 SBR Top-Rated Sportsbooks |
Best Sportsbooks List
|
|
| |||||
| #1 FanDuel | SBR rating 4.8/5 | Review | #6 BetRivers | SBR rating 4.1/5 | Review | #2 Caesars | SBR rating 4.7/5 | Review | #7 Fanatics | SBR rating 4.1/5 | Review |
| #3 DraftKings | SBR rating 4.7/5 | Review | #8 Betway | SBR rating 3.8/5 | Review | ||
| #4 BetMGM | SBR rating 4.6/5 | Review | #9 Borgata | SBR rating 3.5/5 | Review | ||
| #5 bet365 | SBR rating 4.6/5 | Review | #10 ClutchBet | SBR rating 2.9/5 | Review | ||
You are delusional if you don't think b365 - and other big fish - won't bite your arm off if you give them a finger. They need to be slapped on the hand, that's what I'm saying. Otherwise nothing stands in their way of introducing more horrible rules compared to which this disgusting inactivity fee will seem like peanuts.Originally Posted by luctens
I opened account 07.04.2011 and my account is locked 05.05.2011, and they take charge administrative fee on my account 20.11.2014
Was it just recently that you came back trying to get access again or have been in regular contact with them over the years?
As i sad i send them id card and other photos what they want and then they want passport i did not have passport, i send to them id again and again but my account was still locked. I give up after that and now when my account is fully verified my account is empty. They have never send me info email about administrative fee or about that rule.
I asked them to give me proof that they send me tbat email, they told me that they will find when they send me that email but they never give me proof.
I am not be able to login to account and accept rule about administrative fee. Because my account is locked 05.05.2011. And rule is active from 01.08.2014. They tell me that i no need to accept change of rules, that they can only inform me on email and rule is on. But they dod not infor me
In that case Hareeba is probably right that your best argument might be that your account was locked before this provision existed so it should not apply.
Be aware that they have probably thought of this situation when wording their terms and it may not require a login to accept them so be careful painting your self into a corner by insisting this is important.
You have not given me enough information about dates you have been in contact with them but if there has been none since before the provision was enacted and now then it might help the case.
But honestly, now I understand the length of time involved and the gap in between contacts, I don't hold out much hope for a positive ruling. Particularly as Bet365 are claiming to have emailed you about term changes.
Email notifications from B365 wouldn't be sufficient. It is use of the account after receiving such notifications which signifies acceptance of the updated conditions.
Firstly I doubt that such an email was actually issued but I think that's rather irrelevant anyway unless the customer logs in and uses his account after that.
I would have expected that when he did eventually manage to log in he'd have been met with a message and prompt to accept updated conditions. Might also be worth looking at any messages which are stored on his account.
It now seems that the OP's account was locked for a lot longer than the 2 years he originally stated?
Is SBR following this case up with B365?
I remain optimistic about a favourable outcome if this matter is handled properly.
You need to accept that the online gambling industry is not a fair industry on the side of the customer, and it never will be. The regulation just isn't tough enough to clamp down on unfair terms and conditions etc.
Campaigning against it or complaining to them is simply a waste of your time as there is no realistic prospect of them changing. In regards to this inactivity fee, it's already peanuts in comparison to some other unfair terms that bookmakers already have.
A far better use of the time of a customer is to take some time to find out what the sorts of unfair terms they are likely to come across and to implement processes so they don't get caught out by them, as with pretty much every unfair term I've ever seen with a bookmaker, there is an easy way to simply not get caught out in the first place. For example, with the inactivity fee, if you have a balance in your account, all you have to do is to do something in your account once every 393 days, and that will prevent you every getting charged any fees whatsoever. It isn't exactly much to ask of a customer to do that in order to prevent inactivity fees, and if a customer doesn't do that, I don't have any sympathy with them whatsoever. There are similar extremely easy ways to get around all other unfair terms and conditions as well so you have to be realistic, accept real change isn't going to happen and accept that the ownness is upon you, the customer, to take responsibility to avoid getting caught out by these unfair terms rather than to expect the bookmaker to change these terms themselves or expect regulators to clamp down on them. It shouldn't be like this, but that's just the way it is, it's not going to change any time soon and you have to accept that, deal with it and look for solutions yourself rather than have any unrealistic prospects of anything changing in regards to these issues.
With the bookmaking industry, prevention rather than cure is the easiest, most efficient and least expensive way of dealing with the issue of unfair terms and conditions etc. In fact prevention is the only way, as the cure would be tougher regulation and that isn't coming any time soon.
The quicker people realise this, the quicker people will stop getting caught out by these kinds of issues.
I don't subscribe to that view. Campaigning is certainly starting to work in some areas. In Australia, for example, we are now seeing bookies being made to take bets on horseracing. In the UK there are also positive signs emerging such as from Coral.
We'll get this totally unfair and totally unjustifiable dormant account fee theft removed in due course.
And what about the family of a poor chap who falls under a bus?
Or is struck down with alzheimer's?
Or gets thrown into prison?
Campaigning about a minimum bet rule is worthwhile as that is a very big fundamental issue and there is pretty much no way around avoiding it from the customer's point of view.
Regarding these unfair terms and conditions, they are very small cheese compared with that one big issue, and the massive difference is that they are very easy to get around from the customer's point of view. So my view is that if the issue is easy to workaround, then it is much easier and realistic to focus on workarounds rather than campaigning for change.
The overriding thing here is to be realistic. For example, The Campaign For Fairer Gambling have been campaigning for 6 years and counting to reduce FOBT stakes to £2. However, they have still not reached their aim and are still campaigning, and that is a campaign that is extremely well organised, that is funded by a multi-millionaire and that has had overwhelming evidence supporting their case.
If an organisation like that can't get change within a 6 year period, then there really is no point in any lone ranger type of campaigning group trying to take on these bookmakers.
So what I say is, be realistic and where it is unrealistic to expect change, look for solutions, and the solutions to these unfair terms and conditions in order to not get caught out by them are really very simple, so as the customer the best way we have to fight against these unfair terms are to do proper research and simply not get caught out in the first place.
If you think you will get bookmakers to remove this inactivity fee any time soon, you'll be waiting a very long time. Maybe going by the Fairer Gambling campaign example you might get it changed after 10 years of campaigning, but frankly I don't have 10 years to commit to campaigning for something when there is an extremely easy way to avoid it in the first place.
The examples you give are obviously very extreme and rare, but what I always say is, keep records of your betting on a spreadsheet and with screenshots as a general course of action so you know where your money is, what bets you've placed etc.
That would also help massively in your examples if the worst should happen, as the family should get to know about any money that is left in betting accounts and then get it back from the bookmaker and they have 393 days in order do that before any inactivity fees kick in. So if the customer takes the right actions to begin with in their betting, there really isn't any situation where money in betting accounts should be lost completely and not be known about by anybody and therefore these inactivity fees should never be incurred if those actions are taken.
Of course one should take all the steps you mention but in reality a large percentage of gamblers aren't as well organised and prepared as you and I may be.
The fact is that the bookies have written in a rule which appears to permit them to steal your money. And I would think that they are getting away with millions every year. And that thought really does annoy the crap out of me and rather than just accept it, I'll support any campaigner trying to get it removed.
Like I said in my first post. This is a horrible rule and like Hareeba suggests, it is very tough to intuit any sort of reasonable justification for it.
It looks like nothing less than a grab for 'abandoned money' they see lying there and can't leave alone.
A better solution would be to ask players to nominate a next of kin to be contacted, as well as the player, if the account goes dormant.
And any funds that could not be disbursed should go to a govt dept, not the book's pockets.
In the case of this rule I suspect an affected individual may have "some chance" of forcing a change if they were determined enough to go through all the levels of courts the books would appeal to to avoid an adverse ruling.
I really would like to see someone from the other side try and justify dormancy fees.
To my mind there is no cost to them at all in maintaining dormant balances in their system. It's only some few electronic digits on a record in a massive database.
Don't tell me that they like to keep the number of records in their database to as few as practical!
The lie there is that even after your balance is zilch for a few years, your record remains on their system!
I proved that with 5 bookies which I required to reopen my closed accounts following the introduction of the NSW minimum bet rule.
In every one of those 5 instances they were able to do so without anything more than my request and in one instance quoting a telephone password.
All my details were still in those accounts after several years. Surely if there was a cost to maintaining the accounts they'd have zapped them?
It's obvious that it's simply a blatant, unjustified money grab.
If you're going to campaign against it, good luck to you as you're going to need it. I frankly haven't got the time or the inclination though to be campaigning to get it removed, as I haven't got years spare to dedicate to it and when it's all said and done, to avoid these fees a customer only has to do something in their account once every 393 days which really isn't much to ask in the grand scheme of things.
Last edited by luctens; 08-04-16 at 10:10 PM.
What about account where dont have money y on balance. How they take administrative fee from that accounts?
As per their rules, if the account is deemed dormant and there is no balance in the account in the first place, they just close the account with no fees incurred. If there is a balance in the account, they deduct fees until the balance is emptied and then when the balance is emptied, they then close the account with no further fees incurred.
Finally i solved my problem. I got email from 365.,
As a one time gesture of goodwill I have returned the fees we have taken from your account totaling at $345.00 These funds are currently in your Sports balance and are available for you. >
Thank you everyone for help. After everything Bet 365 are adhered to me as a player and return to me unfair taken money. Thanks them too.
A victory for fairness
http://www.sportsbookreview.com/spor...e-video-74154/
Skype chat? Why not a date at Baskin Robbins or a weekend away in the mountains with their Account Manager to get to know each other better?
What's next? Banning anyone who tails a sharp poster on SBR, as a syndicate bettor? Checking winning players on a lie detector before they can withdraw? Possibilities to avoid paying and pad that bottom-line are endless!
Last edited by Grivas_Digeni; 08-12-16 at 09:49 PM.
That's good news Krstasdj3.
And thanks for updating the thread.
You should thank your lucky stars that have been extremely lucky for Bet365 to give you this goodwill gesture. Now the lessons have to be learned for all readers of this forum and if they didn't know already, they will all now know how ridiculously easy it is not to incur these inactivity fees.
So now the OP has been lucky and got this resolved, if this forum is used by the readers in the right way which in this situation is to learn the lessons of previous disputes and to implement them for the future, no readers of this forum should ever get into this mess and should never incur inactivity fees at any point in the future.
The readers of this forum should all already have known about these inactivity fees long before this thread even came up, but for the possible few that didn't know about it before, if they get into this sort of mess in the future with inactivity fees after reading this thread, they only have themselves to blame.
As you can see you were wrong, that what you call happiness I call justice. Justice is slow but reachable
You were lucky, it's as simple as that. Bet365 gave you a goodwill gesture and that's all it was, a goodwill gesture. If Bet365 didn't feel like giving it back, they weren't obliged to, and you would have been extremely unlikely to have got the money back any other way. That doesn't make you right. It just means you got lucky and therefore if you get yourself into the same mess again, the outcome probably won't be the same and you probably won't be so lucky again. So you need to accept for your sake that you weren't right, you were lucky, and obviously those two things aren't the same thing, so thank your lucky stars and learn your lessons for the future.
Last edited by luctens; 08-13-16 at 09:58 AM.
You are wrong, it is noylt lucky it results that i am right. They will never say that i am right and always it will be explanation like goodwill. If they tell me that i am right they give argument to all other players to ask for money back.
They see that i dont give up and they must give me back money. Nobody can take my own money. Understand that.
A goodwill gesture is doing something that you are not obliged to do. Bet365 were not obliged to give you the money back and they only did so as a very generous goodwill gesture. Don't delude yourself into thinking otherwise.
I'm simply making the point that readers of this forum shouldn't look at this case and think that it's ok for them to incur these inactivity fees as they'll get them refunded by the bookmaker anyway. The reality is, if the OP hadn't been so lucky in Bet365 being so generous then the only realistic way you could have looked to get the money back is with court action that would have resulted in court costs most probably more than the €340 you are talking about. So the bottom line is, if the OP hadn't been so lucky in Bet365 being so generous and if they instead had decided to stand their ground which they were well entitled to do if they wanted to, you most likely would not have got a penny of your money back.
So the message to the readers of this forum is, this case is not a precedent of what will happen in the vast majority of these sorts of cases and this is by far the exception to the rule so don't get complacent thinking the bookmaker will sort out these sorts of situations as in the vast majority of cases, they won't, and you will lose all of your money. So don't put yourself in the horrible position of relying on luck and the goodwill of a bookmaker and you can do that in this case by not getting yourself into the kind of mess that the OP was in incurring these inactivity fees in the first place so that means making sure you do something in your account once in every rolling 393 day period as most likely the bookmaker isn't going to be so generous like Bet365 have been so the reality is that if you get yourself into this mess, you will most likely never see your money ever again.
Last edited by luctens; 08-13-16 at 11:18 AM.
curious, how long were you playing before they locked it? what was you initial deposit? had you previous deposits? Had they allowed any withdrawals? Country of residence? Any other accounts at IP address?
You are wrong again. They didn't notice me about administrative fee, and i was not accept any new rule. And after everything you are wrong and i am winner in this case. So please dont act smart guy, and Congratulate me
You can see previous comments in the pages of this thread that regardless of the little circumstances here and there in this case, you had no case to challenge Bet365 based on what is stated in their rules. You were solely relying on Bet365 to be generous and give you a goodwill gesture and if they hadn't have decided to do that then there would have been no viable way for you to have got your money back. Simple.
If you think it is a good situation for you to have been in to solely have relied on a bookmaker to be generous and give you a goodwill gesture as your only way to have got your money back, then you are deluded.
I am simply making the very valid point that in the vast majority of cases if a customer gets themselves into the mess that you got yourself into, they will never see their money again, so readers of this forum should be warned not to get into this mess themselves as they will most likely not be lucky like you, the bookmaker will stand their ground, and they will have no viable way of getting their money back so the readers of the forum must understand that they can't expect to get themselves into this sort of mess and for the bookmaker to sort it out, as in the vast majority of the sort of situation you were in, you wouldn't have got lucky, the bookmaker would not have given you a goodwill gesture and you would never have seen your money ever again. That is an extremely valid point that you have failed to answer as you know it is correct and that rather than you being in the right, you have simply got away with it big time, and if you do the same again you most probably won't get away with it next time, so you and all the readers on this forum need to learn the obvious lessons from your mistakes, realise that getting lucky and getting a goodwill gesture from the bookmaker doesn't happen in the vast majority of these cases and implement the extremely simple prevention methods to avoid getting into the mess you got yourself into in the first place.
Last edited by luctens; 08-13-16 at 12:33 PM.
It is point that i am right and thay are wrong, they take from me administrative fe without informed me, and while my account was locked. They realized that they made a mistake and returned me the money with the explanation that this is their goodwill. I'm a winner in this case whether you like it or not. Only what you can say to me is CONGRATULATIONS
You're both wrong!
OP in saying that B365 did anything contrary to their T&Cs.
Luctens in failing to acknowledge that it was more than just luck. B365 knows that their terms would be seen as unfair by any competent authority.
I'm simply making the very valid point that Bet365 were not obliged to make this goodwill gesture and if they hadn't have done this, the OP would most likely have had no viable way to get a penny of his money back.
So the message is, implement very simple prevention methods not to get yourself in this sort of mess in the first place where to get your money back you are relying on a goodwill gesture from a bookmaker of all people.
The customer taking pro-active measures to prevent themselves getting caught up in these issues is the only way to be sure of not getting screwed over by the bookmaker. That is the lesson for everyone to take from this.
Last edited by luctens; 08-13-16 at 05:53 PM.
Reply With Quote