Jetbull/Everymatrix Scam Update - Non payment of Court Order

[Daz_b]

Hello All,

I posted to Casinomeister in November last year regarding my problem with Everymatrix. In summary, I had joined Jetbull, unaware that the licensee is Everymatrix, and that they also run a variety of other betting websites - one of which I had previously self-excluded from. As has happened with many other Everymatrix victims, Jetbull accepted my registration and waited to see if I won anything before flagging up a problem. In this case, when I made a withdrawal request they cancelled my winnings of £625.

I went down the eCogra route to try to get some help in claiming my winnings, which in my view had been won fairly and in good faith. In retrospect, I feel this was a waste of 3 months. I found that eCogra didn't even meet their own service levels, (e.g. keeping the complainant updated at particular intervals), they eventually completed what felt like a half hearted investigation, and were not a particularly good advert for "self regulation" in my opinion.

Ultimately I ended up going down the Small Claims route and in August, successfully won a judgement in my favour against Everymatrix for the £625 owed plus legal costs. The payment was due by 13th September, and displaying a typical lack of integrity and professionalism, Everymatrix have still not paid the order.

I've been in touch with the UK Gambling Commission as I would expect that ignoring court orders is of some relevance in assessing ongoing fitness to operate. They have noted the situation and asked me to keep them informed. I'll also look at further legal proceedings I can take to ensure I receive what is owed to me. One way or another, I will get some justice, that is for sure. If any forum members have any other suggestions or advice, I would really appreciate it.

I'm not a big time gambler compared to probably a lot of forum members, but my advice would be to be really careful about dealing with Everymatrix casinos and sports betting sites. I have found them utterly contemptible, from their rotten Service Desk and flaky policies right through to their amateurish legal team. In an industry that makes money without needing to be underhand, it's all pretty sickening and unpalatable.

I'd be happy to share my witness statement and evidence and provide advice to any others who have been conned by Everymatrix and whom are interested in making a claim. Also happy to share a scan of the court order if anyone doubts me. Feel free to private message me.

Thanks and best wishes.

Another EveryMatrix casino, Zodiacu, is reviewed here.

 

[goatwack]

I want you on my side.......for anything.

I'll put you on speed-dial so that we can work out a plan to get rid of my mother-in-law

 

[vinylweatherman]

Contempt of court is a serious business failing, and often the sign of a rogue business as often seen on BBC "rogue traders" where they often mention the list of court orders the company has ignored.

The next step would be to instruct an enforcement officer (bailiff) to enforce your court order at Everymatrix/Jetbull business premises. This will cost a little, but they will end up paying it after a successful recovery. Given that in order to have a UK licence an operator must have a UK presence, and also be solvent, the outcome of this enforcement step should be of great interest to the UKGC. This type of enforcement should work on a legitimate and solvent company, although intentionally rogue businesses do avoid court orders by winding up the firm and popping up again, often in the same offices, as completely new entity, same people, but different limited company so that they avoid all their debts. This won't work here though, because a new company would require a new licence.

The media might also be interested in a UK licenced gambling company that is still refusing to pay a punter even when they have won an order for payment in court, they may pay up as soon as the reporter contacts them for their side of the story before publishing, and give some excuse like "poor internal communications between departments" for their failure to send you the payment on time.

 

[Simmo!]

Hello All,

I posted to Casinomeister in November last year regarding my problem with Everymatrix. In summary, I had joined Jetbull, unaware that the licensee is Everymatrix, and that they also run a variety of other betting websites - one of which I had previously self-excluded from. As has happened with many other Everymatrix victims, Jetbull accepted my registration and waited to see if I won anything before flagging up a problem. In this case, when I made a withdrawal request they cancelled my winnings of £625.

...Ultimately I ended up going down the Small Claims route and in August, successfully won a judgement in my favour against Everymatrix for the £625 owed plus legal costs. The payment was due by 13th September, and displaying a typical lack of integrity and professionalism, Everymatrix have still not paid the order.

Firstly, congrats on your perseverance. Secondly, I've always felt the EveryMatrix SE policy has been poorly implemented. If you are going to apply this across a group of casinos, you have to prevent players from playing, not apply it after the event. I have always wondered if, were an audit to be taken, just how many self excluded players have deposited at a second EM brand because I suspect it is a significant number and you are possibly the only one who has taken it to this level.

It is a bit worrying that eCogra were unable to reach this conclusion, I must admit.

 

[dunover]

Excellent OP and this is what CM is all about!

Us 'barrack room lawyers' (Me and Vinyl primarily) have always maintained the exclusion of vital terms breaches basic consumer law in the UK and many other Euro nations. This County Court Judgement has simply endorsed our views on this EM SE BS.

As Simmo says it shows the UKGC and eCogra are seriously lacking. I personally have an official complaint in at the UKGC regarding a couple of matters concerning non-automated SE/TAB and yes, the EM SE nonsense. Unsatisfied with their first response I have escalated this to level 2 after they demanded more evidence, some of which I have provided from this forum to demonstrate the scale of the issue. I will of course use this as further ammunition.

OK, Vinyl beat me to the Bailiff issue - for about £60 you can get a High Court Warrant executed to collect this debt. This involves them visiting the EM offices and demanding payment in full or confiscating assets in lieu. This is partly why the casinos licenses by the UKGC should have a physical address in the UK to take players here.

I suspect through that EM have NO assets here and simply use a PO Box bogus office. You also need to be precise against whom the CCJ has been issued - EM or the owners of the casino? The casino may have people residing in the UK who can be visited.

I also think it's appropriate that Max gets the proof of this CCJ from the OP and assuming it's all genuine (I believe so) issues an official warning against EM on here to the effect they actually will not even comply with an official court order.

The obvious conclusion here is that EM have a history of allowing their casinos to rip-off players with this omitted information, and given that in the UK the Statute Of Limitation Act(1981) gives claimants 6 years to act on any disputed debt, this could spell big aggro for EM - and they deserve it IMO.

P.S. I re-read the OP and see you have already informed the UKGC. I agree ignoring CCJs is certainly big negative on their fitness to operate. It makes them no better than a cowboy builder.

 

[Mouche12]

Well done Daz_b and thanks for sharing the results of your efforts.

There's some solid advice from VWM on how to proceed next. It is unbelievable EM ignores the court order and it's quity worrying too. You may indeed want to share this story with the media.

Good luck with your further endeavours, I am certain you will succeed in the end.

 

[dunover]

They are effectively in big trouble now. They could hire lawyers and appeal the CCJ but it would be pointless, as they are effectively asking a higher court to exempt them from UK Laws all other businesses must operate under so it would simply be vexatious. I think this will spell the end of EM in the UK or at very least the welcome end of the racket I have invented a new CM word for 'EMSEB' - EveryMatrix Self-Exclusion Bullshit.

Remember, this CCJ has major implications for EM and ALL other licensees with multiple properties. It effectively (unless overturned which I cannot se a valid reason to do so) means a rubber stamp for every player who was denied winnings (whether or not deposits were refunded only) or lost a deposit and walked away happily unaware he/she wouldn't have been paid as the other EM sites weren't mentioned in the terms.

I think it would be prudent for any reps here to take note of this CCJ/thread if they are here on behalf of any licenses with more than one casino being operated.

If anything is needed to convince them that it really is time to start listing sister sites in the terms, it is this especially if you have previously operated the EMSEB-type method.

 

[lockinlove]

The owner and board members must be absolute idiots to have the rules they do. Do they not realize their reputation is tarnished? Do they not realize this day and age there is a thing called google. The more negative hits the worse. Some people blow me away when trying to build a brand. Instead of building a beast they built a 3 legged piglet

Is it a boardroom of Nigerian princes?

 

[jjezebel37]

Well done and fair play for seeing this through

I wouldn't have been bothered with all the hassle myself.

I also wonder will this set a precendent for other players?

 

[dunover]

Well done and fair play for seeing this through

I wouldn't have been bothered with all the hassle myself.

I also wonder will this set a precendent for other players?

Yes, it does. Until the CC ruling is overturned, any player in this guy's position can use it as a reference, case-in-law. If you have lost out via this EMSEB business I would personally ask him for his case ref.no. by PM. You can issue acclaim in the UK CC system online, it isn't expensive. As they appear to have no staff or physical address in the UK they won't defend it anyway.

 

[Harry_BKK]

Great stuff Daz_b

This should teach them a (hopefully) expensive lesson. They will be the laugh of the industry for the years to come as a single small time player (no offense please) brought them down for a mere £625.

I said in one of the countless EMSEB threads that it would be interesting to find out how much extra money EM made over the years with undetected SE players since they only did the KYC once a player submitted a withdrawal, speak was winning. They were never bothered to do it while a player was depositing and losing, even if it was 1000's.

All those cases, where unwary SE'ed players opened a new account, deposited, lost and never returned, must have made EM a tidy profit as otherwise they would have changed procedures much sooner.

 

[dunover]

Great stuff Daz_b

This should teach them a (hopefully) expensive lesson. They will be the laugh of the industry for the years to come as a single small time player (no offense please) brought them down for a mere £625.

I said in one of the countless EMSEB threads that it would be interesting to find out how much extra money EM made over the years with undetected SE players since they only did the KYC once a player submitted a withdrawal, speak was winning. They were never bothered to do it while a player was depositing and losing, even if it was 1000's.

All those cases, where unwary SE'ed players opened a new account, deposited, lost and never returned, must have made EM a tidy profit as otherwise they would have changed procedures much sooner.

All the EMSEB and similar for any other casinos that act in this manner could have been avoided by quite simply listing the sites in their terms. They wholeheartedly refused this as casinos don't want to mention the names of other casinos when you are signing-up to them. This is when it makes sense to list them - what is the point of recruiting a player to whom you cannot pay winnings? Of course we know the sorry answer to that...

 

[Daz_b]

Thanks to everyone for your positive comments and advice. I have been on my own with this - and it has not been easy to navigate through to get this far, and at times has been quite stressful and depressing. It is great to read some supportive comments.

To me the money is not insignificant, but it is the principal that is just as important to me. Like all of you on here, I have lost money on gambling, (and have had some good days as well). On bad days I have always taken losses on the chin and taken responsibility for my actions. I certainly wouldn't go running to a bookmaker crying because I've lost and asking for my money back. Conversely, I don't expect to win and effectively have my winnings "robbed" from me by a rogue operator. Especially one that is supposed to be regulated by the UKGC.

To give some further feedback on the County Court Judgment (particularly in light of Dunover's comments);

1. The Everymatrix defence was struck out for want of compliance in that the Defendant did not serve its witness statement on the Claimant.

2. So in effect, I won on a technicality, so we can't say this is a 100% precedent. Whether this was a deliberate ploy by Everymatrix or lack of professionalism is open to debate.

3. But - the fact that the case got on the County Court track as far as the hearing, (and the actual sitting took place) demonstrates that it was felt that Everymatrix had a case to answer.

4. I would also add, that Everymatrix changed their defence. In the original written response to the claim, they basically said they had followed regulations and that they were correct in their actions. However, on the day of the hearing, their "defence" ended up (.....sound of barrel being scraped) that "Everymatrix" is not a legal entity therefore cannot be sued.

5. The impression I got from the judge was that she both disagreed with this defence and was agitated by the attitude of Everymatrix. So whilst I can't say for sure, certainly by the tone of the judge, I think she would have awarded me the money anyway.

I thought I should be honest in terms of the nature of the verdict, bearing in mind the comments posted. However, I would remain quite confident that anyone else wanting the go down the same route will have a strong chance of winning if they prepare their case as carefully as I did, paying attention to what is actually a "regulation" and what is simply Everymatrix claiming is a "regulation" or in their words "the law"!! and also going through their sloppy policies with a fine tooth comb.

This is why I would be happy to share my statement and evidence both with a site administrator (to prove my story) and/or anyone else interested in making a claim. This is especially relevant, bearing in mind Everymatrix may rewrite their policies - so retrospective claims will need to refer to the historic policies and processes which I have documented.

 

[dunover]

Thanks to everyone for your positive comments and advice. I have been on my own with this - and it has not been easy to navigate through to get this far, and at times has been quite stressful and depressing. It is great to read some supportive comments.

To me the money is not insignificant, but it is the principal that is just as important to me. Like all of you on here, I have lost money on gambling, (and have had some good days as well). On bad days I have always taken losses on the chin and taken responsibility for my actions. I certainly wouldn't go running to a bookmaker crying because I've lost and asking for my money back. Conversely, I don't expect to win and effectively have my winnings "robbed" from me by a rogue operator. Especially one that is supposed to be regulated by the UKGC.

To give some further feedback on the County Court Judgment (particularly in light of Dunover's comments);

1. The Everymatrix defence was struck out for want of compliance in that the Defendant did not serve its witness statement on the Claimant.

2. So in effect, I won on a technicality, so we can't say this is a 100% precedent. Whether this was a deliberate ploy by Everymatrix or lack of professionalism is open to debate.

3. But - the fact that the case got on the County Court track as far as the hearing, (and the actual sitting took place) demonstrates that it was felt that Everymatrix had a case to answer.

4. I would also add, that Everymatrix changed their defence. In the original written response to the claim, they basically said they had followed regulations and that they were correct in their actions. However, on the day of the hearing, their "defence" ended up (.....sound of barrel being scraped) that "Everymatrix" is not a legal entity therefore cannot be sued.

5. The impression I got from the judge was that she both disagreed with this defence and was agitated by the attitude of Everymatrix. So whilst I can't say for sure, certainly by the tone of the judge, I think she would have awarded me the money anyway.

I thought I should be honest in terms of the nature of the verdict, bearing in mind the comments posted. However, I would remain quite confident that anyone else wanting the go down the same route will have a strong chance of winning if they prepare their case as carefully as I did, paying attention to what is actually a "regulation" and what is simply Everymatrix claiming is a "regulation" or in their words "the law"!! and also going through their sloppy policies with a fine tooth comb.

This is why I would be happy to share my statement and evidence both with a site administrator (to prove my story) and/or anyone else interested in making a claim. This is especially relevant, bearing in mind Everymatrix may rewrite their policies - so retrospective claims will need to refer to the historic policies and processes which I have documented.

The piece I bolded I absolutely agree with - casinos often change terms retrospectively and have been caught out numerous times doing so on here.
As you say it won't change the potential of them being liable for 6 years' worth of payments they have ripped-off from players here in the UK.

As for point 3 they haven't complied with UKGC rules in full at all. (search for kaboo SE in the forum and read the threads) Max has pasted them in there in one post and the UKGC specify they must act to "prevent bets from SE players under their license" BUT the wording is woolly as you'd expect from the UKGC and they don't specify when the casino should act. EMSEB happens due to this lack of specificity and suddenly they 'discover' the issue when you've won. I spoke to them in person at ICE in London about this back in February and they told me they were 'aware of the EMSEB issue'....

The UKGC do NOT make 'laws' but are a government QUANGO created to administer UK gambling within the law. They are merely a regulator and UK consumer laws trump anything the UKGC interprets or says. EM are in breach of these laws in that they do not provide 'comprehensive, inclusive and complete' terms - something I've pointed out to the UKGC in my current open complaint regarding casinos taking the piss with either EMSEB-type scams or inadequate SE/TAB facilities.

Irrespective of whether you won on a technicality or the substance of your case, EM are in the pit as far as I am concerned - if they don't respect a Court Order in a country they are licensed to take players from, then what does this say about their respect for the Licensing Authority which is lower down the food chain than a court??

If EM have a license they MUST be a entity despite their ridiculous claim otherwise when they changed their defence. As you say that may be clever tactics as they would have to be incredibly stupid to not realize the potentially huge financial consequences of losing to your claim on its merit. Perhaps you should inform the UKGC that a licensee with many casinos has given you in writing a statement that they 'are not a legal entity'...

As for satisfying the judgement, UK CC Judgements ARE enforceable EU-wide so if they are in breach of the conditions of the UKGC in not having a physical UK office to send Sheriffs to via the High Court.

EM are in a hole here whichever way they turn, and I think their inherent unscrupulous behaviour has finally caught up with them.

P.S If they try and change their terms they are legally required to inform their customers anyway, so there will be blanket evidence of them doing so. If they amend terms and DON'T tell players than that's another hole they've dug. Keep an eye on them daily....

 

[ThePOGG]

It is a bit worrying that eCogra were unable to reach this conclusion, I must admit.

As Simmo says it shows the UKGC and eCogra are seriously lacking.

eCOGRA cannot deal with self-exclusion issues. As a licensing issue this is reserved to the UKGC. As with ourselves we have to forward on SE issue to the UKGC directly and I know that there is some discussion with regard to how to manage the high case load this is creating at the UKGC at the present time.

 

[ThePOGG]

This is why I would be happy to share my statement and evidence both with a site administrator (to prove my story) and/or anyone else interested in making a claim. This is especially relevant, bearing in mind Everymatrix may rewrite their policies - so retrospective claims will need to refer to the historic policies and processes which I have documented.

Hi Daz_b,

If you're happy to share I'd be very happy to take a look over this. It would give me some useful guidance to provide players with when considering court action and an example of a small claim that was successful. It would also be very useful to me to see some supporting documentation of the court's ruling (if you have any) as if you can show this I'll make a request of EveryMatrix/Jetbull to offer a statement regarding this thread. Email's [email protected].

Thanks!

TP

 

[The Dude]

Hi Daz_b,

If you're happy to share I'd be very happy to take a look over this. It would give me some useful guidance to provide players with when considering court action and an example of a small claim that was successful. It would also be very useful to me to see some supporting documentation of the court's ruling (if you have any) as if you can show this I'll make a request of EveryMatrix/Jetbull to offer a statement regarding this thread. Email's [email protected].

Thanks!

TP

I second that. I would be interested in seeing these docs.

 

[dunover]

Hi Daz_b,

If you're happy to share I'd be very happy to take a look over this. It would give me some useful guidance to provide players with when considering court action and an example of a small claim that was successful. It would also be very useful to me to see some supporting documentation of the court's ruling (if you have any) as if you can show this I'll make a request of EveryMatrix/Jetbull to offer a statement regarding this thread. Email's [email protected].

Thanks!

TP

I fear they may be reluctant to do that. They will want to keep this as quiet as possible, as there is the potential for an avalanche of claims for payments going back up to 6 years for the other victims of their incomplete and thus unfair terms. This is also a huge egg-on-the-face for the UKGC who have consistently failed to act on the EMSEB issue despite being aware of it for a considerable time. The answer is so simple, to make licensees inform the players at sign-up stage OR have an automated checking system at sign-up like many other licensees/casinos. Surely now the UKGC will remove their heads from the sand?

 

[ThePOGG]

I fear they may be reluctant to do that.

I absolutely agree. I don't honestly expect a statement, but if they're not appealing the ruling or there's no factual inaccuracies in the player's statement that they haven't complied with a court ruling, I have ground to take action against the operator. They have to be offered the opportunity to contest this though....

 

[dunover]

I absolutely agree. I don't honestly expect a statement, but if they're not appealing the ruling or there's no factual inaccuracies in the player's statement that they haven't complied with a court ruling, I have ground to take action against the operator. They have to be offered the opportunity to contest this though....

Absolutely. If there is no action I will have drop EM sites from my pages, as I cannot promote casinos which ignore court rulings.

 

[Daz_b]

Hi ThePOGG - I have emailed you the documents.

Casinomeister - are you able to PM me an email address and I'd be happy to send to you also.

 

[ThePOGG]

Thank you for that Daz_b - I've reviewed and everything appears to be legitimate. I'll contact EveryMatrix/Jetbull and see what they have to say.

On a side note, I reviewed the terms and conditions at Favourit casino and can't see any mention of EveryMatrix.

TP

 

[maxd]

Casinomeister - are you able to PM me an email address and I'd be happy to send to you also.

Just in case Bryan hasn't already I'll PM you that now.

 

[vinylweatherman]

We are repeatedly hearing from individual EM operators that "this is an EM decision, not ours" when it comes to certain matters, such as disputed payments to players, particularly where SE is one of the issues involved. Now, if EM are not a "legal entity", how can they make decisions that trump any decisions made by the operators of individual casinos on their platform. Even if they were trying to argue that they were merely a "supplier" to the casino involved, such as just supplying the platform software, this can be shot down right away by referring to cases where the "platform software supplier" told the OWNER of a particular casino that a certain player MUST not be paid, and where the owner then tells the player concerned "it's out of my hands, it's an EM decision".

In reality, you CAN sue a company as the "legal entity", it does not have to be a named individual, and ANY company that has been properly set up becomes a "legal entity" in it's own right, separate from the individuals who are on the board and own it via shares. Their amended defence must have been written by a failed law student not to realise the depth of the hole this would be dropping them into should it be used in court, even if it was given to the claimant as prescribed prior to the hearing.

On their license, it is Jetbull and EM who are listed jointly as holders, which could not be the case if EM was not "a legal entity".

Paying the measly £650 as soon as possible after the hearing would have been the best move in terms of damage limitation, or at least mounting a formal legal challenge in an effort to have the CCJ set aside and the case reheard. Instead, they chose the worst possible option, completely ignoring the CCJ and failing to pay by the deadline. Now, even if they DO pay, they cannot have the CCJ removed from the public record, so for the following 6 years it will be seen that EM had a CCJ awarded against it, and at present it's going to be marked as "unsatisfied", so people will also be able to see that they don't pay up even when a court tells them to. For businesses that supply services to EM on credit this will be seen as a warning sign (if they bother to do their due diligence that is). This may make it harder for EM to obtain services from other firms on credit.

If this ends up with the bailiffs, it only makes matters even worse, and in an extreme case, a creditor can petition for a company to be wound up by the high court in order to recover monies owed from a CCJ. In theory, this can even happen with a CCJ for as little as £650.

The efforts to obtain this £650, if they fail, may well uncover a dodgy corporate structure (as per Purple Lounge) being used by EM in order for them to avoid their obligations. In the Purple Lounge case, players found that a shell company with no assets supposedly had, and lost, all their money, whereas their money was really mostly intact, but in a separate "box" (Media Corp), where it had ended up having been syphoned off from the PL casino business, the act which caused it's failure.

 

[spintee]

Well done Daz,

Like its been pointed out you can now get a high court ritz, Bailiffs for a set fee, You will get this back if and when they pay or goods are sold, There is no messing about now you won the court battle.

Just make sure the paper work is in order so the bailiffs hit the right people, I whached a program once where they went into Barclycard main office, They soon come up with the ready's,

EV have been messing around for a long time, Its about time something was done

 

[ThePOGG]

Just to let everyone know - I have now contacted Jetbull and pointed their attention to this thread. This communication has been acknowledged by my contact there so my hope would be that there will be movement on this issue or some form of response in the near future.

TP

 

[RichyJ75]

In reality, you CAN sue a company as the "legal entity", it does not have to be a named individual, and ANY company that has been properly set up becomes a "legal entity" in it's own right, separate from the individuals who are on the board and own it via shares. Their amended defence must have been written by a failed law student not to realise the depth of the hole this would be dropping them into should it be used in court, even if it was given to the claimant as prescribed prior to the hearing.

Of course they are a legal entity - they are registered with Companies House and are filing accounts!

 

[The Dude]

I'm just getting to this now. Honestly, I am baffled why no one has taken care of this. It's not we're talking about thousands of pounds - we are talking about £765.

The episode of either gross negligence, stupidity, or "lights on - nobody's home" is going to seriously damage an already faltering reputation for Everymatrix. And the worst - trust. How can anyone trust these guys anymore?

If I was an operator using the Everymatrix backend, I would be livid.

 

[vinylweatherman]

I'm just getting to this now. Honestly, I am baffled why no one has taken care of this. It's not we're talking about thousands of pounds - we are talking about £765.

The episode of either gross negligence, stupidity, or "lights on - nobody's home" is going to seriously damage an already faltering reputation for Everymatrix. And the worst - trust. How can anyone trust these guys anymore?

If I was an operator using the Everymatrix backend, I would be livid.

Even if they take care of it now, the damage is done. The CCJ will remain on record, albeit marked "satisfied", so anyone doing a search on the company will see that they were taken to court and lost. They should have paid up, or made arrangements to pay, on the day they lost in court.

Operators need to understand this is a new regulatory regime, it's no longer the "wild west" of old where they can ignore players and even national court rulings with impunity. Operators are also picking up a slew of "upheld" complaints at the ASA for not ensuring that the ways of old when it comes to marketing are changed to reflect the national rules of the countries they are marketing to. However, this is not as damaging as picking up a CCJ.

This should also tell Everymatrix that the current way they handle self exclusion is a recipe for trouble, and it needs to be changed before they end up with a flood of CCJs.

 

[spintee]

I'm just getting to this now. Honestly, I am baffled why no one has taken care of this. It's not we're talking about thousands of pounds - we are talking about £765.

The episode of either gross negligence, stupidity, or "lights on - nobody's home" is going to seriously damage an already faltering reputation for Everymatrix. And the worst - trust. How can anyone trust these guys anymore?

If I was an operator using the Everymatrix backend, I would be livid.

Do you think they are botherd is the question? After the SE bull crap, they started adding the min bet £1 on alot of sites, when using bonus, or better still £3 bet if playing certain games,

I am no expert on this subject, I leave that to you and the crew, & the pogg, I do abit of research for my own safety and knowledge, They have been funny for a good while now, Why risk a CCJ (county court judgement) against there name over a few 100 quid?

Not only that but look at all the others that will go down that route and go court, Who was that fat chap who got done in where all he's house got raddied, The one that had the p2p sharing sites, I can see this happing to EV


They even let sites run from them and give a white label licence, They did come on here to state that the licence is revoke but still let them use the platform???

 

[MrSilver]

I'm just getting to this now. Honestly, I am baffled why no one has taken care of this. It's not we're talking about thousands of pounds - we are talking about £765.

The episode of either gross negligence, stupidity, or "lights on - nobody's home" is going to seriously damage an already faltering reputation for Everymatrix. And the worst - trust. How can anyone trust these guys anymore?

If I was an operator using the Everymatrix backend, I would be livid.

yeah, i'll agree.....But, in general i think it's mostly "gross negligence" or simply no time to deal with all these cases of SE.

As the OP Daz said "Jetbull accepted my registration and waited to see if I won anything before flagging up a problem" which i think it's not true and certainly not trying to steal money from SE peoples......and there is soo much abuse by fraudster, they need to Protect themselves as well.

Also, some website have so much Registrations everyday....checking everyone ID or do background check on everyone would be wasting soo much resource/time ....therefore that's why before a withdrawal, normally most Casino will do a quick ID check ects, which is why the OP got caught up into this mess. (yes, i know... we have talked about this a millions time....Personally, still think all Casino should demand before depositing any money atleast 1x ID check.....imo, this will solve 95% of SE case)

But Overall this has been poorly managed...as soon this case got into court, i'll agree....Truly a Poor job of Everymatrix and Jetbull, i would have personally met with Daz and gave him the rightful amount due...Indeed, with some Extra to cover the time loss and court fee ect.

 

[spintee]

the thing is they can have a thousand CCJ's as casino player are not going to look at them when they see a casino site, Yes when it comes down to doing business any one with abit of brain will check, But in this casino land no one will be botherd to search for that, maybe and just maybe do a google search,

And I doubt a fe CCJ is going to come up on top of the list, I said before and say over agin, They want players in than thats it,99% of the time complaints roll in after the fact, and take note only a very small % come on fourms even after they been stung

Even if they take care of it now, the damage is done. The CCJ will remain on record, albeit marked "satisfied", so anyone doing a search on the company will see that they were taken to court and lost. They should have paid up, or made arrangements to pay, on the day they lost in court.

Operators need to understand this is a new regulatory regime, it's no longer the "wild west" of old where they can ignore players and even national court rulings with impunity. Operators are also picking up a slew of "upheld" complaints at the ASA for not ensuring that the ways of old when it comes to marketing are changed to reflect the national rules of the countries they are marketing to. However, this is not as damaging as picking up a CCJ.

This should also tell Everymatrix that the current way they handle self exclusion is a recipe for trouble, and it needs to be changed before they end up with a flood of CCJs.

 

[dunover]

This EMSEB business was always going to end up like this. I'm surprised they got away with it so long. As Richas pointed out, their denial of being a legal entity is plain nonsensical. Perhaps the UKGC should read that when considering the status of their license.

Yes, EMSEB is down equally to the lack of due diligence of the UKGC as well as the fundamental design of the scam. One couldn't exist without the complicity of the other. I personally KNOW the UKGC have been aware of this for at least a year.

As the judgement wasn't satisfied within 28 days a High Court warrant can be executed on their registered office any time.

 

[spintee]

This EMSEB business was always going to end up like this. I'm surprised they got away with it so long. As Richas pointed out, their denial of being a legal entity is plain nonsensical. Perhaps the UKGC should read that when considering the status of their license.

Yes, EMSEB is down equally to the lack of due diligence of the UKGC as well as the fundamental design of the scam. One couldn't exist without the complicity of the other. I personally KNOW the UKGC have been aware of this for at least a year.

As the judgement wasn't satisfied within 28 days a High Court warrant can be executed on their registered office any time.

Its bull shit mate, like you and another pointed out their denial of being a legal entity is plain nonsensical Of course it is , It boils down to some arss wipe lawyer that do not know what there on about,

Even if they claim this I am sure there office will state different, Where there office is situated is another story,

I will give it 6 months at best before its sold on, most likely to there brother inlaw or gone completely

 

[Simmo!]

Also, some website have so much Registrations everyday....checking everyone ID or do background check on everyone would be wasting soo much resource/time ....therefore that's why before a withdrawal, normally most Casino will do a quick ID check ects, which is why the OP got caught up into this mess. (yes, i know... we have talked about this a millions time....Personally, still think all Casino should demand before depositing any money atleast 1x ID check.....imo, this will solve 95% of SE case)

The bottom line is, if you are going to have a cross-brand Self Exclusion policy, you need to have the tools in place to stop self-excluded players being able to deposit and play at another of the brands. If you can't do that, you shouldn't deploy the policy until you are able to.

I am sure most players use the same name, DoB, address and maybe even contact details to register. It can't be that difficult to match registrations with a reasonable degree of certainty, surely?

 

[vinylweatherman]

The bottom line is, if you are going to have a cross-brand Self Exclusion policy, you need to have the tools in place to stop self-excluded players being able to deposit and play at another of the brands. If you can't do that, you shouldn't deploy the policy until you are able to.

I am sure most players use the same name, DoB, address and maybe even contact details to register. It can't be that difficult to match registrations with a reasonable degree of certainty, surely?

I would expect the judge and the UKGC would hold this view if they were told by EM that it is "impossible" to do any kind of SE check for the "thousands" of registrations they get. This is because they have 72 hours to do certain basic checks under the UK licence, primarily aimed at catching minors, but in order to effectively manage this, they would at least need to verify that the registration details were for a real person, and then for SE purposes it would be a simple matter of them running an internal check against their own cross brand SE dataset for a close enough match. In order for this to be "impossible", the player would have to be knowingly using a strategy designed to foil such simple data matching, which is rather difficult given that this would also make it likely they would fail the electronic ID check, which under the UK license requires the operator to lock the account pending a proper KYC through other means.

As well as the half arsed system, EM and their operators are deliberately trying to deceive players by lying about who is associated with whom. So players are told that casino A is "completely independent" of B, which means that in law they should not be sharing data, yet they clearly ARE sharing data, and when it comes to a payment issue, all of a sudden it seems it's EM that calls the shots, not the "independent" casinos.

It's rather similar to the old Rival system, and that lead to all sorts of trouble, although not SE related.

 

[colinsunderland]

Well the Jetbull rep has been on today and hasn't bothered commenting!

 

[vinylweatherman]

Well the Jetbull rep has been on today and hasn't bothered commenting!

Too busy writing a cheque perhaps

 

[dunover]

What can he say? His masters have an outstanding CCJ against them. Perhaps they think the issue will 'go away' but we need answers about this, because it makes a loud statement about their potential attitude to players. I expect CM will make a statement abut this, then we should know.

 

[slotter999]

I've only just stumbled across this thread. Excellent work OP.

I've had a SE issue with everymatrix. I think overall I ended up around £400 out of pocket and everymatrix were particularly unhelpful even with me forwarding on correspondence from UKGC to whom I complained.

If the op could make the case material available it might be useful as a template for others to take action. From a purely personal point of view, I really don't want to have to go through legal proceedings because I could do without the aggro. But, in the spirit of the community I almost feel obliged to in the hope that ultimately EM will he held accountable for their actions.

Feels shitty writing this message. I cannot understand why EM would be so blatant in screwing people over - surely it can't be worth THAT much to them in terms of revenue?

 

[spintee]

Another thing I have not figured out is who gets the money?

Does EM take the deposited funds of the casino or just do not simply pass on the funds to them?

I believe EM has made a fortune from this and telling sites that they cannot pay them due to legal reasons or what other BS they come up with

 

[slotter999]

Another thing I have not figured out is who gets the money?

Does EM take the deposited funds of the casino or just do not simply pass on the funds to them?

I believe EM has made a fortune from this and telling sites that they cannot pay them due to legal reasons or what other BS they come up with

My EM story involved playhippo. Based on the correspondence I had with them it appeared to be the case that playhippo received my confiscated winnings. And it was definitely confiscated winnings and not all bets voided otherwise there would have been nothing for them receive.

 

[Daz_b]

Update:

Everymatrix have made contact with me and are making the right noises about paying the court order. I've therefore put enforcement action on hold, although I have an idea of when and where I will try to arrange the action for, if needed.

I will update again when I have further news.

Slotter999 - If you are interested in making a claim, I would be happy to send you my witness statement which may be of some help. Just PM me an email address. If you are UK based, you can kick the process off by using www.moneyclaim.gov.uk. You just need to provide the key facts to begin with, and they will decide which legal track, if any, is most appropriate. There are fees involved, but you can go through the whole process for around £140 if you do everything yourself, and depending on the size of the claim being made.

Meanwhile, I noticed this article on the BBC website yesterday, which is also widely reported in today's UK printed press. See the last few paragraphs which explains how Maria Casino apparently withheld £35,000 from a customer under the same circumstances I had with Jetbull/Everymatrix. In his case, they paid up when the BBC started sniffing around. I wonder if the floodgates are about to open;

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

 

[dunover]

Update:

Everymatrix have made contact with me and are making the right noises about paying the court order. I've therefore put enforcement action on hold, although I have an idea of when and where I will try to arrange the action for, if needed.

I will update again when I have further news.

Slotter999 - If you are interested in making a claim, I would be happy to send you my witness statement which may be of some help. Just PM me an email address. If you are UK based, you can kick the process off by using www.moneyclaim.gov.uk. You just need to provide the key facts to begin with, and they will decide which legal track, if any, is most appropriate. There are fees involved, but you can go through the whole process for around £140 if you do everything yourself, and depending on the size of the claim being made.

Meanwhile, I noticed this article on the BBC website yesterday, which is also widely reported in today's UK printed press. See the last few paragraphs which explains how Maria Casino apparently withheld £35,000 from a customer under the same circumstances I had with Jetbull/Everymatrix. In his case, they paid up when the BBC started sniffing around. I wonder if the floodgates are about to open;

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

I hope so. The fact they will or will not pay you is irrelevant to their conduct (of course I want you to get the lolly!) as they failed to adhere to the CCJ within 28 days. You must IMO report this matter to the UKGC along with the statement where they deny being a 'legal entity'....

They are only making noises because they are being shamed in public. I look forward to hearing the response they make to Max/Bryan regading this matter too. Silent at the moment, but hopefully they will tell us something.

In fact I can use your CCJ off of the general register and report it to the UKCG too as an addendum to my complaint.

 

[colinsunderland]

I think its utterly disgusting that a player should have to resort to court action to get their money. It also shows what a bunch of scammers this group are if they are prepared to lie in court to steal a customers money. I honestly hope they actually lose their license over this. If EM aren't a legal entity, who replied to the claim?
Who did you actually list as the defendant, was it Jetbull or EM?

The fact they changed their defense suggests to me they thought the original one would fail, as thats the one they tell customers, I would suggest they know they are lying when they take the money.

One thing I will point out, it is unlikely this can be used as a precedent, firstly its in the lower court and it's rare any decision made there would be used as one, and secondly, it was a default judgement. As the case wasn't argued by both sides then no court will use it to decide another.

I would have no problem taking them to court if I had this problem though as I don't think they would have a valid defense, but anyone else thinking of taking them to court make sure you have all your info together rather than thinking you can just quote this case and win, which I've seen people do in the past, and lose.

 

[Mouche12]

I wonder if it was part of EM's strategy to act and manipulate things in such a manner that the outcome was a default CCJ, knowing that this cannot readily be used as a precedent.

 

[colinsunderland]

I wonder if it was part of EM's strategy to act and manipulate things in such a manner that the outcome was a default CCJ, knowing that this cannot readily be used as a precedent.

No, that would make no sense.

Pay before judgement, have to pay £625 + costs. The end.

Put a defense in, more costs, amended defence, more costs, get a default judgement against them, still have to pay but now have a CCJ that will show for 6 years and allows the claimant to post a thread that 100's if not 1000's of potential customers will see.

 

[vinylweatherman]

I wonder if it was part of EM's strategy to act and manipulate things in such a manner that the outcome was a default CCJ, knowing that this cannot readily be used as a precedent.

If this was a strategy, they royally screwed up. They should have taken it all the way in the hope that the player will fold first, but once the player had a CCJ because EM's own legal team effed up, they should have conceded and paid up on the spot so there was at least no CCJ that would stick with them for the next 6 years on the register.

Of course, the next time they won't be so stupid, they will ensure that their defence is correctly served to the court and the claimant, and they won't use one they know is doomed to fail in an argued case.

Like the banks (and Betfair ), they may even switch tack to paying up quietly once they are served notice from the courts that a claim has been lodged, rather than risk losing a properly argued case on merit, rather than on a technicality. This may carry on until they accept that the cheaper option is to fight and obtain a precedent in a higher court, rather than carry on paying up quietly.

 

[dunover]

If this was a strategy, they royally screwed up. They should have taken it all the way in the hope that the player will fold first, but once the player had a CCJ because EM's own legal team effed up, they should have conceded and paid up on the spot so there was at least no CCJ that would stick with them for the next 6 years on the register.

Of course, the next time they won't be so stupid, they will ensure that their defence is correctly served to the court and the claimant, and they won't use one they know is doomed to fail in an argued case.

Like the banks (and Betfair ), they may even switch tack to paying up quietly once they are served notice from the courts that a claim has been lodged, rather than risk losing a properly argued case on merit, rather than on a technicality. This may carry on until they accept that the cheaper option is to fight and obtain a precedent in a higher court, rather than carry on paying up quietly.

I highly doubt it - given that they have breached UK consumer legislation by having incomplete terms with VITAL information omitted, their case would be futile. This is nothing like the banks, as they had the relevant charge info in their terms, but the terms were contested as unfair. This whole EMSEB business doesn't even have the imperative info in the terms so they are inherently unfair before they even get to be contested. EM and others who do similar are up shit creek without a paddle here.

 

[vinylweatherman]

I highly doubt it - given that they have breached UK consumer legislation by having incomplete terms with VITAL information omitted, their case would be futile. This is nothing like the banks, as they had the relevant charge info in their terms, but the terms were contested as unfair. This whole EMSEB business doesn't even have the imperative info in the terms so they are inherently unfair before they even get to be contested. EM and others who do similar are up shit creek without a paddle here.

Well, their only option seems to be damage limitation. Change their SE systems and rewrite their terms so that they don't carry on creating further cases where, if taken to court, they player will most likely win. They should also go through their entire player base and check that they don't have players that they will never pay winning to currently depositing and losing.