Redzone Refusing to Payout Winnings

This is the forum where you can discuss any aspect of bookmaker injustices you wish. You start the topic and encourage others to develop it with you. Wherever possible do outline or attach evidence that supports what you are sharing, e.g. Live Chat text, screen grabs, emails, letters, etc. It may even become one of our future campaigns!

The other subject specific forums below, do give you ideas to think about, but if you want to post here, please do.

Any advertising for gambling services will be deleted and the user blocked.
Del
Supporter
Posts: 50
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2017 1:08 pm

Re: Redzone Refusing to Payout Winnings

Post by Del » Thu Nov 09, 2017 12:08 pm

Sounds a fair idea JJ. Though obviously the GC do not seem to move very fast and I am mid way through a court process with my case.

What the GC actually said to me was that basically the online firm's terms and conditions over rode the LCCP on self exclusions being honoured before the date PPBF stated on their website (which was 4 days after I opened my PP account but 3 years after my Betfair self exclusion) and it is the decision of the company if they choose to apply revised terms and also the responsibility of the account holder to self exclude on partner sites.

This seems to make a nonsense of their stance. The facts are clear to me. I SE'd from Betfair. PP bought Betfair. I opened an account with PP 10 months later which they eventually closed once I spoke to them and the subject of my Betfair SE came up, which they immediately insisted required my PP account to be SE'd in line with their policy of cross SE from 30th Dec 2016, but they refused to return the deposits as they say this policy came into effect 4 days after my PP account was opened. So on the one hand their policy is retrospective but on the other it isn't.

To be honest JJ, I have little confidence in the GC. These situations are not complicated, it's really very simple to lay down rules regarding self exclusion policies. But they are letting online firms make the rules up as they go along and relying on aggrieved customers to go through the courts to get justice and proper application of consumer law rather than impose it themselves.

But I understand that you do need a working relationship with them to try and reform such things. It's just that as it stands, they are applying rules to some firms and then seemingly ignoring the same failures of other firms, even when given the evidence.

Jimmy Justice
Site Admin
Posts: 529
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2016 9:16 am

Re: Redzone Refusing to Payout Winnings

Post by Jimmy Justice » Fri Nov 10, 2017 9:38 am

As you know I agree with everything you say and the GC are trying to 'catch up' after 'being miles behind the ball' for years. To be fair we've found that if we can provide evidence to them from customers they will listen despite continuing with their usual public communication on certain issues.

There's no question it takes a long time as you say, e.g. It took 18 months from our first complaints about T&Cs for the CMA investigation to start and 9-months later it's still on-going. All very frustrating, but if we'd not done the original work and made the complaints I doubt the investrigation would have happened? We hadn't even started the website at that time.

Whatever you all choose to do is obviously each person's choice, but joint communication can be effective despite the frustrations.

JJ

NB42
Supporter
Posts: 7
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2017 10:41 pm

Re: Redzone Refusing to Payout Winnings

Post by NB42 » Fri Nov 10, 2017 11:15 am

Hi Del

I will write to the GC and are you happy for me to use your story as a counter argument to mine

Nick

Del
Supporter
Posts: 50
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2017 1:08 pm

Re: Redzone Refusing to Payout Winnings

Post by Del » Fri Nov 10, 2017 11:55 am

Nick - I'm more than happy for you to site my case as a counter argument and so long as you mention the companies involved Paddy Power & Betfair and the dates between 26/12/16 and 16/01/17 they should know the details are correct and it is not "hearsay". Likewise I can also send them an email citing your circumstances too if you would like?

JJ - As you know I think you guys at J4P are doing a superlative job in raising in awareness not just publicly but also within the GC who, as you say, are way behind the game on a lot of this. And the CMA investigation is a great achievement after so long in the making.

And I'm also so grateful for the helpful advice and valuable time you have so graciously afforded me personally.

When I first heard back from the GC I was obviously disappointed with their stance which seemed little different to what any of the industry biased adjudicators may have said. I questioned this stance on the terms & conditions issue and also the fact that surely PPBF had a duty of care to their newly acquired BF customers in all respects, but they failed to respond. They are looking further into the lack of any RG interventions by PP but as you know I will not get any feedback from them.

And so after consideration, especially given the online documented cases of other firms eventually applying the correct SE failure approach of cancelling any winnings or losses and returning net deposits, I decided the county court route was the only way I would get my say and argue my case. It's cost a lot of money so far, and I do now have a solicitor experienced in these matters on board, though I have to say I'd be confident of arguing my case competently in court anyway seeing as I know the facts and details inside out. But it seems even after contacting the GC and PPBF CEO Breon Corcoran (who basically passed it back to the same team who failed in the first place) and also inspiring an article in The Times about PPBF cross brand SE failures, PPBF are making this go as far as possible because the regulatory industry body is giving them free reign to do so.

I do see your point about a joint complaint and hopefully they will take mine & NB's arguments at proper value, but I suspect the GC will do their usual "we will look into this, but we can't get back to you" approach. In January I will find out if my case is going to be upheld on the default judgement or if it will go to a full court hearing at a later date. To change that the GC would have to completely change their mind on my case, for which they did have all the sorry details to hand, and move faster than they have ever moved before. I honestly don't see that happening. But I hope I have underestimated them.

They know there is conflict here between such cases. But rather than address that in a blanket fashion, they are letting gambling firms hide behind whatever approach they want to take on individual accounts unless they find systematic failures as in 888 where there were thousands affected. That worries me from a slightly cynical point of view in that cases such as 888 grab the headlines, where as individual failures do not unless the sums involved are at least 6 figures and involves theft or tragedy. Now, I know that's a media thing and I accept it as the way these things work. But it does irk me somewhat that the only recourse for any real action for individual people is not through the regulatory body of GC or even those clowns at IBAS, but through civil court action at their own cost. The GC are currently like a distracted playground monitor seemingly oblivious to the naughty kids in the corner. They only seem to see the big bundles that break out in full view to all.

Jimmy Justice
Site Admin
Posts: 529
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2016 9:16 am

Re: Redzone Refusing to Payout Winnings

Post by Jimmy Justice » Sun Nov 12, 2017 1:35 pm

Hi Both

Thank you for offering to do this. If you want any feedback on the communication before you send it; just ask. Feel free to use: info@justiceforpunters.org if you prefer to keep it personal from now on.

Del - I agree. In fact I find it pretty sick that people have to go through the trauma and the cost of a court case. It is one of the reasons why I decided to sit on the working party at the GC on customer disputes (I won't get my own way, but I don't mind giving my time freely to try). It doesn't matter whether you've lost 1000s or are trying to get paid out on only £10, if the company chooses too, both cases may need court action, which is total madness. There must be a system that tries to avoid the courts at all costs and that is not the case at present.

Here to help, if you want.

JJ

Del
Supporter
Posts: 50
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2017 1:08 pm

Re: Redzone Refusing to Payout Winnings

Post by Del » Mon Nov 13, 2017 11:10 am

Thanks JJ. I've emailed you on this.

Del
Supporter
Posts: 50
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2017 1:08 pm

Re: Redzone Refusing to Payout Winnings

Post by Del » Wed Nov 15, 2017 9:34 am

Email sent to GC this morning.

Neil - Have you sent yours to GC yet?

Jimmy Justice
Site Admin
Posts: 529
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2016 9:16 am

Re: Redzone Refusing to Payout Winnings

Post by Jimmy Justice » Wed Nov 15, 2017 10:07 am

Hi Del,

Great. Can you let me know the address you sent it to and may I see what you've written? Send it to: info@justiceforpunters.org if you wish to keep it private.

Many thanks.

JJ

NB42
Supporter
Posts: 7
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2017 10:41 pm

Re: Redzone Refusing to Payout Winnings

Post by NB42 » Wed Nov 15, 2017 4:55 pm

Hi Del,

What email address di you use?

Kind regards

Nick

Del
Supporter
Posts: 50
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2017 1:08 pm

Re: Redzone Refusing to Payout Winnings

Post by Del » Wed Nov 15, 2017 11:20 pm

Nick, I used INFO@GAMBLINGCOMMISSION.GOV.UK

Apologies, Nick also. For some reason I referred to you in the email as Neil B but given the online brands are all name checked correctly that shouldn't prevent the GC from tying the two emails together.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests