[luctens]

What would it take to prompt organized action from SBR / SBR posters in order to get bet365 to change some of their unfair rules? Is 10 complaints enough to initiate a review of their A+ rating? Is 100 complaints enough?

You need to be realistic, not delusional. Bet365 aren't going to be changing any of their rules based on 10 or 100 complaints or whatever from SBR so you're simply wasting your time with that.

The same goes with their A+ rating, and rightly so in regards to their rating. You will never ever be caught out by these inactivity fees as long as you don't leave your account doing bugger all with a balance in it for 365 consecutive days. Whether the inactivity fees are fair or not, it still stands that as long as you're not completely careless with your account for a whole year and don't do anything with it, you will never be a victim of those rules. If somebody is careless enough to leave a balance in Bet365 for a whole year without doing anything with the account as they have forgotten about it or whatever, frankly I don't have any sympathy with them whatsoever as they shouldn't be so careless in the first place as giving you 12 months to do something your account and your balance is certainly more than a reasonable amount of time to expect somebody to sort out their account before inactivity fees kick in.

In the spectrum of unfair rules that bookmakers have, this is extremely small cheese and it is extremely easy to avoid so that in no way requires a rating downgrade.

[Krstasdj3]

You need to be realistic, not delusional. Bet365 aren't going to be changing any of their rules based on 10 or 100 complaints or whatever from SBR so you're simply wasting your time with that.

The same goes with their A+ rating, and rightly so in regards to their rating. You will never ever be caught out by these inactivity fees as long as you don't leave your account doing bugger all with a balance in it for 365 consecutive days. Whether the inactivity fees are fair or not, it still stands that as long as you're not completely careless with your account for a whole year and don't do anything with it, you will never be a victim of those rules. If somebody is careless enough to leave a balance in Bet365 for a whole year without doing anything with the account as they have forgotten about it or whatever, frankly I don't have any sympathy with them whatsoever as they shouldn't be so careless in the first place as giving you 12 months to do something your account and your balance is certainly more than a reasonable amount of time to expect somebody to sort out their account before inactivity fees kick in.

In the spectrum of unfair rules that bookmakers have, this is extremely small cheese and it is extremely easy to avoid so that in no way requires a rating downgrade.

Hahaha, everybody see that you work for bet365, you talking like you are there lawyer. Everything whaylt I said you take out of context. So please do stop explain anything, because you already explained to you the worker bet365, it is totally clear. I think that they are dont have right to take my money if i am not lose that money on gambling.

I see that you dont understand anything, and you have a directive from the company what to write, As for the examples that I have given about the prison and the rest are just examples, and your stupid story to someone in prison to be called bet365, and bet365 give themselves the right to not call and do not send letters .

[Hareeba!]

The rules are there in black and white on Bet365's website for goodness sake and you accepted these rules when you signed up.

Just on that point. Maybe not?

The rule in question wasn't introduced until 1 August 2014.

If the OP had joined up and had his account blocked prior to that date I suggest he was never in a position to have known or been advised about this rule.

[luctens]

Hahaha, everybody see that you work for bet365, you talking like you are there lawyer. Everything whaylt I said you take out of context. So please do stop explain anything, because you already explained to you the worker bet365, it is totally clear. I think that they are dont have right to take my money if i am not lose that money on gambling.

I see that you dont understand anything, and you have a directive from the company what to write, As for the examples that I have given about the prison and the rest are just examples, and your stupid story to someone in prison to be called bet365, and bet365 give themselves the right to not call and do not send letters .

Yet again, I am not connected with Bet365 whatsoever. You can continue in your delusional thinking that anybody who questions you must work for Bet365 if you want, but it doesn't make it correct, however much you try and convince yourself that it is. So stop with this boring conspiracy theory that I must work for Bet365, because it's very simple, I don't work for them, so get over it.

You say "I think that they are dont have right to take my money if i am not lose that money on gambling." I've already said before that Bet365 do have the right to take your money in these circumstances because it is in their rules which you agreed to, so just accept that Bet365 are carrying out their rules which you agreed to. Simple as.

In regards to me commenting on your example on if you were in prison, you asked what you would do in this situation if you were in prison, and I answered that question with the steps you would need to take if you were in prison. I'm not taking anything out of context, I am simply answering the question you asked.

Regarding me saying that Bet365 don't generally use phone call or letter as a form of contact and generally use e-mail, that would be true with the majority of online gambling websites. So I was pointing out that in terms of Bet365 trying to contact you to advise that these inactivity fees were about to kick in, they would most probably advise you of that by e-mail to your registered e-mail address so I don't know what problem you have with me stating that very obvious point.

[luctens]

Just on that point. Maybe not?

The rule in question wasn't introduced until 1 August 2014.

If the OP had joined up and had his account blocked prior to that date I suggest he was never in a position to have known or been advised about this rule.

Bet365's procedures are to wait for the account to have been inactive for 365 consecutive days before considering the account dormant. They then take steps to let the account holder know about this. If the account remains dormant for a further 28 days after the attempts to contact have been made, Bet365 start charging inactivity fees from that point and further charges of 5% of the balance every 28 days until the balance is emptied or the account is reactivated.

So it would be 365 days for the account to become dormant, a further 28 days before fees start being charged and then 19 further 5% charges at 28 day intervals before the account is empty. So the minimum time it would have taken for the account balance to get rinsed completely is 365 + 28 + (28 x 19 = 532) = 925 days which is just over 2 and a half years. The OP first posted here on 30/07/2016 so 2 and a half years back from that date is 30/01/2014 so the very latest date the OP could have opened the account is 30/01/2014. These rules came into effect on 01/08/2014, so these rules wouldn't have been available for the OP to read at the time when they opened the account on 30/01/2014 or earlier.

However, this does not make any difference whatsoever to the OP's case. If for example the OP signed up on 30/01/2014, then although these rules weren't in place at that time, Bet365 would have sent out an e-mail to all account holders prior to 01/08/2014, whether their account was currently locked or not, letting them know of these rule changes. So the OP would have been sent an e-mail letting them know about the addition of these inactivity fee rules. So although the OP wouldn't have been aware of these rules when they signed up as the rules weren't in place then, the OP would have been advised later on closer to 01/08/2014 that these rules were being added to the site, so the OP would have been well aware of these rules and therefore would have known that leaving the account inactive for as long as they have would result in their account balance being rinsed so there is no argument on the grounds that the OP wasn't advised of these rules because they would have been advised of these rules.

[Sportwetter84]

If you charge an account 5% each month it will never be empty. It will just decrease slower and slower in absolute terms, after 24 months 29% should be left in the account.

[Hareeba!]

[QUOTE=luctens;26078976] Bet365 would have sent out an e-mail to all account holders prior to 01/08/2014, whether their account was currently locked or not, letting them know of these rule changes. /QUOTE]

Are you sure about that?
I don't recall getting such an email but I could be wrong.
Generally I find such rule changes are advised via a message on logging in that certain changes have been made and by continuing you are taken to have agreed to accept them.
If the chap's account is locked he wouldn't have got such a message.

No mention of email advices in this provision:

4. We may need to change the Terms from time to time for a number of reasons (including to comply with applicable laws and regulations, and regulatory requirements). All changes will be published on the Website. The most up to date Terms will be available on the Website. If any change is unacceptable to you, you should cease using the Website and/or close your account. If, however, you continue to use the Website after the date on which the changes to the Terms come into effect, you will be deemed to have accepted those changes.

[Hareeba!]

If you charge an account 5% each month it will never be empty. It will just decrease slower and slower in absolute terms, after 24 months 29% should be left in the account.

True but Bet365 are too smart for that!

(c) If your account remains dormant, after a minimum period of 28 days following bet365’s first attempt to notify you that your account has become dormant, bet365 shall deduct a monthly Administration Fee from your account balance of £2 (or currency equivalent), or 5% of your account balance at the time that it is deemed to be dormant (whichever is greater).

[luctens]

If you charge an account 5% each month it will never be empty. It will just decrease slower and slower in absolute terms, after 24 months 29% should be left in the account.

Bet365's rules state:

"(b) If, on being deemed to be dormant, your account has a positive balance, bet365 shall take reasonable steps to notify you using the details you provided during your registration process (or as updated by you).

(c) If your account remains dormant, after a minimum period of 28 days following bet365’s first attempt to notify you that your account has become dormant, bet365 shall deduct a monthly Administration Fee from your account balance of £2 (or currency equivalent), or 5% of your account balance at the time that it is deemed to be dormant (whichever is greater).

(d) The Administration Fee calculated in accordance with (c) above shall be deducted from your account balance on the expiry of the 28 day notification period mentioned above and every 28 days thereafter at the same rate until the earlier of: (i) your account balance reaching zero when no further Administration Fee shall be deducted and your account will be closed; or (ii) you ‘reactivating’ your account when no further Administration Fee shall be deducted."

It states that they will take 5% off whatever the account balance is at the time the account becomes dormant, so the first charge is 5% of €340 = €17. It then goes on to say that whatever the amount calculated as the initial charge to be deducted (in this case €17) will be deducted at the same rate every 28 days, so their terms allow them to deduct the exact same €17 charge over and over every 28 days until the account is empty so that would take 20 x €17 charges for the €340 to be wiped so from the time the first charge is taken, it would be 532 days or just under 1 and half years before the whole balance is emptied.

[luctens]

[QUOTE=Hareeba!;26079120]

Bet365 would have sent out an e-mail to all account holders prior to 01/08/2014, whether their account was currently locked or not, letting them know of these rule changes. /QUOTE]

Are you sure about that?
I don't recall getting such an email but I could be wrong.
Generally I find such rule changes are advised via a message on logging in that certain changes have been made and by continuing you are taken to have agreed to accept them.
If the chap's account is locked he wouldn't have got such a message.

No mention of email advices in this provision:

4. We may need to change the Terms from time to time for a number of reasons (including to comply with applicable laws and regulations, and regulatory requirements). All changes will be published on the Website. The most up to date Terms will be available on the Website. If any change is unacceptable to you, you should cease using the Website and/or close your account. If, however, you continue to use the Website after the date on which the changes to the Terms come into effect, you will be deemed to have accepted those changes.

I can't remember that far back to know with absolute certainty if I got an e-mail about this exact rule but I can recall over the years getting a number of e-mails stating various rule changes etc. It would usually include a message in the members section as well when logging in, but would also be accompanied by an e-mail from Bet365.

So because as far as my experiences have been, it is policy for Bet365 to let customers know by e-mail of rule changes, so I am pretty certain Bet365 would have sent an e-mail out advising of this rule change, but even if they didn't, as per their terms the ultimate responsibility lies with the customer themselves to keep up to date with the terms and conditions that are stated on the website. So either the OP was sent an e-mail advising them about this rule change in which case they would know about it by e-mail, or if they weren't sent an e-mail, it is the customer's ultimate responsibility to keep up to date with the terms and conditions on the website so as per Bet365's terms, it was the customer's responsibility to have been aware of this rule no matter whether they received an e-mail from Bet365 telling them about this or not.

[Hareeba!]

[QUOTE=luctens;26079218]

I can't remember that far back to know with absolute certainty if I got an e-mail about this exact rule but I can recall over the years getting a number of e-mails stating various rule changes etc. It would usually include a message in the members section as well when logging in, but would also be accompanied by an e-mail from Bet365.

So because as far as my experiences have been, it is policy for Bet365 to let customers know by e-mail of rule changes, so I am pretty certain Bet365 would have sent an e-mail out advising of this rule change, but even if they didn't, as per their terms the ultimate responsibility lies with the customer themselves to keep up to date with the terms and conditions that are stated on the website. So either the OP was sent an e-mail advising them about this rule change in which case they would know about it by e-mail, or if they weren't sent an e-mail, it is the customer's ultimate responsibility to keep up to date with the terms and conditions on the website so as per Bet365's terms, it was the customer's responsibility to have been aware of this rule no matter whether they received an e-mail from Bet365 telling them about this or not.

Seriously?
A customer who's account is locked is reasonably expected nonetheless to regularly check the Ts&Cs for rule amendments which might affect him.

[luctens]

[QUOTE=Hareeba!;26079252]

Seriously?
A customer who's account is locked is reasonably expected nonetheless to regularly check the Ts&Cs for rule amendments which might affect him.

I am simply stating what it states on the Bet365 rules and I understand you are trying to point out that Bet365's rules are not fair and reasonable, but arguing that really doesn't make a difference and won't get you anywhere, as the gambling regulators simply are not tough enough in clamping down on unfair terms and conditions.

So you can complain until you are blue in the face about whether terms and conditions are fair or not, but you've got to look at the regulatory system that is in place to supposedly enforce these things. If the OP complains that these terms are unfair, Bet365 will just say that you accepted these terms so tough luck and almost certainly IBAS and the Gambling Commission will say exactly the same thing.

The only thing you are left with then is to take Bet365 to court and maybe a court may decide that the terms are unfair but for €340, it obviously isn't going to be economical in terms of your time, effort and money involved to do that. I completely understand what you say and you are right that these terms are unfair, but I am looking at the practicality and the reality of what can be done. Arguing that the terms are unfair will get you absolutely nowhere with the way the gambling industry is regulated as the regulators won't help you and then you will always be only left with court action to have a chance to enforce these unfair terms and unless the amount you are claiming is substantial, isn't going to be economical in terms of your time, effort and money involved to do that.

Then you're back to square one, no viable way to get your money back and every betting company and regulator telling you "you accepted the terms and that's the bottom line".

That's just the way it is in the gambling industry, that isn't going to change any time soon and you just have to accept that if you going to be a customer of this industry.

Additionally, what I previously referred to in Bet365's rules would only come into effect if Bet365 didn't send out an e-mail advising of this rule change which I highly doubt was the case.

Even if that was the case and it was just a message that came up when you logged into your account, then Bet365 would just argue that the OP should have got their account verified way sooner which would have allowed the OP to login to their account and then see the message about the rule change. From the information given so far, Bet365 would have a very valid case to argue that the OP should have got their account verified way earlier as there are steps the OP could have taken but chose not to take to verify their account at the time. Obviously if the OP had taken these further steps at the time and got their account verified, then the OP would then have logged into their account, seen the message about the rule change and would have been aware of this rule change.

So either the OP received an e-mail from Bet365 advising of this rule change, or even if they didn't and it was just an account message, the OP hasn't taken reasonable steps to get their account verified in a reasonable amount of time in order to be able to login to see a message about the rule when logged in. Either way, the OP has no case.

The only example of where the OP may have a case in theory is that if Bet365 didn't send out an e-mail and also didn't send out an account message and expected the OP and all other customers to check the ts and cs to find out about this rule. I highly doubt this was the case but if that was the case, the OP may then have a case that these terms are unfair and unreasonable, but as I described above, that wouldn't be a case that they would win with Bet365, IBAS or The Gambling Commission, it's a case they may win at court, but as I described earlier, it just isn't worth taking Bet365 to court for €340, so there is no viable way of even having a chance to get any money back whatsoever so it's pointless and unrealistic to point out that the terms are unfair, because it will get the OP absolutely nowhere and in the same end game situation of getting no money back.

[Hareeba!]

I do understand your lack of patience with the OP due to his attitude to yourself and Bet365.

But I remain quite positive that he can achieve a fair outcome, particularly if his account was locked prior to 1 Aug 2014.

Just reading between the lines it seems to me that the OP has had some significant issues and got himself into troubles which have meant that he couldn't obtain a passport or driving licence for a good period of time. Perhaps he was incarcerated? That alone would be reasonable excuse for not having pressed on with getting his ID sorted out. He'd have had bigger issues to deal with.

Is SBR still on his case with B365?

If not then he could refer it to IBAS but initially I'd suggest he write to B365 (minus all the vitriol) and simply put his case before them and pointing out the unfairness of the administration charges given that he didn't ever (?) agree to those terms and wasn't advised of them.

[Hareeba!]

Even if that was the case and it was just a message that came up when you logged into your account, then Bet365 would just argue that the OP should have got their account verified way sooner which would have allowed the OP to login to their account and then see the message about the rule change. From the information given so far, Bet365 would have a very valid case to argue that the OP should have got their account verified way earlier as there are steps the OP could have taken but chose not to take to verify their account at the time. Obviously if the OP had taken these further steps at the time and got their account verified, then the OP would then have logged into their account, seen the message about the rule change and would have been aware of this rule change.

So either the OP received an e-mail from Bet365 advising of this rule change, or even if they didn't and it was just an account message, the OP hasn't taken reasonable steps to get their account verified in a reasonable amount of time in order to be able to login to see a message about the rule when logged in. Either way, the OP has no case.

The only example of where the OP may have a case in theory is that if Bet365 didn't send out an e-mail and also didn't send out an account message and expected the OP and all other customers to check the ts and cs to find out about this rule. I highly doubt this was the case but if that was the case, the OP may then have a case that these terms are unfair and unreasonable, but as I described above, that wouldn't be a case that they would win with Bet365, IBAS or The Gambling Commission, it's a case they may win at court, but as I described earlier, it just isn't worth taking Bet365 to court for €340, so there is no viable way of even having a chance to get any money back whatsoever so it's pointless and unrealistic to point out that the terms are unfair, because it will get the OP absolutely nowhere and in the same end game situation of getting no money back.

I disagree.

Even had the OP received an email (I still doubt that the changes were advised by email) or even if he had discovered the changes by just reading their updated Ts&Cs, he would still have needed to actually log into his account and proceeded to agree to the updated terms. Until then he cannot be deemed to have accepted them.

[luctens]

I do understand your lack of patience with the OP due to his attitude to yourself and Bet365.

But I remain quite positive that he can achieve a fair outcome, particularly if his account was locked prior to 1 Aug 2014.

Just reading between the lines it seems to me that the OP has had some significant issues and got himself into troubles which have meant that he couldn't obtain a passport or driving licence for a good period of time. Perhaps he was incarcerated? That alone would be reasonable excuse for not having pressed on with getting his ID sorted out. He'd have had bigger issues to deal with.

Is SBR still on his case with B365?

If not then he could refer it to IBAS but initially I'd suggest he write to B365 (minus all the vitriol) and simply put his case before them and pointing out the unfairness of the administration charges given that he didn't ever (?) agree to those terms and wasn't advised of them.
Failing satisfaction on that front he could try contacting info@justiceforpunters.org and ask for their advice as to the best means to obtain fairness.

If it was an extreme situation like that, then maybe there is some sort of case at court but again, before that, Bet365 are just going to abide by their terms and then it's down to IBAS and Gambling Commission and they will almost certainly just abide by Bet365 ts and cs and not take any other mitigating factors into account.

So then he's left with court action and with the amount he's talking about, it just isn't worth it. So if the OP has some extreme circumstances that he hasn't already mentioned then he could go through that whole complaints process, but the inevitable consequence is that all of these arguments are extremely likely to fall on deaf ears in favour of abiding by Bet365 ts and cs.

Then the OP is only left with court action which as I said for the amount he's talking, it's not worth it. So of course he could try to argue his case if he has some extreme mitigating circumstances that he hasn't stated already, but I think he's wasting his time as he will almost certainly find himself back to square one in the end with no viable way of getting his money back.

The reality is that the bookmakers and regulators almost always just abide by the ts and cs and don't take any other circumstances into account when it comes to it, and unless it's a significant amount, court action isn't worth it, so in terms of regulators, you don't really have any real back up when it comes down to it.

[luctens]

I disagree.

Even had the OP received an email (I still doubt that the changes were advised by email) or even if he had discovered the changes by just reading their updated Ts&Cs, he would still have needed to actually log into his account and proceeded to agree to the updated terms. Until then he cannot be deemed to have accepted them.

The issue is that with the information given, it is the OP that hasn't taken the required steps at the time to get his account verified, it isn't that Bet365 have unreasonably locked him out of his account for no reason.

Therefore, Bet365 would just argue that they have acted fairly and it was up to the OP to verify his account and therefore be able to login and then accept the ts and cs, but it was ultimately the OP's doing that he didn't verify his account at the time and therefore didn't login to accept the ts and cs, and I believe Bet365 would be highly likely to be successful in arguing that.

[Hareeba!]

The issue is that with the information given, it is the OP that hasn't taken the required steps at the time to get his account verified, it isn't that Bet365 have unreasonably locked him out of his account for no reason.

Therefore, Bet365 would just argue that they have acted fairly and it was up to the OP to verify his account and therefore be able to login and then accept the ts and cs, but it was ultimately the OP's doing that he didn't verify his account at the time and therefore didn't login to accept the ts and cs, and I believe Bet365 would be highly likely to be successful in arguing that.

I 100% disagree with that.
If the account was locked prior to 1 Aug 2014 and the full balance removed by the time it was unlocked, B365 have acted unlawfully as the OP could not have accepted the change in terms and conditions thus they had no authority to charge the dormant account fees.
Irrelevant that he delayed getting his ID sorted out.

[luctens]

I 100% disagree with that.
If the account was locked prior to 1 Aug 2014 and the full balance removed by the time it was unlocked, B365 have acted unlawfully as the OP could not have accepted the change in terms and conditions thus they had no authority to charge the dormant account fees.
Irrelevant that he delayed getting his ID sorted out.

But with the information that has been given, it seems highly likely that the OP didn't take all reasonable steps in order to get his account verified and be able to login and if that is the case which it sounds like it is, Bet365 will be able to successfully argue that the reason the OP wasn't able to accept the change in ts and cs by logging into their account, was because the OP didn't take reasonable steps to verify his account and therefore be able to login.

So Bet365 will argue that they fulfilled their obligations by putting a message in his account informing him of the change of terms and they will say that's all they are required to do in order to communicate a change in ts and cs, and they will say that the OP didn't fulfil his obligations in order to view this account message by taking reasonable steps in order to verify his account and then in order to be able to login and view the account message Bet365 put there for him.

You may say you 100% disagree, but frankly what you or I think isn't really important as we don't make the decisions so I'm always only thinking on the basis of whether the OP has any case that would win with the bookmaker, IBAS, the regulator (or the courts if the amount involved is significant). Whether you or I think the situation is fair or not, the only thing that really matters is if we think that one of those organisations will rule in the punter's favour, as however many of us think a situation is unfair or not, if none of those organisations will rule in the punter's favour in the circumstances and the amount involved isn't worth going to court for even if there is a chance of winning, then it is all pointless as there will be no resolution to the matter and the customer won't get their money, and I don't think there is any way at all that the customer has a case that any of the first three organisations will rule in his favour on in this situation and the amount isn't worth going to court for.

[Hareeba!]

It's not only unfair.

It's illegal to change and apply terms which the customer hasn't agreed to regardless of why or how.

I'd bet very big money on that being the legal position.

[luctens]

It's not only unfair.

It's illegal to change and apply terms which the customer hasn't agreed to regardless of why or how.

I'd bet very big money on that being the legal position.

I'm not saying that isn't the case, but what I'm saying is that it is highly unlikely that Bet365, IBAS or The Gambling Commission will see it this way and the only place that may see it this way is the courts, but this is only for €340. So you may be right and all that, but if in practice the only place where you even have a chance of getting this decision is in court, where the time, effort and expense outweigh the €340 that is involved, then it's all a completely pointless exercise.

[Hareeba!]

I'm not saying that isn't the case, but what I'm saying is that it is highly unlikely that Bet365, IBAS or The Gambling Commission will see it this way and the only place that may see it this way is the courts, but this is only for €340. So you may be right and all that, but if in practice the only place where you even have a chance of getting this decision is in court, where the time, effort and expense outweigh the €340 that is involved, then it's all a completely pointless exercise.

I'd expect B365's lawyers would advise them to just back down rather than have to argue an unjustifiable position.

[luctens]

I'd expect B365's lawyers would advise them to just back down rather than have to argue an unjustifiable position.

Well we'll just to have agree to disagree on whether we think they are going to do that or not. Given the OP took 2 years to get his account verified though, we probably won't have the result until 2020.

[Krstasdj3]

But with the information that has been given, it seems highly likely that the OP didn't take all reasonable steps in order to get his account verified and be able to login and if that is the case which it sounds like it is, Bet365 will be able to successfully argue that the reason the OP wasn't able to accept the change in ts and cs by logging into their account, was because the OP didn't take reasonable steps to verify his account and therefore be able to login.

So Bet365 will argue that they fulfilled their obligations by putting a message in his account informing him of the change of terms and they will say that's all they are required to do in order to communicate a change in ts and cs, and they will say that the OP didn't fulfil his obligations in order to view this account message by taking reasonable steps in order to verify his account and then in order to be able to login and view the account message Bet365 put there for him.

You may say you 100% disagree, but frankly what you or I think isn't really important as we don't make the decisions so I'm always only thinking on the basis of whether the OP has any case that would win with the bookmaker, IBAS, the regulator (or the courts if the amount involved is significant). Whether you or I think the situation is fair or not, the only thing that really matters is if we think that one of those organisations will rule in the punter's favour, as however many of us think a situation is unfair or not, if none of those organisations will rule in the punter's favour in the circumstances and the amount involved isn't worth going to court for even if there is a chance of winning, then it is all pointless as there will be no resolution to the matter and the customer won't get their money, and I don't think there is any way at all that the customer has a case that any of the first three organisations will rule in his favour on in this situation and the amount isn't worth going to court for.

But "with the information that has been given, it seems highly likely that the OP didn't take all reasonable steps in order to get his account verified"

What are you talking about, i send them ID and photos of Id near my face. What i did not do? I did not get passport or go to get drivers license??? What i can do what?? I could send him social number, or what. They doesnt want to verify my account without explained, only want passport. You are work for them and after miles of your ur posts we can see that. If you want to know i can sow you my emails from bet365 they did not send me anything about administrative fee started.
You talk me about rules. No rules that they can charge me administrative fee while account is locked. Show me that rules.

[Hareeba!]

But "with the information that has been given, it seems highly likely that the OP didn't take all reasonable steps in order to get his account verified"

What are you talking about, i send them ID and photos of Id near my face. What i did not do? I did not get passport or go to get drivers license??? What i can do what?? I could send him social number, or what. They doesnt want to verify my account without explained, only want passport. You are work for them and after miles of your ur posts we can see that. If you want to know i can sow you my emails from bet365 they did not send me anything about administrative fee started.
You talk me about rules. No rules that they can charge me administrative fee while account is locked. Show me that rules.

Calm down mate, Luctens doesn't work for B365. He's just pointing out that they have followed their own rules.

If you want a satisfactory outcome just start dealing with facts.

On what date did they block your account?

When you finally gained access to your account again were you greeted with a message advising of changes to any terms and conditions?

[luctens]

But "with the information that has been given, it seems highly likely that the OP didn't take all reasonable steps in order to get his account verified"

What are you talking about, i send them ID and photos of Id near my face. What i did not do? I did not get passport or go to get drivers license??? What i can do what?? I could send him social number, or what. They doesnt want to verify my account without explained, only want passport. You are work for them and after miles of your ur posts we can see that. If you want to know i can sow you my emails from bet365 they did not send me anything about administrative fee started.
You talk me about rules. No rules that they can charge me administrative fee while account is locked. Show me that rules.

The reasonable steps you could have taken would have been to challenge Bet365 at the time on what the exact reason that they rejected your ID card. You could then have either rectified whatever issues Bet365 raised with your ID card, or if you did not agree with Bet365's explanation on what they said was wrong with your ID card, you could have followed the complaints procedure. If you took these reasonable steps, then this issue would most probably have been resolved at the time. You however chose not to take these reasonable steps to get your account verified at the time but instead chose to wait 2 years for a new copy of your ID card. There is therefore no way that you can be considered to have taken all reasonable steps in order to get your account verified and reactivated as soon as possible.

Yet again, I don't work for Bet365, get over it.

Their rules state that in these circumstances they can charge inactivity fees, and those rules make no reference to whether your account is locked or not on whether they will charge inactivity fees or not, so you have no case based on what is stated in their rules.

If it is the case that these rules were not in place when you signed up and were not in place by the time they blocked your account, and if Bet365 didn't send you an e-mail or letter or contact you in any other way to communicate these rule changes, then maybe you have a chance on those grounds. But in my view, the only chance you may have on those grounds is in court, as Bet365 have followed their stated terms so that will most likely be enough for Bet365, IBAS and The Gambling Commission to rule against you. If that is the case, your only option left would be court action, which would result in more time and expense than it's worth for the amount you're talking about. So in my view, you're at a completely dead end.

[Optional]

If you go on with paragraphs of amateur lawyer arguments then you can be sure Luctens will be correct and no one will listen to you and just rule on the terms.

If you want to mount a legal argument then don't tell them about it, go find a lawyer and do it without compromising your position first...


But I don't think it needs to be that complicated or a legal argument. Just say something like this Krstasdj3;

"I was locked out by the company whilst they approved my ID. I never abandoned my account. It was not possible for me to meet the company terms to keep the account active by logging in as the company prevented this. I believe my communications with them on these dates XXX XXX and XXX show that I remained in contact with the company in the only way they allowed and obviously had no intent to abandon my account. I request that the company be ordered to honour my full balance."


You need to appeal on the grounds of fairness only, and keep it as simple as possible. Just the salient facts. I was locked out, I was in contact, I did not abandon the account.

It may not work but you will have many times better chance of success than trying to tell them about the legality of their terms which they probably paid a team of lawyers a lot of money to prepare and won't in any circumstance alter without the approval of the same team of lawyers who are very unlikely to ever agree they got it wrong...

[luctens]

If you go on with paragraphs of amateur lawyer arguments then you can be sure Luctens will be correct and no one will listen to you and just rule on the terms.

If you want to mount a legal argument then don't tell them about it, go find a lawyer and do it without compromising your position first...


But I don't think it needs to be that complicated or a legal argument. Just say something like this Krstasdj3;

"I was locked out by the company whilst they approved my ID. I never abandoned my account. It was not possible for me to meet the company terms to keep the account active by logging in as the company prevented this. I believe my communications with them on these dates XXX XXX and XXX show that I remained in contact with the company in the only way they allowed and obviously had no intent to abandon my account. I request that the company be ordered to honour my full balance."


You need to appeal on the grounds of fairness only, and keep it as simple as possible. Just the salient facts. I was locked out, I was in contact, I did not abandon the account.

It may not work but you will have many times better chance of success than trying to tell them about the legality of their terms which they probably paid a team of lawyers a lot of money to prepare and won't in any circumstance alter without the approval of the same team of lawyers who are very unlikely to ever agree they got it wrong...

The trouble is, the fees involved in consulting a lawyer and getting them to draw up a letter is probably going to outweigh the €340 the OP is talking about, so although in theory this action has a possibility of success, it would be uneconomical to take this action in the first place.

[Optional]

The trouble is, the fees involved in consulting a lawyer and getting them to draw up a letter is probably going to outweigh the €340 the OP is talking about, so although in theory this action has a possibility of success, it would be uneconomical to take this action in the first place.

I don't see why that is a trouble for what I said. I actually suggested that he not bother with a lawyer.

But as you bring up the point, if he was in the UK a small claims court application is probably under 50 pounds and if he has half a brain he can likely manage the lodgement himself.

At that point, if he has ANY sort of viable case, it's actually more likely the book will give in and settle rather than risk having a court make an order against their terms. In which case all costs would be covered.

Again, I don't think that's the best action to take here, but costs and quantum are definitely not a stumbling point in going that way.

[luctens]

I don't see why that is a trouble for what I said. I actually suggested that he not bother with a lawyer.

But as you bring up the point, if he was in the UK a small claims court application is probably under 50 pounds and if he has half a brain he can likely manage the lodgement himself.

At that point, if he has ANY sort of viable case, it's actually more likely the book will give in and settle rather than risk having a court make an order against their terms. In which case all costs would be covered.

Again, I don't think that's the best action to take here, but costs and quantum are definitely not a stumbling point in going that way.

You said:

If you want to mount a legal argument then don't tell them about it, go find a lawyer and do it without compromising your position first...

But I don't think it needs to be that complicated or a legal argument. Just say something like this Krstasdj3;

"I was locked out by the company whilst they approved my ID. I never abandoned my account. It was not possible for me to meet the company terms to keep the account active by logging in as the company prevented this. I believe my communications with them on these dates XXX XXX and XXX show that I remained in contact with the company in the only way they allowed and obviously had no intent to abandon my account. I request that the company be ordered to honour my full balance."

I was on the understanding that your first paragraph and second and third paragraphs were interlinked with you telling the OP to get a lawyer involved and get a lawyer to write up this letter for him, but I now see with what you have now said, I misunderstood what you were saying originally and now see that you are saying that the first point was about if the OP wanted to mount a legal case with a lawyer and the second point being if the OP wanted to approach Bet365 themselves directly.

I understand that if he was in the UK the fee is small for the small claims court, but the OP isn't in the UK, he is in Serbia, and I very much doubt there is any such system in place in Serbia for small claims, so he then would probably be forced to get a lawyer involved in order to take court action and incur probably uneconomical costs to do that.

[Krstasdj3]

You said:

If you want to mount a legal argument then don't tell them about it, go find a lawyer and do it without compromising your position first...

But I don't think it needs to be that complicated or a legal argument. Just say something like this Krstasdj3;

"I was locked out by the company whilst they approved my ID. I never abandoned my account. It was not possible for me to meet the company terms to keep the account active by logging in as the company prevented this. I believe my communications with them on these dates XXX XXX and XXX show that I remained in contact with the company in the only way they allowed and obviously had no intent to abandon my account. I request that the company be ordered to honour my full balance."

I was on the understanding that your first paragraph and second and third paragraphs were interlinked with you telling the OP to get a lawyer involved and get a lawyer to write up this letter for him, but I now see with what you have now said, I misunderstood what you were saying originally and now see that you are saying that the first point was about if the OP wanted to mount a legal case with a lawyer and the second point being if the OP wanted to approach Bet365 themselves directly.

I understand that if he was in the UK the fee is small for the small claims court, but the OP isn't in the UK, he is in Serbia, and I very much doubt there is any such system in place in Serbia for small claims, so he then would probably be forced to get a lawyer involved in order to take court action and incur probably uneconomical costs to do that.

Someone has to stand in the way of their rules which they have the right to change when they want and how they want without permission of players. So when the court brought to someone pay millions that would hurt them. They do that with players like who are far away. But they did not know that i will go to Strasbourg and tbat would not be my first time to sue someone in Strasbourg court.

[Optional]

I don't know about Serbia either. Although I would assume they have a small claims system as well.

Anyway the guy feels badly treated, rightly or wrongly, I'm just trying to give him a suggestion that might help him both understand and get it off his chest, as much as get the result reversed.


I do believe this particular rule really sucks though, and would be quite happy to see an affected player manage to get a court order saying it was improper in some way.

[Krstasdj3]

I did not receive any notice of the administrative fees and the inactivity of my accounts. They told me that they noticed me but i have all emails from them and that email i never reicived.

[Optional]

I did not receive any notice of the administrative fees and the inactivity of my accounts. They told me that they noticed me but i have all emails from them and that email i never reicived.

Probably not relevant Krstasdj3. Unless you end up proceeding to a court maybe. But even then, I am not confident about this angle of argument.

Just concentrate on explaining that you did not abandon your account and had no way to log in and meet the terms before the book approved you in my opinion.

Get a ruling from the regulator and/or EU ODR first and then decide if you need to go further or not.

[Hareeba!]

Someone has to stand in the way of their rules which they have the right to change when they want and how they want without permission of players.

Not true.
Their rule changes don't take effect until you accept them.
On what date was your account locked?
And when you eventually gained access again, were you prompted to accept rule changes?

[Grivas_Digeni]

[QUOTE=luctens;26079218]

I can't remember that far back to know with absolute certainty if I got an e-mail about this exact rule but I can recall over the years getting a number of e-mails stating various rule changes etc. It would usually include a message in the members section as well when logging in, but would also be accompanied by an e-mail from Bet365.
.

It's a good thing they don't send regular mail with rule changes. As everybody knows, Chicago Cubs have a better chance of winning a championship than one of those postal letters from bet365 actually getting through.