bet365 updates its terms and conditions

[Domestic]

Unclaimed money and collection scenarios aside the reason why this sort of thing rubs me the wrong way is that it just comes off as so petty and another way to squeeze money from the client any way they can. If they were concerned about people just leaving a few bucks in their accounts and watching the terrible quality 120p streams they should just introduce some kind of minimum bet turnover monthly requirement or something instead of stealing from accounts that have not placed recent bets.

No point giving books an inch and then complaining later when they begin to take a mile.

[shari91]

If only those bastards would allow me to bet with them!
Of course my family has access to all my financial information and how to access the funds should it be necessary.
But I know there are lots of people who don't want their families to know about their betting.
Bet365's policy allows them to steal their balances.
I'm a bit confused about what the NT law is there. Hopefully it makes B365's policy illegal and doesn't allow them to steal the money but instead pay it over to the government where it will be on a public register which can be searched and claimed by dependents which I understand is what the Victorian law was when I was involved in business.
If only we had politicians in this country which cared for punters! The solution to this atrocity is so simple.

That was my point about the NT register - there isn't one sportsbook account listed there. Which goes back to my saying that it makes sense why they're not there because you can reactivate your account after the 90 days if you provide ID or after the year if you're with 365. The money isn't being handed over to the govt at day 91 and then the govt returns the money back to the book on day 95 when you finally provide your ID. That would be ridiculous. It's not bet365's policy that allows them to hold your balance because the same goes for every book. Sportingbet and Centrebet who have been in the market a lot longer than bet365 don't have any claims listed and obviously they've had clients die or become dormant for years.

You're contradicting yourself by saying that there are a lot of people who want to keep their gambling secret (very true) but then saying their names should be on a public register. Books don't know the difference between an account that's dormant because someone died and one that's dormant because someone simply hasn't logged in but is indeed live and well unless they're notified that the person has died. You're suggesting if you don't access your book for a year simply because you've decided not to bet there for whatever reason, that people should have their names splashed across a public register so their family, employers, whomever else can see? We have at least one to two people a week who contact us to try to get their entire SBR history scrubbed because they're freaked out their wife or church or new job will find out they gamble. Imagine suddenly their names appeared on a government website clearly listing that they're owed $ from a book. All hell would break loose. You said the solution to this is so simple and yet what you're suggesting is a complete breach of privacy for clients that are notorious for wanting to keep their activity quiet. And even when someone dies, do you think say a religious family would appreciate having their husband/father's gambling activity put out there for the world to see especially if they didn't even know about it either? Think for a moment about what you're advocating for here.

[Hareeba!]

That was my point about the NT register - there isn't one sportsbook account listed there. Which goes back to my saying that it makes sense why they're not there because you can reactivate your account after the 90 days if you provide ID or after the year if you're with 365. The money isn't being handed over to the govt at day 91 and then the govt returns the money back to the book on day 95 when you finally provide your ID. That would be ridiculous. It's not bet365's policy that allows them to hold your balance because the same goes for every book. Sportingbet and Centrebet who have been in the market a lot longer than bet365 don't have any claims listed and obviously they've had clients die or become dormant for years.

You're contradicting yourself by saying that there are a lot of people who want to keep their gambling secret (very true) but then saying their names should be on a public register. Books don't know the difference between an account that's dormant because someone died and one that's dormant because someone simply hasn't logged in but is indeed live and well unless they're notified that the person has died. You're suggesting if you don't access your book for a year simply because you've decided not to bet there for whatever reason, that people should have their names splashed across a public register so their family, employers, whomever else can see? We have at least one to two people a week who contact us to try to get their entire SBR history scrubbed because they're freaked out their wife or church or new job will find out they gamble. Imagine suddenly their names appeared on a government website clearly listing that they're owed $ from a book. All hell would break loose. You said the solution to this is so simple and yet what you're suggesting is a complete breach of privacy for clients that are notorious for wanting to keep their activity quiet. And even when someone dies, do you think say a religious family would appreciate having their husband/father's gambling activity put out there for the world to see especially if they didn't even know about it either? Think for a moment about what you're advocating for here.

There's no reason that the public register needs to display the source of funds held for an individual until entitlement is established.

There's no requirement that a business needs to know the fate of someone who's let an account become dormant. Only that he/she's not responding to communications.

All that's required is reasonable legislation that requires them to forward the unclaimed funds to the regulator to deal with rather than having the ability to steal them as is what B365's rule entitles them to do (if it's legal, which I suspect it isn't in Australia at least).

[shari91]

There's no reason that the public register needs to display the source of funds held for an individual until entitlement is established.

There's no requirement that a business needs to know the fate of someone who's let an account become dormant. Only that he/she's not responding to communications.

All that's required is reasonable legislation that requires them to forward the unclaimed funds to the regulator to deal with rather than having the ability to steal them as is what B365's rule entitles them to do (if it's legal, which I suspect it isn't in Australia at least).

Every unclaimed $ public register in this country lists the source of funds. I suspect that's a requirement. But regardless why would you think what bet365 is doing is illegal? Bank accounts don't become dormant until after 3 years without a deposit or withdrawal, used to be 7 years until Dec 2012. However the bank is still allowed to charge account fees during that time and those transactions aren't considered to warrant "activity" on your account. Why do you think sportsbooks should have a different rule apply to them than major banks?

ETA - From this article in June:

Canberra reaps $360m from inactive bank accounts

The federal government has bagged an unprecedented $360 million from household bank accounts since a controversial change to unclaimed money laws, Australian Securities and Investments Commission figures show.
Pensioners and others saving for a rainy day have reported trying to access their savings only to discover their money had been seized by the government because it had been dormant for three years or more.
Canberra has collected more money from inactive bank accounts under the three-year rule than the total amount captured in the past five decades combined.

The Treasury now looks poised to lengthen the threshold to five years in the face of fierce lobbying from the banking industry.

Consumer group Choice said it supported the three-year provision because high bank fees could ''eat away'' at inactive accounts.

ASIC said the chief purpose of the laws was to reunite people with lost accounts before funds were eroded by fees, charges and inflation.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/canberra-reaps-360m-from-inactive-bank-accounts-20140609-39t8p.html

[shaunovery]

Blimey if my other half had my info into how much I bet with various books I would be single lol

[shari91]

Blimey if my other half had my info into how much I bet with various books I would be single lol

haha I suspect a lot of people are in your shoes! Seriously though if you haven't already, stash all your account info somewhere safe so she could have access to it if heaven forbid you dropped dead tomorrow. I didn't want to leave that info in my house so it's with the lawyer who did my will and other stuff for my son. It wasn't until we were having this discussion on here a few years ago about another situation that it dawned on me if I were to cark it, no one would have a clue about how to access my gambling accounts or even that they existed. They sure as hell wouldn't think to contact some random sportsbook in CR they've never heard of. Gamblers become such masters at walking in the shadows and not leaving a paper trail that the downside is if something were to happen to us, it's almost impossible for our family to recover our $ unless we help them out from the grave because they wouldn't even know to start looking, let alone where to look. The good thing is she can't kick your ass when you're already dead!

[Optional]

I don't think people would mind so much if the account keeping fee was around the same as a bank account. 2 or 3 bucks per month.

The percentage of balance fee does come across a bit like a cynical money grab.

[Domestic]

Gamblers become such masters at walking in the shadows and not leaving a paper trail

You make it sound cool Shari.

[ProlificalD]

Im all for it, ONLY if their new source of income leads to lowering their juice. Do they still have the highest juice of the so-called A+ sportsbooks?

[allin1]

This isn't the banking industry. If I die tomorrow, the $2200 store credit I have with Myer that expires in 9 months will be gone unless someone in my family finds it. No unclaimed money register, no monthly admin fee, nothing. Even if I don't die and simply forget to use it = GONE. Right back into their pockets. And this is a massive Australian corporation, not a bloody sportsbook.

SIA has a similar rule:

• Your account will be considered dormant if it has not had any activity for 18 months. Account activity is defined as the following: making of a deposit or withdrawal; placement of a Sportsbook bet, Racebook bet, Casino bet, Games bet or play of a poker cash game or tournament.
• If your account is dormant we will begin deducting a monthly fee of US$5 per month until the balance on the account is zero or your account becomes active again. Account activity is defined as the following: making of a deposit or withdrawal; placement of a Sportsbook bet, Racebook bet, Casino bet, Games bet or play of a poker cash game or tournament. The fee is not refundable but the remaining balance can be withdrawn at any time through any available withdrawal method once your account is registered. Withdrawals will be subject to the standard minimum withdrawal amount and fees for the withdrawal method you choose. A full record of all dormant account fees charged to your account will be kept.

Anyone crying about this has the option to NOT BET THERE. A few of you are coming up with these scenarios that have nothing specifically to do with bet365. If I die tomorrow and no one knows I have a Pinny, 5Dimes, 365, Sportingbet or Centrebet account, the money will sit there forever. There isn't some worldwide unclaimed gambling money fund lol so how do you expect anyone to claim your money if they have no clue that there's even any money to be claimed?

Do you really believe this stuff you are writting? Amazing stuff. Shocking.

My point was that even in the case of a bank account, the funs go to the treasury and are used for a good casuse and, you have the option of reclaiming the money. Even if noone ever reclaims it, the fact that the option is available seems fair and doesn't make them look like greedy bastards. It is basic common freaking sense and moral principles. Bet365 seem to lack these, and I am sorry to say this (because I always thought you are a good person) but so do you.

As mentioned in other posts this is not just about deceased customers. Some might have dormant accounts for other reasons. The bottom line is that the greed regarding such sensible cases (where the causes for the dormancy are the majority of the time mental or phisical problems), is a sign of moral bankrupcy, or let's put it differently: "very bad karma". If this wasn't about greed, they would have found a similar solution to the one in the banking industry. They live their life by taking money from ignorant people, they hate winners even though they make ridiculous sums of money, and now they get greedy about dormant accounts. It is so low that I can't even be mad at them. I am sorry for them. They are lost in the bottomless pit of "evil" greed. Hopefully one day they will see the light to save their souls.

[allin1]

Im all for it, ONLY if their new source of income leads to lowering their juice. Do they still have the highest juice of the so-called A+ sportsbooks?

What's the point of lower juice if you can't even bet 50 pounds on a line?

I would also be for it if they would donate the money to health & medical research charities.

The percentage of balance fee does come across a bit like a cynical money grab.

That's exactly what it is, but if you put it like this it sounds much better than how worse it actually is.

[shari91]

Do you really believe this stuff you are writting? Amazing stuff. Shocking.

My point was that even in the case of a bank account, the funs go to the treasury and are used for a good casuse and, you have the option of reclaiming the money. Even if noone ever reclaims it, the fact that the option is available seems fair and doesn't make them look like greedy bastards. It is basic common freaking sense and moral principles. Bet365 seem to lack these, and I am sorry to say this (because I always thought you are a good person) but so do you.

As mentioned in other posts this is not just about deceased customers. Some might have dormant accounts for other reasons. The bottom line is that the greed regarding such sensible cases (where the causes for the dormancy are the majority of the time mental or phisical problems), is a sign of moral bankrupcy, or let's put it differently: "very bad karma". If this wasn't about greed, they would have found a similar solution to the one in the banking industry. They live their life by taking money from ignorant people, they hate winners even though they make ridiculous sums of money, and now they get greedy about dormant accounts. It is so low that I can't even be mad at them. I am sorry for them. They are lost in the bottomless pit of "evil" greed. Hopefully one day they will see the light to save their souls.

Do you believe the stuff you're writing?! The money doesn't go to "good causes". What on Earth gave you that idea? It goes to the Commonwealth of Australia Consolidated Revenue Fund collecting interest for the government while it waits to be claimed, if ever. They can use it for whatever they want.

A bank in Australia is charging you fees each month while your account lays dormant and currently in Australia it's for THREE YEARS, although it appears to be raising soon up to 5. Until less than 2 years ago it was for SEVEN. That money is not going to the Revenue Fund but back into the bank's wallet. Optional says $2 or $3 a month but that's most definitely not the case for many people. Even ignoring the monthly account fee, then there's the case of charges for NSF for automated payments, etc. There are countless stories on ACA and TT about people who went to check their account after forgetting about it or a family member finds it after someone dies and the account has been whittled down to nothing. So yeah that's great your money goes to a public register after three years but you've completely ignored what I've said about why a GAMBLER wouldn't necessarily want that.

If you drop dead tomorrow and you're a client of another major sportsbook, where do you think your money goes if no one contacts the book to claim it? You think there's some charitable fund in Costa Rica or Curacao that is collecting money from dormant accounts? You're arguing about two separate issues here. If you don't like the fee, fair enough. But to dribble on about what if I die, what if I get incapacitated, karma ffs... come on now. What if you do die? The situation is no different now than it was before this policy came in. If your family members don't know about the $, regardless of what country the book is in, they're not getting it and neither is some "good cause" fund lol. End of story.

[OTL]

Do they still have the highest juice of the so-called A+ sportsbooks?

Pretty much. And they're still crap for teasers or parlays.

[Hareeba!]

Do you believe the stuff you're writing?! The money doesn't go to "good causes". What on Earth gave you that idea? It goes to the Commonwealth of Australia Consolidated Revenue Fund collecting interest for the government while it waits to be claimed, if ever. They can use it for whatever they want.

A bank in Australia is charging you fees each month while your account lays dormant and currently in Australia it's for THREE YEARS, although it appears to be raising soon up to 5. Until less than 2 years ago it was for SEVEN. That money is not going to the Revenue Fund but back into the bank's wallet. Optional says $2 or $3 a month but that's most definitely not the case for many people. Even ignoring the monthly account fee, then there's the case of charges for NSF for automated payments, etc. There are countless stories on ACA and TT about people who went to check their account after forgetting about it or a family member finds it after someone dies and the account has been whittled down to nothing. So yeah that's great your money goes to a public register after three years but you've completely ignored what I've said about why a GAMBLER wouldn't necessarily want that.

If you drop dead tomorrow and you're a client of another major sportsbook, where do you think your money goes if no one contacts the book to claim it? You think there's some charitable fund in Costa Rica or Curacao that is collecting money from dormant accounts? You're arguing about two separate issues here. If you don't like the fee, fair enough. But to dribble on about what if I die, what if I get incapacitated, karma ffs... come on now. What if you do die? The situation is no different now than it was before this policy came in. If your family members don't know about the $, regardless of what country the book is in, they're not getting it and neither is some "good cause" fund lol. End of story.

Shari, I'm astonished and disturbed by your attitude on this issue, especially for someone who's supposed to be a champion of the punter.

I'm often aghast at what our governments waste money on but a good part of what they spend is for the public interest. I'd far rather see unclaimed monies go to consolidated revenue than line the pockets of thieves.

What banks do you frequent?
Mine don't charge monthly account fees, only transaction fees. No transactions, no fees.
And they pay interest on my balance.

You are probably right about what would happen to your account balance in CR or Curacao. But we're talking about Australia (and UK)!

As I said before, from my understanding of the Victorian legislation, any business (I see no exemptions for so called "bookmakers") are required to comply with the provisions of the Unclaimed Monies Act. So it would appear to me that B365's policy is probably illegal as only justifiable costs can be extracted. I would expect that all States and Territories would have similar legislation. And UK too. Perhaps not CR and Curacao! If such legislation is not as I believe it then I think governments should be lobbied to ensure it is.

[superhans]

Shari, I'm astonished and disturbed by your attitude on this issue, especially for someone who's supposed to be a champion of the punter.

Was just about to post the same. I'm not sure what role an administrator has in the scheme of things at sbr, but the attitude of 'play elsewhere' is awful and goes against everything I thought this site stood for.

If anything, this rule change has highlighted that bookies dont have a policy to deal with deceased etc accounts (apart from to screw you over it seems) maybe sbr should be engaging with B365 to create one? We all know that betfair/will hill/laddies etc will now be checking the amount they have in dormant accounts, and I fully expect to see a change of terms from all of them in the coming months.

A quick point on your store card debt Shari. I'm not sure if Aussie law is any different the UK on this, but if you die any outstanding debt is payable by your estate. The same estate which will not include your bookie accounts it seems.

Also, whilst sharing your account details with a trusted family is good practice in theory. Its against the T&Cs -

2.1 bet365 allows all its customers to choose their own username and password combination. Customers must keep this information secret and confidential as you are responsible for all bets/wagers placed on your account and any other activities taking place on your account.

So looks like... If you die, the money is B365s and there is f\*\*k all you can do about it

[allin1]

Do you believe the stuff you're writing?! The money doesn't go to "good causes". What on Earth gave you that idea? It goes to the Commonwealth of Australia Consolidated Revenue Fund collecting interest for the government while it waits to be claimed, if ever. They can use it for whatever they want.

Shari your stance on this is absolutely shocking.

The Japanese government uses the seized funds for welfare and education projects. In the UK it is given to worthy causes in deprived areas. In the US the money can be used as part of the annual budget. Greedy banks don't get to keep the money. It is used for decent causes. Also, any owner or family member can reclaim the money AT ANY TIME. This is the decent moral way to treat these dormant accounts.

[shari91]

Shari, I'm astonished and disturbed by your attitude on this issue, especially for someone who's supposed to be a champion of the punter.

I'm often aghast at what our governments waste money on but a good part of what they spend is for the public interest. I'd far rather see unclaimed monies go to consolidated revenue than line the pockets of thieves.

What banks do you frequent?
Mine don't charge monthly account fees, only transaction fees. No transactions, no fees.
And they pay interest on my balance.

You are probably right about what would happen to your account balance in CR or Curacao. But we're talking about Australia (and UK)!

As I said before, from my understanding of the Victorian legislation, any business (I see no exemptions for so called "bookmakers") are required to comply with the provisions of the Unclaimed Monies Act. So it would appear to me that B365's policy is probably illegal as only justifiable costs can be extracted. I would expect that all States and Territories would have similar legislation. And UK too. Perhaps not CR and Curacao! If such legislation is not as I believe it then I think governments should be lobbied to ensure it is.

An admin cost is a "justifiable cost". Not that it matters but I have accounts with CBA and NAB. Until recently I had an account with Westpac also until I noticed I was getting charged a fee as I wasn't having a certain $ amount of direct deposits put in the account as they're all put in my CBA account now.

What books in Australia are registered in Victoria? None.

As for NT:

Unclaimed prize monies




Certain categories of unclaimed monies either revert back to Northern Territory Treasury, or Treasury must give prior approval for their release.

These are:

• unclaimed funds from phone or internet betting accounts
• Tattersall's wins where the prize-winning tickets have been issued but are unclaimed for over 12 months
• unclaimed keno wins where the ticket was issued over 12 months previously.

So again, Victorian legislation which has nothing to do with a sportsbook and for all we know would be amended if a major book had a reason to be licensed here, doesn't apply in this instance. You expect something that I've just shown you and a quick look here would prove to you is a fallacy. It most definitely isn't the case in the one state where the sportsbook issue actually matters.


@superhans - I wasn't talking about "debt" which is why I said "credit". As in I purchased something, returned it and was issued with a voucher valid for a year. Once that year is up, there is no admin fee, %, etc... the money is GONE. And it sure as hell doesn't revert to some "good for everyone" fund. Doesn't matter if I die or am alive. As far as what my role is here, it's the same as it's always been: I give my opinion as a bettor. If you don't like the policy of a book that has given you notice of that policy, don't bloody play there! Should I be telling to you to play at any and every book? That would've worked out great for me if I'd done that with BetIslands, yeah? I have money in books - sometimes more than I should - and I speak as a gambler. We have too many options, especially those of us who can even legally have an account with 365 to worry about this. Just like the Aussie government warned people when the new 3 year rule for banks came in to do at least a $1 transaction once a year, I said the same. If you think you can't even manage to bet $1 a year at 365, then take your money out. Woohoo - they don't even charge you to withdraw! Please stop with the whole it "goes everything I thought this site stood for" thing though because if you'd been around longer you'd know that each of us have our own opinions based on where we do and can play and our experiences at books. There is no company line to toe and if anything, especially in previous instances that's what's saved many of us.

@allin - I showed you above it goes to the Reserve Fund. AKA the country's money - just like the US. What else do you want? And as far as I remember from your previous posts you don't even live in a country where 365 is licensed. Nor Pinny nor SIA nor Willy Hill nor not much of anyone else so if there was a sudden law change, your fellow residents still wouldn't benefit in the slightest. You're fighting about something for the sake of being contrary. bet365 is breaking no laws and they're complying with government legislation. They're now charging a fee for a dormant account and you now have the option to remove your money and place it in another book if you think your family will be better protected in the event you die. To that I say, you're dreaming.

Love a good derailment though.

[Hareeba!]

Shari, I said I didn't KNOW the facts but would EXPECT similar legislation at least in all Australian States if not also the UK.
Despite B365 and most online bookies being registered outside of Victoria they are still bound by the Victorian law in regard to the ban on inducements to open accounts. So why not by the unclaimed monies legislation? Anyway my point is that if not, it should be the way. It is simply immoral that we could allow B365 to steal all a player's money over 19 months.

I see that you have quoted that unclaimed funds from phone or internet betting accounts in the NT revert to the government. So how does that not conflict with B365's thieving policy?

[RedDevil1974]

I come here every fee months only now and always this clown hareeba is STILL being made to look like a fool over something or other.

Pro punter indeed.

[Hareeba!]

I come here every fee months only now and always this clown hareeba is STILL being made to look like a fool over something or other.

Pro punter indeed.

So you have no problem with a bookie having a licence to methodically steal a player's money over 19 months?
Is that your point?

[superhans]

Wow. Check out betfred. Even more ruthless -

"9.9. If you have not logged into your account, or played during a period of one hundred and eighty days your account shall deemed to be dormant. Similarly if we have frozen your account for such a period it shall be considered dormant. If your account is categorised as dormant and there is a credit balance on the account, then we will use all reasonable endeavours to contact you to determine your wishes in respect of those unutilised funds. If you have not logged into your account within 14 days after this contact then any funds will be removed."

[Hareeba!]

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) says Bet 365 misled punters by offering free bets and deposit bonuses that were subject to a number of conditions not properly disclosed.


The ACCC says customers had to gamble a substantial amount of money to redeem the offers, and they also had to bet on high-risk odds.


ACCC chairman Rod Sims says consumer issues in online trading are an enforcement priority for the organisation.

"The online betting industry is a growing business sector," he said.
"The Australian Consumer Law applies to this sector in the same way that it applies to other industries and sectors.
"The Consumer Law also requires that any conditions, limitations or restrictions should be made clear to the consumer before the purchase rather than after a consumer has been unfairly enticed into a transaction."


The ACCC says Bet 365 has changed its website since the ACCC contacted it about its concerns.


The matter will be in court in October.

[Optional]

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) says Bet 365 misled punters by offering free bets and deposit bonuses that were subject to a number of conditions not properly disclosed.


The ACCC says customers had to gamble a substantial amount of money to redeem the offers, and they also had to bet on high-risk odds.


ACCC chairman Rod Sims says consumer issues in online trading are an enforcement priority for the organisation.

"The online betting industry is a growing business sector," he said.
"The Australian Consumer Law applies to this sector in the same way that it applies to other industries and sectors.
"The Consumer Law also requires that any conditions, limitations or restrictions should be made clear to the consumer before the purchase rather than after a consumer has been unfairly enticed into a transaction."


The ACCC says Bet 365 has changed its website since the ACCC contacted it about its concerns.


The matter will be in court in October.

I bet they move a bit faster when the ACCC comes knocking compared to their buddies at the NT Gaming Commission.

I'd like to see the ACCC go through the NT Gaming Commission rules like a does of salts too!

I hope this signals a real push back against these UK corporates who have been allowed to act like vultures instead of bookmakers in their own country.

[Hareeba!]

I bet they move a bit faster when the ACCC comes knocking compared to their buddies at the NT Gaming Commission.

I'd like to see the ACCC go through the NT Gaming Commission rules like a does of salts too!

I hope this signals a real push back against these UK corporates who have been allowed to act like vultures instead of bookmakers in their own country.

Don't we all!
But I won't be holding my breath.

[Stockdale]

Jesus Christ! You people sound pathetic. Get the penetrate over it, it's a friggen $2 fee if you haven't placed a single cent on something in a year. Plus they will contact you to let you know before it gets to that!

My god build a penetrating bridge its pathetic

[eddie701]

tut..tut..tut

[Hareeba!]

Jesus Christ! You people sound pathetic. Get the penetrate over it, it's a friggen $2 fee if you haven't placed a single cent on something in a year. Plus they will contact you to let you know before it gets to that!

My god build a penetrating bridge its pathetic

It's not just $2, it's 2 GBP actually or 5% of your balance every 28 days!

Sure, they say they will contact you. But everybody maintains their e-addresses up to date don't they?
And dead, incarcerated and severely incapacitated people probably don't get to read emails!
It's a licence for B365 to steal the account balance of unfortunate people. Simple and plain as that.

[Dr.Gonzo]

Are you going to come back and apologize Stockdale?

It's 5% a month, maybe you should have read a little before running your mouth.

[Sawyer]

Bet365 is the best bookie on earth, but not for betting.
It's best for watching live streams, lol.

[Stockdale]

Lol 5%, 10%, 20%... who the f cares. Place a penetrating bet once for the year deal with it and stop bitching. It's a non issue

You have been warned. They will contact you.
If you can't place a bet in a whole year or keep your email or phone number accurate then you deserve to lose the lot for being such a useless putz

[Hareeba!]

Lol 5%, 10%, 20%... who the f cares. Place a penetrating bet once for the year deal with it and stop bitching. It's a non issue

You have been warned. They will contact you.
If you can't place a bet in a whole year or keep your email or phone number accurate then you deserve to lose the lot for being such a useless putz

I agree that it's carelessness by the account holder.
But no way does that deserve the loss of his funds or justify B365 stealing them.

[Hareeba!]

The legal principle outlined in the following case appears to have some relevance in this matter:

"In 2012 ANZ group members had an important victory with wide-ranging implications for Australian consumers, when the High Court ruled on a preliminary question of law that all the exception fees in question could be considered as a penalty charged by ANZ.
Her Honour Justice Michelle Gordon of the Federal Court of Australia handed down judgment in Paciocco v ANZ on 5 February 2014, in which she found that late payment fees were unlawful penalties and that customers should be reimbursed the money by which those fees exceeded the true cost to the bank, which her Honour found in most cases to be $0.50"

Essentially what the Court found was that the banks don't have the right to charge penalties in excess of the cost incurred by them.

What is the cost to Bet365 in maintaining a dormant account?
In this digital age, I'd venture to suggest that it is too insignificant to even calculate.
In fact the interest they would earn on the customer's funds would make it a profitable exercise for them.
So beyond the cost of attempting to communicate with the dormant account holder I suggest the fees which Bet365 outlines in it's terms and conditions are unlawful.