UK Gambling Commission - another ineffective can't-be-bothered-to-regulator?

[thelawnet]

I wrote to the UK Gambling Commission on 19th March 2015.

My complaint was in relation to Mansion Group of casinos, and their 'dormant account' terms.

Under Mansion's terms, they will confiscate 5% (minimum $15) of your balance after six months with no play, and a further 5% every month until 12 months, whereupon they will size all of the customer's money. This could amount to several thousand pounds in 'dormant account fees'.

The UKGC provides
• 7.1 – Licensees must satisfy themselves that the terms on which gambling is offered are not unfair under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 and, where applicable, meet the reasonableness test under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and must comply with those terms

My complaint was that Mansion's term is blatantly unfair within the meaning of the Unfair Terms Regulations, given that they only advise the player of dormancy by email, which is not a reliable means of communication (and which in my case I did not receive), and that any fees should be at most £1 or £2 a month, not £500.

I suggested that the UKGC act to remove this from Mansion's terms.

Their response arrived yesterday, 15th April 2015, and was as follows:

"The Commission requires that all terms and conditions must meet the requirements of the Unfair Contract Terms Act., whether a term is acceptable is something that only the courts can decide.

Mansion Group have clearly presented the terms on which a player transacts with them and ultimately the choice whether to accept these terms lies with the individual player."

This is an inadequate response:

* the Unfair Contract Terms Act is not the main piece of legislation covering this are - the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations are different, and more important, but they do not mention these (and soon, the Consumer Rights Act 2015). It suggests that those handling this are not properly familiar with the law.
* it is not true that the courts are the only body that can decide this, in fact the Competition and Markets Authority has this legal power, but they would generally not consider complaints from a consumer, but would from the Gambling Commission, for example. Again this suggests a lack of legal competence from the UKGC.
* it is not necessarily true that terms are 'clearly presented'. They are on a separate page and the courts have recognised that small print is not going to be studied in detail. Again this suggests a lack of legal competence from the UKGC.

Moreover, if I were to take Mansion to court, there are the following possibilities:

* out-of-court settlement, no need for them to change their terms
* goes to court, I win - it would be a small claims court, there's no legal precedent set, still no need for Mansion to claim

So in effect, as the Gambling Commission are refusing to act or investigate, their Code of Practice is meaningless and offers no consumer protection at all. They took four weeks to say 'don't bother us, we don't care'.

 

[conker]

Hmm, this isn't very good news. You would like to think they would fight your corner in this type of situation.

I had a similar run in with the FCA (Financial Conduct Authority), who made me feel like my enquiry about dubious credit cards was completely pointless and not to darken their door again. Followed up with a rather 'How did we do?' questionnaire, possibly their to make you feel like they care. What's worse is all these pen pushers are very well paid and seem to have a great deal of contempt for anyone daring to raise a concern.

 

[thelawnet]

It seems like a straightforward case to me, certainly. For example, in the area of banking, the unfair terms laws have been used to say for instance that penalties levied by banks in excess of the costs incurred are unlawful. E.g., if it costs a bank £8 if I pay my credit card late, but they impose a £30 default charge, than that is unfair.

Here, the charge is way, way beyond that - hundreds of pounds per month in penalties for not placing a bet. I can see the UKGC declining to get involved in some cases where there is sharp practice by the player, or something, but this is a simple case of 'unfair terms', and they don't care

I agree with you about regulators fobbing people off - in the past I attempted to communicate with Trading Standards, and they fobbed me off. That I could understand, since the internet/ebay has brought massively increased levels of fraud/scams, and I doubt their staffing has increased accordingly.

Here however the UKGC's cost should be funded by the industry itself - this is not a case of general taxation being required to increase funding.

 

[dunover]

This yet another example of a QUANGO staffed by Police/Civil Service retirees doing another 10 years' pensionable work. They tick the boxes on the applications and provide the CV but have little or no relevant experience which means areas have no expert input. It reminds me of court cases that require expert or professional witnesses as the Police or CPS are lacking in knowledge or experience.
Winning a CCJ under the Unfair Terms legislation could set a precedent and if contested by Mansion Group could indeed lead to a case-in-law should you win. The UKGC's reply to you suggests an employee has simply trawled the internet for a sliver of legal excuse and hasn't the wherewithal to actively make a considered decision or opinion on whether Unfair Contract laws have been breached. The UKGC hasn't even attempted to establish what real cost a dormant account is to a casino, if at all. With that in mind it's hardly surprising they can't make an informed decision.

Basically, it's a: "You may be right mate but we neither have the will nor resources to confirm yea or nay. We couldn't really care less what term Mansion have included as you agreed to it. If it is unlawful or potentially unlawful it's up to you to establish at your effort and expense. Obviously when you've done all this we will take the outcome on board, dust-off our keyboards and tack an e-mail or letter together and send it to the casinos concerned. Job done."

 

[Nicola]

I've only once been in contact with the UKGC and that was in relation to 32Red's lack of player protection for responsible gaming. Their response was very sarcastic and they basically refused to take on my concern/complaint.

 

[redsfan]

This yet another example of a QUANGO staffed by Police/Civil Service retirees doing another 10 years' pensionable work. They tick the boxes on the applications and provide the CV but have little or no relevant experience which means areas have no expert input. It reminds me of court cases that require expert or professional witnesses as the Police or CPS are lacking in knowledge or experience.
Winning a CCJ under the Unfair Terms legislation could set a precedent and if contested by Mansion Group could indeed lead to a case-in-law should you win. The UKGC's reply to you suggests an employee has simply trawled the internet for a sliver of legal excuse and hasn't the wherewithal to actively make a considered decision or opinion on whether Unfair Contract laws have been breached. The UKGC hasn't even attempted to establish what real cost a dormant account is to a casino, if at all. With that in mind it's hardly surprising they can't make an informed decision.

Basically, it's a: "You may be right mate but we neither have the will nor resources to confirm yea or nay. We couldn't really care less what term Mansion have included as you agreed to it. If it is unlawful or potentially unlawful it's up to you to establish at your effort and expense. Obviously when you've done all this we will take the outcome on board, dust-off our keyboards and tack an e-mail or letter together and send it to the casinos concerned. Job done."

Unfortunately, precedents can not be made in county court. Has to be at least the Mercantile court in the UK

 

[dunover]

Unfortunately, precedents can not be made in county court. Has to be at least the Mercantile court in the UK

Yes I know - I said 'if contested' which means that expert opinion is summoned by both sides and moves to higher adjudication. The fact remains the UKGC will not be willing to make a legal interpretation of any terms themselves, for whatever reason.

 

[vinylweatherman]

It will probably take several successful claims from players to force the equivalent of a "super complaint" of the form that eventually forced the issue of bank charges to a higher court in order to clarify the law and set a precedent.

In general, fees must in some way represent the actual costs incurred as in law a private business cannot levy arbitrary fines, nor arbitrarily help themselves to something that doesn't belong to them, like a customers' money. The energy companies have already tried the latter, but recently the regulator has caught up with them and delivered a very firm set of rapped knuckles, fines, and now they have to actively trace affected customers and give back the money. The energy companies were effectively doing the same as casinos by keeping any credit left in an account after a customer had switched supplier in the hope that the customer would not realise and ask for it back.

The percentage fee is probably a problem here as it blatantly has nothing to do with their costs, but is clearly designed to drain an account over a given period of time no matter how high the balance. Had they stated a fixed fee of $15 per month, this would most likely be OK.

Another hurdle would be that they would be asked to demonstrate that they had made "reasonable endeavours" to return the balance to the customer, and sending ONE email just does not cut it.

I would be surprised if casinos made significant sums from such a practice as I am sure no sensible player would knowingly abandon a large amount in a casino they had little intention of playing again.

Casinos could also clash with the law where they are able to take a large amount of money because a player had died. The money would always belong to the estate of the player, and would be recoverable by his beneficiaries. Every player here should bear in mind that if they were to die, whoever looks after their estate would need a means to find out where some of the money might be located. Traditional means do not work well in the online casino industry, and this is probably an issue the various regulators need to address as it would seem to need some kind of central place for executors of an estate to make enquiries against when dealing with the estate. Casinos should also bear this in mind in the rare event that they are OWED money by a player who suddenly stops logging in or answering the phone and emails.

 

[dunover]

It will probably take several successful claims from players to force the equivalent of a "super complaint" of the form that eventually forced the issue of bank charges to a higher court in order to clarify the law and set a precedent.

In general, fees must in some way represent the actual costs incurred as in law a private business cannot levy arbitrary fines, nor arbitrarily help themselves to something that doesn't belong to them, like a customers' money. The energy companies have already tried the latter, but recently the regulator has caught up with them and delivered a very firm set of rapped knuckles, fines, and now they have to actively trace affected customers and give back the money. The energy companies were effectively doing the same as casinos by keeping any credit left in an account after a customer had switched supplier in the hope that the customer would not realise and ask for it back.

The percentage fee is probably a problem here as it blatantly has nothing to do with their costs, but is clearly designed to drain an account over a given period of time no matter how high the balance. Had they stated a fixed fee of $15 per month, this would most likely be OK.

Another hurdle would be that they would be asked to demonstrate that they had made "reasonable endeavours" to return the balance to the customer, and sending ONE email just does not cut it.

I would be surprised if casinos made significant sums from such a practice as I am sure no sensible player would knowingly abandon a large amount in a casino they had little intention of playing again.

Casinos could also clash with the law where they are able to take a large amount of money because a player had died. The money would always belong to the estate of the player, and would be recoverable by his beneficiaries. Every player here should bear in mind that if they were to die, whoever looks after their estate would need a means to find out where some of the money might be located. Traditional means do not work well in the online casino industry, and this is probably an issue the various regulators need to address as it would seem to need some kind of central place for executors of an estate to make enquiries against when dealing with the estate. Casinos should also bear this in mind in the rare event that they are OWED money by a player who suddenly stops logging in or answering the phone and emails.

So if I were to have a mental breakdown, then go and play St*rb*rst and expire through boredom and despair during the session it would have been prudent to have left a will and testament with my casino username/passwords contained therein in order for the trustees to retrieve any outstanding balances?

 

[cmonchels]

It might be worth a crack taking this to Martin Lewis (If you don't know, he's The 'Money Saving Expert'), he's very up on consumer rights and customer protection and can have a big influence on getting thing's changed when company's are taking the piss in their T&C's and not making absolutely clear and simple for everyone to see and understand, he has built a high profile reputation and, for example - is responsible for the new laws on the way Payday loan company's go about the way they operate.

I'm sure him/his people would kick up a fuss regarding the UKGC's responseattitude etc, just a thought.

 

[thelawnet]

This yet another example of a QUANGO staffed by Police/Civil Service retirees doing another 10 years' pensionable work. They tick the boxes on the applications and provide the CV but have little or no relevant experience which means areas have no expert input. It reminds me of court cases that require expert or professional witnesses as the Police or CPS are lacking in knowledge or experience.
Winning a CCJ under the Unfair Terms legislation could set a precedent and if contested by Mansion Group could indeed lead to a case-in-law should you win. The UKGC's reply to you suggests an employee has simply trawled the internet for a sliver of legal excuse and hasn't the wherewithal to actively make a considered decision or opinion on whether Unfair Contract laws have been breached. The UKGC hasn't even attempted to establish what real cost a dormant account is to a casino, if at all. With that in mind it's hardly surprising they can't make an informed decision.

Basically, it's a: "You may be right mate but we neither have the will nor resources to confirm yea or nay. We couldn't really care less what term Mansion have included as you agreed to it. If it is unlawful or potentially unlawful it's up to you to establish at your effort and expense. Obviously when you've done all this we will take the outcome on board, dust-off our keyboards and tack an e-mail or letter together and send it to the casinos concerned. Job done."

Actually, I googled the lady who responded to my case, and she was up on some sort of 'apprentice of the year' scheme in 2013 (at the UKGC), so it looks like more a case of them taking on under qualified staff than pensioning off old police on a fat salary.

 

[Deeplay]

Well basically at the moment the UKGC is sizing up to be utterly useless when it comes to any kind of player protection or rights. Rather than it been a seal of approval and safe fair game play they are just allowing casinos to make there own terms. So if it is the terms then it is deemed ok (even if it goes against UK consumer law and protection) which is shoddy at times anyway. the 666 debacle is making the UKGC look like a joke. But I suppose from the UKGcs pov its a good thing with the massive license fees they impost on operators and the taxation gained. Why bother about the Joe public. As in England they will only be forced to act if they are enough robust complaints and challenges. The license as it stands at the moment is not worth the E-Paper it is written on from the players perspective. As I now know if a UK registered casino for what ever reason goes off line and I have funds locked in there then I may as well wave them goodbye. Thank the lord I am moving to pastures greener again very soon Denmark is calling me )))

 

[vinylweatherman]

It might be worth a crack taking this to Martin Lewis (If you don't know, he's The 'Money Saving Expert'), he's very up on consumer rights and customer protection and can have a big influence on getting thing's changed when company's are taking the piss in their T&C's and not making absolutely clear and simple for everyone to see and understand, he has built a high profile reputation and, for example - is responsible for the new laws on the way Payday loan company's go about the way they operate.

I'm sure him/his people would kick up a fuss regarding the UKGC's responseattitude etc, just a thought.

He already has a section on this on his forum. It has some "money saving tips" that some casinos would go as far as to say were "condoning fraud" as they discuss how to maximise the odds with new player offers. They are just as ruthless as with careless retail promotions, and may be one reason why the UK has been branded the "fraud capital" by some online casinos.

However, it would need a number of his forum regulars to become victims, such as with the payday loan issues, for there to be enough weight behind a drive for change.

We are still in the stalling stage over 666 as the UKGC says there is no reason for them not paying, whilst 666 are saying that by suspending their licence, the UKGC have effectively stripped 666 of the means to pay it's players, but that as soon as the licence is restored, they will be able to open up the site to enable players to withdraw their money if they don't want to play there any longer.

As for the death of a player, it's one of those things that most people don't consider because they know all their passwords etc. With a list, someone else could simply log in and withdraw the cash and/or check the status of the account, and would know which subset of casinos to look at. Without this, it's possible that the person looking after the estate won't even know that the deceased played online, let alone where to look for assets. This could result in money being abandoned to the casinos, and no one will know how much this happens. There would be a way to research this, but it would require online casinos to release data on dormant accounts where funds were forfeit to the casino so that a researcher could check these against the register of deaths in order to see how much of this was due to a player's death, as opposed to carelessness in retrieving their funds.

I dealt with my dad's estate, and I had to look for any money that might be recoverable, and this included checking for any outstanding bets down at the bookies that needed cashing in (I found none, he marked the horses, but never made it down to bet). He didn't even own a computer, so I didn't have to consider online bookies, but this is rapidly changing as more and more people bet online.

I DO have a list of all the casino accounts I have ever opened, so it's a start, but I tend not to leave money sitting around so only a couple of them will have anything in them. My family all know I play, so ignorance is no excuse for them not considering the possibility of there being money in there.

 

[sscrabble]

I have put a note a note at the bottom of my will with login info - I am presuming that they can just ask the casinos to transfer any balances in the casino back to the bank account or service you usually use to pay in -- is that the case , or do they have to produce copies of death certificates etc.. Anyone had experience of this?

 

[thelawnet]

Well basically at the moment the UKGC is sizing up to be utterly useless when it comes to any kind of player protection or rights. Rather than it been a seal of approval and safe fair game play they are just allowing casinos to make there own terms. So if it is the terms then it is deemed ok (even if it goes against UK consumer law and protection) which is shoddy at times anyway.

Yes tbh they don't necessarily need to put a fancy lawyer on this, one approach from them would be:

Dear Mansion Group,

You will be aware that the UKGC Code of Practice requires that terms comply with the Unfair Contract Terms legislation. One of your players has suggested that Clause 11 of your terms is unfair, because it imposes unreasonable fees on dormant accounts.

Could you please consider whether you agree that this term is unfair. If you believe it is fair, provide your rationale for this. If it is unfair, remove it from your terms and refund the players that have been charged.

Regards,

UKGC

 

[thelawnet]

It might be worth a crack taking this to Martin Lewis (If you don't know, he's The 'Money Saving Expert'), he's very up on consumer rights and customer protection and can have a big influence on getting thing's changed when company's are taking the piss in their T&C's and not making absolutely clear and simple for everyone to see and understand, he has built a high profile reputation and, for example - is responsible for the new laws on the way Payday loan company's go about the way they operate.

I'm sure him/his people would kick up a fuss regarding the UKGC's responseattitude etc, just a thought.

Entirely coincidentally they have today published an article on this issue.

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

They are only talking about £3/month though!

 

[Matti]

This was actually better before UKGC. MGA states a maximum om €5 per month for dormant accounts. It is not up to the casino to charge whatever they feel like.

 

[The Dude]

Yes tbh they don't necessarily need to put a fancy lawyer on this, one approach from them would be:

Dear Mansion Group,

You will be aware that the UKGC Code of Practice requires that terms comply with the Unfair Contract Terms legislation. One of your players has suggested that Clause 11 of your terms is unfair, because it imposes unreasonable fees on dormant accounts.

Could you please consider whether you agree that this term is unfair. If you believe it is fair, provide your rationale for this. If it is unfair, remove it from your terms and refund the players that have been charged.

Regards,

UKGC

A little bit of communication paired with tact and logic can go a long way in this industry. Old timers like you, me and our brethren know full well that most licensing jurisdictions are ill-equipped to handle some of the most simplest complaints. At the moment, Kahnawake out shines everyone - they were schooled at the university of "hard knocks." It seems that not many people have used them as an example on how to deal with players.

And why am I not surprised? Most licensing jurisdictions are more concerned about gaining clients than dealing with player issues like yours. I've been to a number of conferences this past year, and I have yet to meet anyone from the UKGC.

This is very disappointing - I hope that they can pull it together. Properly dealing with players is not rocket science.

 

[IanO]

... This could amount to several thousand pounds in 'dormant account fees'....
... any fees should be at most £1 or £2 a month, not £500....

Just to pop this in perspective... they are talking about a 5% charge if you don't log in and play for 6 months. In your above example of a £500 charge... that means the player must have had £10,000 in a casino account that what... they just forgot about for half a year? How likely do you really think that is?

I would speculate that the vast majority of customers who have funds confiscated as a result of this rule would have 2 digit balances (at most) and this is nothing more than a housekeeping tool.

Maybe it's just me, but this almost seems like a deliberate attempt to make a mountain of a molehill.

Question for the OP... did you actually have funds confiscated due to this rule, or are you just objecting to a hypothetical situation? If it's the latter I could not see any courts taking you too seriously.

 

[thelawnet]

Just to pop this in perspective... they are talking about a 5% charge if you don't log in and play for 6 months. In your above example of a £500 charge... that means the player must have had £10,000 in a casino account that what... they just forgot about for half a year? How likely do you really think that is?

I would speculate that the vast majority of customers who have funds confiscated as a result of this rule would have 2 digit balances (at most) and this is nothing more than a housekeeping tool.

Maybe it's just me, but this almost seems like a deliberate attempt to make a mountain of a molehill.

Question for the OP... did you actually have funds confiscated due to this rule, or are you just objecting to a hypothetical situation? If it's the latter I could not see any courts taking you too seriously.

I had a balance of £5,627 (I had requested a withdrawal but I didn't send in the ID documents) and they took £1273 over 3 or 4 months, without sending any warning.

 

[IanO]

I had a balance of £5,627 (I had requested a withdrawal but I didn't send in the ID documents) and they took £1273 over 3 or 4 months, without sending any warning.

I see. So if I have the maths correct they have been deducting funds since January/February... which would mean you let the account go idle in June of last year when they asked you for documents.

I wont speculate as to why you decided not to send in docs to claim your funds ... or even to look into the mater for the best part of a year.. but I would still think cases like yours are the rare exception. I know if I had over 5 grand waiting... I'd send in the docs that day.

Knowing that you had such a long period of time to resolve the matter and avoid the above mentioned fees may play against you if you tried to take this to court claiming they were being unreasonable. Just my opinion, but I can better understand why you're taking this on at least now.

 

[dunover]

I had a balance of £5,627 (I had requested a withdrawal but I didn't send in the ID documents) and they took £1273 over 3 or 4 months, without sending any warning.

Eh? You never noticed that this withdrawal hadn't turned up? Reading that one could suggest you have some serious cash lying about if you either weren't too keen to expedite it or otherwise forgot about it!

On the other hand, the amounts they charged are indeed absolutely outrageous and unreasonable and are bordering on theft IMO. Imagine having 10k in a savings book and the bank charged 5% 'admin fee' for you not making any transactions within a certain time period!

Spend your 50 quid, get an online CC Summons started.

 

[thelawnet]

I see. So if I have the maths correct they have been deducting funds since January/February... which would mean you let the account go idle in June of last year when they asked you for documents.

I wont speculate as to why you decided not to send in docs to claim your funds ... or even to look into the mater for the best part of a year.. but I would still think cases like yours are the rare exception. I know if I had over 5 grand waiting... I'd send in the docs that day.

I'm not alone - this guy had £2k+ taken by Ladbrokes.

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

(They did pay it back.)

There are previous threads on this forum with people complaining about these fees too.

Knowing that you had such a long period of time to resolve the matter and avoid the above mentioned fees may play against you if you tried to take this to court claiming they were being unreasonable. Just my opinion, but I can better understand why you're taking this on at least now.

I don't know what to tell you really. I have had hundreds of casino accounts, 50,000 unread emails in my inbox. I recently sorted them out and tried to clean up some of the mess. It's not something I set out planning to do, it just happened. From my perspective I can say, yes I let my affairs get in disarray, and didn't really stay on top of what was going on, but I don't see that that's grounds for the casino to steal my money.

 

[JackMack]

I have also had unsatisfactory responses from them.
If all they are going to do is pass the book onto the courts or other legislative bodies then they really are not regulating.

What may be best is to first file a complaint about them through their complaints form so that it is a matter of official record and then go straight for the jugular and get some accountability by bypassing them and contacting their sponsor which is Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), specifically the minister overseeing them.
In each and every case the only way to get things done is to ensure people know they will be held accountable for their decisions - I couldn't tell you amount of times officialdom has laughed in my face until I have gone above them and ensured the person of responsibility knows the issue is a matter of record and will be accountable for their decisions.
Suddenly the organisation that blew me off sing a very different tune and I am suddenly not some schmuck but an important individual to be treated with respect.
It takes a lot of patience because they will test your resolve to continue the fight at every instance and hope you just go away but once they realise that you are going nowhere and such obfuscation and delay is also going to be a matter of record they will deal with it properly.

I guess it depends how important a particular issue is to you.

 

[dunover]

I have also had unsatisfactory responses from them.
If all they are going to do is pass the book onto the courts or other legislative bodies then they really are not regulating.

What may be best is to first file a complaint about them through their complaints form so that it is a matter of official record and then go straight for the jugular and get some accountability by bypassing them and contacting their sponsor which is Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), specifically the minister overseeing them.
In each and every case the only way to get things done is to ensure people know they will be held accountable for their decisions - I couldn't tell you amount of times officialdom has laughed in my face until I have gone above them and ensured the person of responsibility knows the issue is a matter of record and will be accountable for their decisions.
Suddenly the organisation that blew me off sing a very different tune and I am suddenly not some schmuck but an important individual to be treated with respect.
It takes a lot of patience because they will test your resolve to continue the fight at every instance and hope you just go away but once they realise that you are going nowhere and such obfuscation and delay is also going to be a matter of record they will deal with it properly.

I guess it depends how important a particular issue is to you.

I'd say it's £1273 important.

 

[Nammy]

It's an odd case. Personally, I'd miss 6K quite a lot and stay on top of it. I envy the OP for whom this apparently isn't an issue, but will otherwise park the Green Eyed Monster, and wish him well as he parks his Bentley.

The UKGC appears to have an entirely hands off attitude with regard to players. They do not seem to have even a credible process for dealing with player issues ("The licence holder should investigate the complaint, escalating as necessary, following their internal complaints procedure and informing you of the outcome." Wow .), so I'm not remotely surprised they've turned out so inadequate in this situation. And of course, to charge £500 per month for an unused account, which costs the casino exactly £0 to keep active, is an absurd abuse, as absurd as it is for the UKGC to defend the practice.

The answer is of course to never leave cash in an account, to always cash out or to facilitate your cash out any way possible. But even then, if you combine a slow paying casino with an absurd dormancy fee, then through no fault of your own you could find your cashout whittled down to zero. But since most cashouts are probably fairly straightforward, then a personal policy of always cashing out would deal with most of this problem, including the problem of cash left in deceased players' accounts about which the benefactors are ignorant. I'll bet that figure alone runs into millions.

 

[thelawnet]

Slight update, Club777 just called me to try and get me to deposit. (Unrelated to this issue.)

I pointed out that they hadn't responded to my complaint.

He said that they were allowed to impose those dormancy fee.

I said that the terms said they would give 30 days written notice.

He said that they had, but that the email had not been delivered because 'the outbox was over capacity'. He then subsequently said that they had proof the email had been delivered (I think he meant sent?). I also pointed out that the 'outbox' would be on their end, not mine, and that my email (yahoo mail) has 1TB capacity, so it would not be over capacity.

Moreover, if they are getting errors, they should try again. But anyway, he's going to look into it and get back to me.

 

[Richas]

I have also had unsatisfactory responses from them.
If all they are going to do is pass the book onto the courts or other legislative bodies then they really are not regulating.

What may be best is to first file a complaint about them through their complaints form so that it is a matter of official record and then go straight for the jugular and get some accountability by bypassing them and contacting their sponsor which is Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), specifically the minister overseeing them.
In each and every case the only way to get things done is to ensure people know they will be held accountable for their decisions - I couldn't tell you amount of times officialdom has laughed in my face until I have gone above them and ensured the person of responsibility knows the issue is a matter of record and will be accountable for their decisions.
Suddenly the organisation that blew me off sing a very different tune and I am suddenly not some schmuck but an important individual to be treated with respect.
It takes a lot of patience because they will test your resolve to continue the fight at every instance and hope you just go away but once they realise that you are going nowhere and such obfuscation and delay is also going to be a matter of record they will deal with it properly.

I guess it depends how important a particular issue is to you.

Well you could go for the jugular if you like but you will find that in their last consultation, well one of the last several they do so many it gets confusing, but this was the last one on self exclusion and marketing back in September there was this question

Q57. Do you consider that there are terms used by gambling operators which are inherently
unfair? Please give examples of terms within gambling contracts which you consider to be
unfair or unclear to customers? (page 74)

I responded on Reverse Withdrawal and Predatory Withdrawal Limits.

and this one

Q58. To what extent do you consider that existing or upcoming consumer rights legislation
already address possible concerns about unfair terms in gambling contracts? If you
consider that there are still gaps in relation to gambling contracts, what action do you
consider should be taken to address the possibility of unfair terms in gambling contracts?

I responded regarding the way that
The Consumer Rights (Payment Surcharges) Regulations 2012 has a list of excluded
transactions which includes:
“for gambling within the meaning of the Gambling Act 2005 (which includes gaming, betting
and participating in a lottery)”

and that this exemption should only apply to gambling not to transaction fees for using payment processors or fees for currency conversion as they are not gambling under the act so it should apply - this is the law that stops the airlimnes adding on stuff at the end and would also be relevant to this issue as the charge applied must be directly related to the costs concerned. I wanted them to clarify that the financial transactions should be treated as covered just not the wager itself (though I did not mention inactivity fees)

and this one

Q59. How should gambling operators make consumers aware of changes to terms and
conditions? Should only material changes be notified and if so, what do you consider to
be material changes? (page 74)

Where I argued it had to be at logon and via email and that the term should not change adversely without an explicit player agreement to the change.

I have submitted to three of these consultations now, I even tried to raise interest in them here. I have also had various other communications with them including a meeting at their offices with some pretty senior people.

From that meeting I can tell you that these questions in Septembers consultation were put in to inform their next consultation with some firmer proposals. They were trying to get that issued by 30th March because they are not allowed to do consultations during the general election purdah. They missed that (internal) target but as soon as the election is over and we have a new (or old) minister Helen Grant to give it the nod and we will have it.

They are actively working on tightening up on unfair conditions, actively seeking your views on them and will want those views in that very imminent consultation, still if you want to just pretend they need savaging because players have not raised this issue with them yet and they have been stuck with shed loads to do then feel free.

If you want to blame the UKGC who never issued Bet666 with a full licence, they just got a continuation licence that relied on their Alderney Licence then fine, blame them for pulling the plug on an operatio that looks dodgier by the day as they dn't pay players back then fine, personally I'd prefer to know why it was Bet666 failed the UKGC tests for a licence and why the HMRC are after them when they only became liable for UK tax on 1st Dec 2014. To me that seems like a pretty timely bit of action but hey, keep blaming them as after all because it is sub judice they can't defend themselves anyway.


now this read like I have gone a bit native, I can assure you I have not, I have loads of criticisms of the UKGC, I want them to be far more proactive but legally they can only do that after doing a complete consultation process, they are a regulator, not a benign dictatorship. Everything they do is subject to strict judicial review and those they regulate can afford to take that action against them.

 

[Richas]

The UKGC appears to have an entirely hands off attitude with regard to players. They do not seem to have even a credible process for dealing with player issues ("The licence holder should investigate the complaint, escalating as necessary, following their internal complaints procedure and informing you of the outcome." Wow .), so I'm not remotely surprised they've turned out so inadequate in this situation. And of course, to charge £500 per month for an unused account, which costs the casino exactly £0 to keep active, is an absurd abuse, as absurd as it is for the UKGC to defend the practice.

If you want to check the difference try reading 888s terms and conditions. Non UK players have 7 days to raise any issue or it is ignored. Their judgment on the matter is final. They have a special rule for UK players without the unfair time limits and including eCogra as their Alternative Dispute Resolution service, that they must pay for and if eCogra rules against you then you are free to take them to court but if they get ruled against they have waived their legal rights to go to court on the matter.

Now that may not be the process you want but it is better.

 

[slottymcslot]

I have a dispute to put it mildly with Mansion group right now. What they did to me was dirty in a way I don't think many would believe, but after reading this I guess not. The worst is they just don't reply to complaints/rebuttals, or give some arbritrary response and basically kick the can down the street. They don't deal with anyone online as a mediator, thus forcing you to go the difficult route. It's five months since they have voided several thousand pounds from me (including my deposit) by applying an extremely weird term retrospectively. There doesn't appear to be any end in sight, I may see some movement this week and if not it's into the legal route (which I have resigned myself to in advance). If I ultimately fail to get it back I will post a full report here but I would highly advise anyone from playing with them. I was a VIP at many of their casinos prior to this, FWIW.

This report of UKGC is extremely worrying because if a casino wants to do the "It wasn't me" or give the silent treatment, they seem to benefit. It should be the opposite nthfold.