Venting Unibet in breach of their own T&C's

[ollygarch]

Anyone wishing to sign up to Unibet needs to be aware: This sounds pretty clear to me in answer to the question, can I have more than one account? " No - one person can only have one account. Two (or more) people in the same household can have their own, personal accounts,..." So my wife and I could each have an account, or perhaps my sports mad son and I could. But if you ever dare to make a profit then they will confiscate your money and deny that two people are allowed to run independent accounts from the same address.

Not only that but the parent company Kindred Group will pretend to have no knowledge of Platinum Gaming who are the gambling licence holder and operator of Unibet.co.uk.

Come on Unibet it's time to play fair, admit you got it wrong, and pay up.

 

[essuk]

What happened?

 

[ollygarch]

essuk, thanks for showing an interest. I ran my account perfectly happily for several years. When I came to withdraw money Unibet said I (and my wife) had breached their conditions. Their 'evidence' was geo positioning data which showed we were in the same place. What a surprise that I actually live with my wife. We have both had our accounts closed and all of our outstanding balances confiscated. We are talking several thousand pounds in total. Not a happy bunny.

 

[essuk]

Was it winnings or deposits they confiscated?

 

[ollygarch]

It was winnings. In fact on one account they carefully worked out the net position and returned enough to match net deposits. In other words they are determined to make sure you can't win! If the bet loses you lose your money, if the bet wins they take your money anyway.

 

[Mouche12]

You can submit a complaint via Casinomeister's PAB service. Once you do, you are not allowed to discuss this matter anymore on the forum. Best of luck!

 

[ollygarch]

Mouche, been there, seen it, done it, got the T shirt but no money. I can assure you I have been through all the hoops: Unibet complaints procedure, PAB, and eCogra. Unibet still insist that they don't allow a married couple to each have an account which is in direct contradiction to their guidance. See for yourself in Unibet.co.uk/help/registration/policies and information/can I have more than one account? The answer is " No - one person can only have one account. Two (or more) people in the same household can have their own, personal accounts,...

So how about it Unibet, get out of that one if you can?

 

[SYPlayer95]

Unibet are shysters, same as 32Red.

 

[essuk]

So let me start by saying I am no fan of Unibet. However it seems to me that if indeed you did do a PAB ( as you say you have ) and got no where then there must be more to this story. The faqs are pretty clear that two people in the same household can each have their own account. Therefore if Unibet refused to payup for no good reason then I am quite sure @maxd would have notified the community and sent Unibet to the rogue pit. If that hasnt been done then most likely either you didnt actually submit a PAB despite saying you did or Max was happy with their reasons for not paying out.

 

[maxd]

@ollygarch , either you are confusing a recent case with your PAB or you are misrepresenting the facts of your case. The PAB you had with last fall was dismissed because of Terms violations related to fraud:

"The Unibet people have responded to tell us they have ample evidence against you of Terms violations [regarding multiple accounts] and they have returned your deposits.​

​

Given the situation and the fact that Kindred casinos are not in the habit of sharing fraud evidence with 3rd parties like us I’d say we’ve done all we can for you on this particular issue. …"​

​

Not at all the case you have described above.

Being unhappy with a case result is one thing, twisting the facts around to paint yourself as the abused innocent is quite something else. Fair warning: lies and distortions are a bootable offence here at Casinomeister. Persist in this and you’ll find yourself escorted off the premises.

- Max

 

[ollygarch]

Max I don't know what Unibet sent to you, but if you would like then I can send you the decision from eCogra. This very clearly shows that the only evidence presented by Unibet was for geo location ie we live in the same place.

 

[ollygarch]

This is Unibet's so called evidence. Note two accounts at one address, so what???
*snip*

 

[essuk]

@dunover hes provided his name which I believe is not allowed.

 

[ollygarch]

I am being accused of fraud. Pretty unpleasant and upsetting. If there is any fraud then it is by Unibet on their unsuspecting customers, by inducing people in the same household to open accounts and then taking their winnings.

 

[dunover]

I am being accused of fraud. Pretty unpleasant and upsetting. If there is any fraud then it is by Unibet on their unsuspecting customers, by inducing people in the same household to open accounts and then taking their winnings.

Can you edit that image to remove the name in black type at the bottom please and repost it as we cannot have certain personal info on display in public!

Cheers

 

[mulven]

I am being accused of fraud. Pretty unpleasant and upsetting. If there is any fraud then it is by Unibet on their unsuspecting customers, by inducing people in the same household to open accounts and then taking their winnings.

If they are accusing fraud, the player activity on both accounts is probably the red flag.

If bonus abuse is involved they are probably suggesting that one person is controlling both accounts and doing so to take advantage of their bonuses.

I'm not accusing you of this for what it's worth just explaining how and why a casino might accuse two account holders in the same house of fraud.

It's also possible that you might have been flagged for the above without the intent of abusing their promotions and that's just the interpretation they've made with the evidence they have.

 

[essuk]

I think the OPs point is that he is saying their only accusation is that there are two accounts in the same household so what you say @mulven wouldnt be relevant in that case.

HOWEVER the issue though is that Unibet's website clearly says two people in the same household can each have their own accounts. The OP is aware of this so it must be assumed this point was raised at ADR. If so then the OP would clearly have won the case. Therefore the only logical conclusion is that there is somewhat more to the story. You may be right that they suspect the OP controls both accounts etc but I would question what evidence they have of that. The two accounts being located at the same address would not consitute such proof in my opinion.

 

[mulven]

I think the OPs point is that he is saying their only accusation is that there are two accounts in the same household so what you say @mulven wouldnt be relevant in that case.

HOWEVER the issue though is that Unibet's website clearly says two people in the same household can each have their own accounts. The OP is aware of this so it must be assumed this point was raised at ADR. If so then the OP would clearly have won the case. Therefore the only logical conclusion is that there is somewhat more to the story. You may be right that they suspect the OP controls both accounts etc but I would question what evidence they have of that. The two accounts being located at the same address would not consitute such proof in my opinion.

The only evidence they can have, that would be damning, is account activity/behaviour. But as we'll never really know there is little point in speculating I guess.

 

[ollygarch]

As requested Dunover here it is with name redacted. Two accounts in one place, what is the problem?

 

[ollygarch]

Thank you all for the interest shown. One account was used mainly for horses and the other mainly for football. My wife certainly placed her own bets, not me. Of course from time to time we would be placing similar bets on the same event. Will England beat Albania? Surely we should both be able to place a bet on the game. I would need to do a lot of detailed checking from our records (we individually kept a running record of our bets in two separate books), but I doubt we had much in the way of bonuses, both accounts were bet restricted. My interpretation of this is that Unibet could see that we were pretty good punters and over a period of several years and many thousands of pounds staked were slowly building up a profit. It is the fact that we made money which really caused them to take this draconian action, not through any misdemeanour of ours.

 

[mulven]

Thank you all for the interest shown. One account was used mainly for horses and the other mainly for football. My wife certainly placed her own bets, not me. Of course from time to time we would be placing similar bets on the same event. Will England beat Albania? Surely we should both be able to place a bet on the game. I would need to do a lot of detailed checking from our records (we individually kept a running record of our bets in two separate books), but I doubt we had much in the way of bonuses, both accounts were bet restricted. My interpretation of this is that Unibet could see that we were pretty good punters and over a period of several years and many thousands of pounds staked were slowly building up a profit. It is the fact that we made money which really caused them to take this draconian action, not through any misdemeanour of ours.

It's possible that if you placed bets that cancelled each other out when combined, that it could cause issues and lead Unibet to taking the approach they have, only things that comes to mind immediately.

 

[SYPlayer95]

It's possible that if you placed bets that cancelled each other out when combined, that it could cause issues and lead Unibet to taking the approach they have, only things that comes to mind immediately.

Potential arbing?

 

[mulven]

Potential arbing?

Good point, I missed the part where they said their theory was that they were "pretty good punters". Either they are saying that they had a positive P/L position with them or knew they were getting some good bets in, potentially ARBs.

Same address terms are always tricky to navigate even if allowed on paper, just sets up a whole host of potentially pitfalls. If I lived with another gambler and we had accounts at the same sites, I think I'd be too much of a wuss to play them lol

 

[ollygarch]

Mulven, no we were not co-ordinated betting in order for bets to cancel each other out. I'm not quite sure what you mean by arbing. That I think would only occur with laying off a back bet with an equivalent lay bet. The bookies hate it because effectively they have offered odds that are too generous. Although that might be a reason for closing an account I don't quite see how it could ever justify confiscating someone's winnings. Because they would in effect be admitting that they fix the odds in such a way that the bookies always win, and on the rare occasion when they don't, and someone actually makes a profit, well then they just steal their money. Hardly a fair playing field.

 

[mulven]

Mulven, no we were not co-ordinated betting in order for bets to cancel each other out. I'm not quite sure what you mean by arbing. That I think would only occur with laying off a back bet with an equivalent lay bet. The bookies hate it because effectively they have offered odds that are too generous. Although that might be a reason for closing an account I don't quite see how it could ever justify confiscating someone's winnings. Because they would in effect be admitting that they fix the odds in such a way that the bookies always win, and on the rare occasion when they don't, and someone actually makes a profit, well then they just steal their money. Hardly a fair playing field.

I wasn't suggesting you co-ordinated to bet on both sides of an event outcome, I was just saying that it could have happened accidentally. If you were intentionally doing that you would have used an exchange!

Arbing doesn't necessarily involve a lay bet to lock in profit as you can advantage play them too.

Isn't the whole point of a bookmaker's business to "fix" the odds so they always win via the vigorish/overround (similar but slightly different things).

For most players if they are winning players they'll get stake limited, promotion restricted or accounts closed but not winning confiscated.

If you were matched betting, arbing or constantly taking value/making profitable bets then they might have used the fact you lived together to push the narrative of fraud, allowing them to confiscate, something that wouldn't be possible for a standalone gambler with no conflicts.

Are you a winning player at most bookmakers you play at? It definitely sounds like you are familiar with laying bets and have intimated you are a winning bettor.

I would definitely suggest that you and your wife shouldn't have accounts at the same bookmakers, even if they have terms allowing it. That term is, as you suggested, only really honoured for losing players. If you are both constantly taking value from the bookmaker they can easily make the claim that it is fraud and that one of you is playing on both accounts. Under the circumstances this would be hard to disprove. As mentioned before, this isn't a course of action possible against a solo player so they would grit their teeth, pay and ban the player worst case.