Fun88 TLCbet 12Bet 138.com refusing to payout Cheltenham winnings citing bonus abuse

well if they don't do bugger all when you get your house burgled or car stolen/broke into.....i'd think something like this is well down their priority list..in fact had you lived in Rotherham it would be further down..kiddy fiddling wasn't even looked into there
 
Last edited:
The more people who contact actionfraud the more likely it will be looked into. The more pressure they get from more places the better
 
Well, the UK Gambling Commission has, in the last 15 minutes, finally made a statement on the matter.

And what a weak, lily-livered response it is !
With this kind of governance, I really would not hold out much hope for those punters who have been screwed over. And I fear the UKGC's response also kinda gives a carte-blanche to any other operator to do as they please in the future.

http://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/Update-from-Homepage.aspx
 
They don't have a choice as yet, things have to be done in a certain way which might seem unfair in this case but is designed to stop abuse. Has anyone from here emailed a complaint off yet and has there been any response? My offer still stands to write or help with any complaints
 
Eh?
They're telling people to communicate directly to the bookmaker involved and to liaise. That's exactly what people have been doing without any satisfaction as far as I can tell.
The UKGC ought to be a lot more pro-active about this; a lot more tiger-ish than just referring people to the Terms and Conditions b.s.

Personally, I haven't been affected by this; this is one bullet I mercifully swerved, but I sympathise completely with all who were done over by this crookery. It's a shame, imho, that the regulatory authorities seem so non-committal about it.
 
icebreaker said:
Eh?
They're telling people to communicate directly to the bookmaker involved and to liaise. That's exactly what people have been doing without any satisfaction as far as I can tell.
The UKGC ought to be a lot more pro-active about this; a lot more tiger-ish than just referring people to the Terms and Conditions b.s.

Personally, I haven't been affected by this; this is one bullet I mercifully swerved, but I sympathise completely with all who were done over by this crookery. It's a shame, imho, that the regulatory authorities seem so non-committal about it.
Click to expand...

The emails were only sent out on Friday, if people complained Friday as soon as they got the email, I don't think anyone could expect a response from the bookmaker and then a response from IBAS after that this early, so not sure what else you think the UKGC should have done so far? I'm sure UKGC is watching the situation closely but I don't see what else they could do at this point.

http://www.manxradio.com/news/isle-of-man-news/regulator-to-probe-online-bets-dispute/

Commission promises balanced review
The Island's e-gaming regulator says it is aware of complaints made about Manx-registered online-betting firms.
Police say they were inundated with calls over the weekend from online gamblers complaining that local companies were withholding payment on bets placed at the Cheltenham Festival.
The firms 138.com, 12Bet, Fun88.co.uk and TLC Bet have said they took the step because of suspicious transactions.
The Isle of Man Gambling Supervision Commission, responsible for licensing the companies, has confirmed it is investigating.
The GSC will gather information from both customers and licensees in a two-stage inquiry expected to take 'some time'.
All parties have been promised an opportunity to state their case, and the Commission says it will make a recommendation to resolve the issue once all the evidence has been reviewed.
There has been no comment yet from Douglas-based Xela Holdings which operates the gaming brands.
Island police have referred complaints to Action Fraud, the national fraud and cyber crime reporting centre in the UK.
 
Ice, I think the UKGC is constrained by the T&Cs which punters sign-up to. Those T&C's just aren't their jurisdiction.

This looks like a standard response, with an added and interesting caveat in the last paragraph ("We are monitoring this situation carefully"). To me, this suggests that UKGM is prepared to act in some manner, further down the line, should circumstances demand it. Those circumstances might be triggered by an avalanche of disgruntled punters crying foul about the arbitriness of the "abuse" definition, and dissatisfaction with the related appeal process.

My gut feel from reading this, is that they were compelled to say something, but had to instruct affected punters to follow due-process, before they could assert any influence. It's only when due process has been observed, and arbitration is required, that things are put on a safe legal-footing, insofar as the UKGC is concerned. It come across as a bit more positive than you're making out, on my interpretation.
 
Last edited:
Well I think the response is very weak indeed.

As well as being badly drafted, ("An operator can refuse to pay out winnings if they believe that fraudulent activity by an account holder has been suspected...") it identifies the issue as being the bookmakers' terms and conditions rather than the way those terms and conditions were applied.
 
Last edited:
Weak is the wrong word it's a cautious response which any advisor worth a pinch of salt would give to them.

They can't go in guns blazing on the say so of punters for legal reasons.
 
icebreaker said:
There were no rules broken on the punters side; can you not understand that?
Click to expand...

How would you know what a punter from Aberdeen did or one from Kensington,,,,,,don't be so ignorant and think before you put your fingers near your keyboard

It may well be a fraud/rip off, whatever, but organisations can't just go tanking in.

The fraud squad are now involved and the company will have to come up with good reason for withholding payments.
 
Last edited:
Grasshopper said:
This looks like a standard response, with an added and interesting caveat in the last paragraph ("We are monitoring this situation carefully"). To me, this suggests that UKGM is prepared to act in some manner, further down the line, should circumstances demand it. Those circumstances might be triggered by an avalanche of disgruntled punters crying foul about the arbitriness of the "abuse" definition, and dissatisfaction with the related appeal process.
Click to expand...
Grass, respectfully, this situation requires a tougher line than "monitoring". The UKGC is well cognisant of the circumstances from the multitude of complaints it has received from defrauded customers; they are fully aware that a licensed bookmaker has welshed on paying the winnings on legimately placed bets. We have moved beyond monitoring; action is what is required, not fence-sitting. Telling people to liaise with a bookmaker who is ignoring their efforts to communicate and has even closed down his website to customers is just insulting.

FWIW, I see the UKGC's response as a giant two-fingered F U to thousands of punters who placed legitimate bets in good faith and are now hundreds of pounds -- in some cases, thousands -- out of pocket. This UKGC regulatory body is making itself appear as not fit for purpose.
 
Tanlic said:
How would you know what a punter from Aberdeen did or one from Kensington,,,,,,don't be so ignorant and think before you put your fingers near your keyboard
Click to expand...
And maybe you could have educated yourself about the issue before labelling decent punters who have been swindled out of serious cash-- at least one of whom is a member on here -- as "cheating bastids"
 
Grasshopper said:
Ice, I think the UKGC is constrained by the T&Cs which punters sign-up to. Those T&C's just aren't their jurisdiction.

This looks like a standard response, with an added and interesting caveat in the last paragraph ("We are monitoring this situation carefully"). To me, this suggests that UKGM is prepared to act in some manner, further down the line, should circumstances demand it. Those circumstances might be triggered by an avalanche of disgruntled punters crying foul about the arbitriness of the "abuse" definition, and dissatisfaction with the related appeal process.

My gut feel from reading this, is that they were compelled to say something, but had to instruct affected punters to follow due-process, before they could assert any influence. It's only when due process has been observed, and arbitration is required, that things are put on a safe legal-footing, insofar as the UKGC is concerned. It come across as a bit more positive than you're making out, on my interpretation.
Click to expand...

Thats exactly it, you put it a lot better than I did :)

There are a lot of people being very critical of the UKGC but they can't just jump in when their rules say there are steps the customer and bookmaker have to take first. There are plenty of people who do try to scam bookies/casino's (just look on askgamblers, casinomeister etc) and that is the reason arbitration has to be done before the UKGC will even look at a case. It's only been one working day since the emails were sent, this is never going to be sorted out in a short period of time, and lets not forget the UKGC can't get your money back, just sanction or remove the license. If they revoked the license today, what do people think the chances of getting a penny out of them would be if they weren't allowed to trade in the UK anymore?
 
Ice, I realise all that, but there is clearly a protocol to be followed - that is, the grievance procedure agreed between bookmaker and client - before the UKGC can consider baring its teeth. I'm not excusing them. I'm suggesting they are keeping their powder dry until the protocol has been followed.

To be fair to you, there is an element of "I'll believe it when I see it" scepticism on my part, but I do think it's unfair to judge the UKGC too harshly, at this early stage.
 
Someone said betting with these sorts of firms is the equivalent of replying to one of those Nigerian banking scam emails. Made me laugh anyway.
 
davidjohnson said:
Someone said betting with these sorts of firms is the equivalent of replying to one of those Nigerian banking scam emails. Made me laugh anyway.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

Where you are trusting a company to look after your money, there is a certain amount of responsibility to do some due diligence and ensure the company is worthy of your trust. You wouldn't lend money to someone you had never met who had no track record of successful repayment.

This is also a bit like people sticking money with Icelandic banks because their interest rates were higher.
 
There was an item on BBC 5Live about 45 minutes ago. A general description of the situation plus an interview with a student (!) who claimed to be down about £1600 and a statement from the parent company which said that they were looking at all Cheltenham business and they accepted that the rules about bonuses and special bets were complicated. They were moving towards taking a 'pragmatic view' about winning bets placed on special terms. Maybe the start of a climb-down?
 
All my accounts except 12bet have been re opened. My 138 withdrawal has been approved and live chat restored. They have advised to process a withdrawal and an Email from management is due to be sent to customers today.
Fingers crossed!
 
Back
Top