Non-Bonus Complaint William Hill Casino club demands comprehensive private financial information about me

[jshort]

The info on the colours is here: PAB listings in user profiles

Green means it's an Accred casino issue. Grey overrides all other clours and simply means "ongoing/work-in-progress".

Ah ok, gotcha. Thanks for the link.

It's not illegal, and since they took the bets, they have to pay up. It's more usual for bookies to ban those whom they feel are "too good" at predicting winners or playing games of chance. It seems likely that this was a money laundering issue, and WH were trying to verify the legitimacy of the funds deposited. The problem is that they may have gone too far in law, leaving them open to legal action from the player, and a rap on the knuckles from the personal data regulator as they are requiring the player to give them personal data relating to third parties.

However, the OP seems to have vanished, so we don't really know what the eventual outcome was, or if it's still ongoing.

(Sorry for the late response, I didn't think much about what you said until now.)

Well when are breaking T&Cs ever illegal? The line "suspected play-for-profit players will have their wins confiscated" could be in their T&Cs (kinda like movie theatres have rules about bringing food in). It's certainly unethical if they don't pay up, however as they're not accred here, they can write down whatever predatory T&Cs that they want.

My view is that the player should be paid even if there is such an above rule. He lives in the UK. He already demonstrated winnings to them from other casino sites. He can very easily use the excuse that he's a low-employed risk-taker who has been taking risks and getting lucky with credit card or other borrowed money.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Ah ok, gotcha. Thanks for the link.




(Sorry for the late response, I didn't think much about what you said until now.)

Well when are breaking T&Cs ever illegal? The line "suspected play-for-profit players will have their wins confiscated" could be in their T&Cs (kinda like movie theatres have rules about bringing food in). It's certainly unethical if they don't pay up, however as they're not accred here, they can write down whatever predatory T&Cs that they want.

My view is that the player should be paid even if there is such an above rule. He lives in the UK. He already demonstrated winnings to them from other casino sites. He can very easily use the excuse that he's a low-employed risk-taker who has been taking risks and getting lucky with credit card or other borrowed money.

He seems to be arguing that this is none of their business, they are a private company, not HMRC. There are regulations regarding the type of personal data a private company can demand from it's customers, and in some cases, it's even illegal to ask in the hope of getting the information because the person is unaware of their rights (such as personal medical information).

I doubt it's legal to confiscate winnings purely on the grounds that the player "tried too hard to win". They always have the right to refuse to accept a wager, which is how betting operators are SUPPOSED to manage their exposure. Since our new gambling act made gambling debt enforceable in law, there is no longer an option for an operator to simply decide not to pay up after the fact. It's the OPERATORS who lobbied for this, not the customers, as they wanted to be able to chase CUSTOMERS who refused to honour a wager after the fact on credit accounts (where wins and losses are settled up every 2 weeks for example, rather than on a bet by bet basis).

It seems that it's non cooperation from WH that is making this PAB seem to take "forever". Perhaps this is something that future depositors should consider when deciding whether or not to deposit and wager at WH owned sites.

 

[jshort]

He seems to be arguing that this is none of their business, they are a private company, not HMRC. There are regulations regarding the type of personal data a private company can demand from it's customers, and in some cases, it's even illegal to ask in the hope of getting the information because the person is unaware of their rights (such as personal medical information).

I doubt it's legal to confiscate winnings purely on the grounds that the player "tried too hard to win". They always have the right to refuse to accept a wager, which is how betting operators are SUPPOSED to manage their exposure. Since our new gambling act made gambling debt enforceable in law, there is no longer an option for an operator to simply decide not to pay up after the fact. It's the OPERATORS who lobbied for this, not the customers, as they wanted to be able to chase CUSTOMERS who refused to honour a wager after the fact on credit accounts (where wins and losses are settled up every 2 weeks for example, rather than on a bet by bet basis).

It seems that it's non cooperation from WH that is making this PAB seem to take "forever". Perhaps this is something that future depositors should consider when deciding whether or not to deposit and wager at WH owned sites.

WH is pretty big and I'm sure the OP isn't the first to run into problems with them involving big money. Have they been successfully sued in court in the past?

I never thought online casinos design their T&C rules based on a foundation of what is legal/illegal, but admit I'm ignorant here. I figured that in online-land its all grey and in the event a player is funded enough to make chasing a casino in the courts a good option then good for them. You almost never hear about players taking online casinos to court though (or at least I haven't). Again, I'd be interested if you or someone in the know could comment on WH's court-case history (if any exists)??

 

[funnymunny]

Have they been successfully sued in court in the past? ... I'd be interested if you or someone in the know could comment on WH's court-case history (if any exists)??

Short answer is yes.

Longer answer is that the example below it doesn't relate to a player dispute, however does show that even the 'big boys' can be successfully challenged

"Online casino 32Red has won its trademark dispute against William Hill and will seek compensation from Britain’s largest bookmaker following two years of legal proceedings, it has announced in a statement this morning. The High Court of Justice in London today ruled in favour of 32Red stating that William Hill’s use of 32Vegas and 32V had infringed 32Red’s European Community (EC) registered trademarks. “The court held that William Hill's 32Vegas casino signs were sufficiently similar to 32Red’s marks to cause a likelihood of confusion among consumers,” a statement read. It added that William Hill's infringement “caused detriment to the distinctive character and repute of 32Red's trademarks” and dismissed William Hill’s counterclaim as to the validity of 32Red's trademark rights in the UK and European Community."

Full details

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

 

[vinylweatherman]

WH is pretty big and I'm sure the OP isn't the first to run into problems with them involving big money. Have they been successfully sued in court in the past?

I never thought online casinos design their T&C rules based on a foundation of what is legal/illegal, but admit I'm ignorant here. I figured that in online-land its all grey and in the event a player is funded enough to make chasing a casino in the courts a good option then good for them. You almost never hear about players taking online casinos to court though (or at least I haven't). Again, I'd be interested if you or someone in the know could comment on WH's court-case history (if any exists)??

It's been less grey here in the UK since Nov 1st when offshore regulation was replaced (for UK players) by direct regulation from the UKGC. This also shifts the jurisdiction to the UK courts from the courts of said offshore jurisdiction when it comes to a player mounting a legal challenge.

Online casinos have taken players to court here in the UK. One case was for "bonus abuse", which was misnamed as it was really about identity fraud where a player used several identities in order to claim several offers by misrepresenting themselves as these other people. This was then made a criminal prosecution for fraud, and the player was convicted for fraud.

We have also seen players who have lost large sums suing casinos for failing in their duty of care to look for the signs of problem gambling and act upon them, which is a distinct regulatory obligation for UK licenced casinos.

Players who got screwed over by Betfair a while ago were able to retrieve their winnings if they had been confiscated from the UK regulated sportsbook after having been transferred from the offshore regulated casino. It seems the cases never got to court as Betfair settled up when placed in the position of having to justify the confiscations in an English court, rather than the offshore one where the casino was regulated. Presumably, Betfair received legal advice that there was a significant risk of them losing such cases, and this was not something they wanted set as a potential precedent for future claims.

 

[maxd]

I'm wrapping up loose ends from last year and that brought the OP's case back to mind.

In the end the OP is pretty much SOL here: WillHill's Terms allow them to ask for whatever they please. Since they're completely unresponsive to this (or any other) case there's not much we can do other than alert players to the problems they could encounter. To that end I'll be posting something in the Warnings section of the site soon.

Later: see William Hill can and will ask for detailed financial records, unresponsive.

 

[KasinoKing]

In the end the OP is pretty much SOL here: WillHill's Terms allow them to ask for whatever they please. Since they're completely unresponsive to this (or any other) case there's not much we can do other than alert players to the problems they could encounter...

Maybe you could talk to their guys at LAC about this on Sunday?
I can come with you and act as a "heavy" if you like!

I don't recall this thread (and haven't read through it today) - is the OP still owed money by Will Hills?

KK

 

[maxd]

Maybe you could talk to their guys at LAC about this on Sunday?

TBH I'm not at all convinced that more talk is what's needed here. AFAICT WillHill does what they want when they want regardless of what's been said or done previously. They routinely drop off the air, are unavailable, until they want something or are pissed about this or that and start making demands. Blah blah blah. Last time I called them out for being shite with player issues I got a phone call which degenerated into being yelled at, job threatened, repeatedly insulted, etc. It ended with promises to address player issues without hesitation and those promises proved to be hot, stale air.

In other words I have no reason to believe that anything they might say at the conference is worth the time or effort. Their people are great at saying "yeah, sure, we'll do this and we'll do that" and then they do whatever they want, or are told to do by someone higher up the chain of command.

The bottom line is that WH have NEVER committed to accepting and resolving player issues that come to them through third parties like us. I'd say that stone-walling "outsiders" is a much higher priority for them, and so they have done, time and again over the years. Life is too short to keep banging one's head against that brick wall.

If you think you can be "heavy" on WH be my guest. An extra free beer for you at the Meister Meeting!

And yes, last I heard the player was owed money. However, since WH's documentation demands were outrageous -- Full bank records for the last three years? Financial records of family members? Seriously? -- the OP seemed to have accepted that they weren't going to get what was owed.

 

[vinylweatherman]

The OP will have to make a formal complaint to the information Commissioner's Office. Whilst they may end up having to pander to the whims of WH in order to get the money back, I think the ICO will be one "third party" WH can't so easily ignore over this.

The alternative would be to take WH to court for the return of the money, and a sum for damages. A complaint to the ICO should still be made.

It's the asking for data regarding people other than the player that will be of interest to the ICO, as the player has no legal right to supply this, and in fact could be breaking the law in doing so. WH would also break the law if they "process" such information without the permission of the owner, so they are asking for information they cannot legally receive, hold, nor process.

They can probably get away with demanding the intrusive set of the last 3 years of bank statements, but they can be asked to justify NEED, rather than "want" if the ICO got involved.

WH have been given every chance to resolve this amicably to no avail, so I think now is the time for the OP to take formal measures, opening with a complaint to the ICO as this could get the desired outcome without the expense of taking the matter to court.