familiarity with a person to use that type of pejorative term in a fond fashion. It's entirely different used in the patronising manner you have engaged. She was going to post herself, but it'd come from the same IP so it'd just end up looking like me running other accounts.
I don't consider it unfortunate that you don't believe me. I never expected you to. You have a clear position and agenda. Despite literally being a response to you, my reply was really intended for everyone else. You're clearly quite emotionally evoked by this issue and that's coming through strongly in your posts that are coming over more and more as a personal attacks. Trying to reason with someone who's choosing their actions based on emotion never produces any positive results.
We've gone from you attacking us for making claims you don't feel we have sound ground for to you attacking us with claims that you've no grounds for. You see a double standard there? If you have some evidence of wrongdoing, please, lay it out for everyone. We're (and I do speak for both myself and Lisa in this respect) comfortable with our company structure and the motivations behind it whether you are or not. The Directorship gives Lisa certain rights and controls that a shareholder alone (to my knowledge - and I'll admit company structuring at this level isn't one of my areas of expertise) doesn't have.
As far as the Maltese Holding company goes - that's easy and I've actually discussed this with any number of people here. We couldn't get a business bank account in the UK when we incorporated (a jump I made before understanding that requirement). Banks in the UK are pretty reluctant to engage with anything in the gambling sector. A friend in the business set us up with a company in Malta that felt they could get us the necessary account, but we had to move the business to Malta. We got over there and when the first quarter's accounts were done I became aware of accounting practices that I was very uncomfortable with (in my uninformed opinion they skated very close to tax avoidance though they are apparently very common in Malta). As such we looked to move the company back. It's taken a lot of time and money but we did eventually get a business bank account open in the UK. As such we've moved back to the UK and have removed the Maltese holding company, which would be closed by this point if we didn't have funds trapped in Malta due to the Satabank issue. As soon as that issue is resolve there will only be a UK company.
As to us not being "impressive" financially by your standards, we've never made any grandiose claims about generating huge revenues. In fact we're a mid-level affiliate at best and we consistently handicap ourselves by refusing to work with huge sections of the market that hold problematic terms or practices. Would we like to be bigger? Of course, but not at the expense of sacrificing standards. I'd rather grow slowly and feel comfortable with the approach we've taken than gain increased growth at the expense of our reputation.
So let's move on - the Deposit Guarantee. I'd suggest you may want to read the terms of the seal. The answer to your question is clearly covered there. It has an upper cap of £5k. That was specifically set to account for our financial means. Regardless though, part of how the seal works is that we're careful about who we give it to. We won't give it to operators we do not trust. Because we are careful about who we issue it to we've only actually had a single instance where we had to pay out and that was against 18Bet and for a few hundred pounds when they enforced a vague 'system betting' term. The truth is that we have actually offered this kind of payout far more often against operators who didn't hold our seal and for far larger sums, some ranging up to mid-5 figures. This has been used as leverage where operators have tried to strong arm players, demanding that they get complaints removed before they'll be paid anything. We have never had to pay out in these circumstances, but had we it would have been an installment based approach as we could not cover a mid-5 figure sum immediately. And there have been other cases where we just felt that the player had slipped through the cracks - i.e. the operator weren't really in the wrong, but the player still have been caught up in a technicality - and as such paid them ourselves. Here's an example -
You do not have permission to view link
Log in or register now.
With respect to BETAT/Vulkan, your account is a little off. The company ownership says that MaxEnt now owns VulkanBet. They've not contested that. We can show that previously VulkanBet was running on 'V' branded affiliate program that only represented a single other Vulkan branded property that was hooked up to one of the servers being used to distribute stolen games. I have my own opinions on what may be going on behind the scenes here, but any public position we've taken is based on this connection. The bad Vulkan properties are being operated out of Ukraine. MaxEnt now own a Vulkan property that has shared an affiliate program with one of the bad Vulkan properties. The new MaxEnt owners are based in Ukraine. These are things we can demonstrate. Beyond that, who owns what isn't for me to say. I'm saying that these facts are enough that I don't think players should engage with this group as they are a significant concern to me.
The truth of this matter is you're doing the company you're trying to protect a disservice at this point. We were happy enough to let this issue rest where it was left before xmas, awaiting the response from MaxEnt's legal representatives if there was going to be any. By kicking this all up again, you actually just draw more attention to it, something that the operator probably doesn't want by this point.
I'm not actually sure why you're asking these questions given that you've been on our Companies House page. A bit redundant. Anyway:
i) You're absolutely right - we'll be launching a new design shortly and I'll ensure it's included in the footer information of our site.
ii & iii) There's a PO Box address on the Companies House page (and on the contact us page of the site) - that's allowed by UK regulations if your domestic residence is your registered office. As I mentioned above - mid-level affiliates. We deal with a variety of people in varying emotional states. In my opinion, having our domestic residence on a public register is a potential physical risk. We semi-regularly receive threats from complainants we haven't supported. It's a fact of life in this particular job.
I'm not going to respond to you further. I'm sure you'll have strong views on the why of that, but I don't think this conversation is really this is doing anyone any good and is simply fuelling further conflict. If anyone else here has questions about how we run our business, feel free to drop me a PM and I'll be happy to share.
TP
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 22, 2012
If you think they are not 'overly impressive' I suggest you look up the UK Companies of some UKGC licensed casinos......they should be of far more concern to you.
Apologies to Lisa for the reference "missus" but it was you that stated that your "connection" with the director of your Company had to do with a ring and not her business accumen/professional qualifications.
I do Betat/Slotty no dis-service but its not really them i'm trying to protect/stand up for. This is my position in a nutshell and i'll leave it at this. You seek to blacken the name of a business (and if it were any business my position would be the same) "by association". By your own admission you are naive when it comes to the business basics never mind corporate structures.
Vulkanbet is the point of issue here and you say Maxnet because they now own them are "tainted". Microgaming/BTG/Netent etc etc all supply product and deal directly with Vulcanbet so if you rogue one you rogue the lot end of.
edit: There is no double standard you gave reasons for having your partner as a director that held no water and i simply responded to those.There was no reason you could not of been the director of the company and she held the shares unless there where trust issues between you which i can't comment on
Last edited:
Why? I wouldn't play at any i was unsure of and none of them are trying to give me advice on where to avoid? So they are of no concern to me at all
- Joined
- May 22, 2012
Why? The obvious. Because some hold their main accounts and company in Malta, with minimal assets held here where in fact as a tenet of UKGC licensing they are supposed to maintain a certain level of operations. These casinos will also hold only the basic level of UK player funds protection invariably. Which is next to useless when something goes wrong. Funnily enough, didn't NRR get hauled over the coals by the UKGC for breaches of this at one time?
Don't know about that but i do know "Rizk" wouldn't even give me their UK address to serve papers on which is why i avoid GIG like the plague. As they are one of the top rated sites here does anybody actually know what their UK address is and what level of operations they maintain?
- Joined
- May 22, 2012
Nope, but I did discover EM's at one time. When faced with a court case they even tried to deny they were an 'business entity' to the plaintiff. Which would be very contrary to the UKGC requirements.
colinsunderland
RIP Colin
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2016
- Location
- uk
You don't expect GIG to actually follow UK rules do you? They are a joke and I closed all my accounts with them ages ago.
I'm in agreement with you, any UKGC licenced operation should have a physical address in the UK where papers can be served on them and assets that are available for seizure in this juristiction.
I suppose i was just making the point on the "deposit guarantee" offered. I am aware that he has limited it to £500 per claim and ringfenced 10 claims worth £5000 but i'll need to read it again when i've time to see if thats actually where the liability ends as i would of thought not. There appear to be 24odd casino's with the "deposit guarantee" and i would of thought regardless of previous history on claims that saying you'll cover the first 10 and everyone after that is left hanging wouldn't fly.
In relation to the Casino's why don't you require a proof of say £1 million cash of bank (just picked at random) for accredited status to give some comfort there is cash there and not just "good intentions"
Just in case any of the other affiliates here are having issues with business banking in the Uk you can get an account in literally minutes online you have no need to go for one of the big banks, no credit checks and all the facilities (DD's tranfers etc.) that a traditional bank has. I'll give you the link for Cashplus as they have been going years but theres literally dozens offering it now:
You do not have permission to view link
Log in or register now.
- Status
Similar threads
Users who are viewing this thread
Meister Ratings
Read about our rating system and how it's done.
-
REGISTER NOW!! Why? Because you can't do diddly squat without having been registered!
At the moment you have limited access to view most discussions: you can't make contact with thousands of fellow players, affiliates, casino reps, and all sorts of other riff-raff.
Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join Casinomeister here!