Betfred have taken everything because I used my friend's card

[simon3311]

I've already done a thread but Need help.

I'm fully aware now that 3rd party deposit aren't aloud but at the time I wasn't.

My card was having issues with connecting to visa as tried 3 times to deposit so used my friend's card with concent and I transferred funds from my account to there prior to every deposit.

I deposit around 5k so around 5 deposits and had withdrawal excepted and paid out of 8000. Nothing was flagged up about anything and at the time didn't even consider I was in the wrong.

The next day I thought if carry on from where I was didn't go to plan and deposited around 22000 and ended up requesting 28000 .

Not at any point during around 10 deposits was anything flagged.

There is nothing fraudulent with any of this .

Betfred didn't even ask about fraud or didn't even want to Contact the card holder or want any information regarding this.

If I would of lost I'd fully understand no refund but I was 6000 in profit and why aren't my deposit being refunded as it states

In terms that Amy deposits will be void and winnings Invalid.

There is no fraud Involved it was my money and they had stole all of it and I can't even contact them to discuss.

I don't need advice on 3rd party deposit trust me I've read everything just want to know where I stand and what to do next as I can't just let them take 22000 off me

 

[gonzo fonso]

is it any wonder they have closed your account making deposits of multiple k,its certainly not the usual

 

[toms596]

Have they given you an explanation as to why they aren't returning them? What terms have you broken

 

[bamberfishcake]

I am afraid that the answer you don't want to hear is the only answer I think you will get from this.

Better off forgetting about it now. I don't think you stand a chance of getting the winnings based on what you have said.

 

[shadow123]

Winnings are gone for sure but they cant have all the cake,deposits should be returned to the card owner,
they took an awful lot of deposits without question and as usual only found a problem at cashout time.
In my view there is far too much money involved not to take it further.

 

[bamberfishcake]

Winnings are gone for sure but they cant have all the cake,deposits should be returned to the card owner,
they took an awful lot of deposits without question and as usual only found a problem at cashout time.
In my view there is far too much money involved not to take it further.

True, I often forget about the deposits. Should be claimed back. Being ignored is never appropriate.

 

[jasonuk]

Some big question marks here! This really should have been flagged up on the first attempted deposit - that a substantial withdrawal was also processed is rather alarming...

I agree with shadow - zero chances you'll get the winnings as it's a serious breach of the T&Cs, and while you are not entitled to the balance, your friend should be refunded their deposits.

I fear this may get rather complicated as Betfred have got themselves into a pickle here (potentially breaching AML, RG and KYC regulations in one go - not dissimilar to scenarios we've heard in recently announced million+ fines) - your friend may need to jump through a considerable number of hoops to get that money back, and it may take some time if it gets looked into by other parties (AML, UKGC etc).

At this point, I would say it's important to make the transactions distinct - it makes sense that Betfred wouldn't enter into further correspondence with you because you're not the depositor, your friend is. While it's "your" money in your eyes, it's "their" money in terms of the player to casino transactions, so any further steps would likely be with them.

Hopefully Betfred will be forthcoming with your friend in terms of a resolution - if not, you (or more likely your friend) can make a formal complaint, and then

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

as an option down the road, although be aware for the amount in question it may be non-binding on the operator.

 

[dunover]

Don't forget, winnings should be voided too, so the overall balance sheet is prudent here. Does the amout paid out exceed the deposits on this card overall? If so, it could be argued the deposits are refunded and the OP should sort that out with his friend. As said, they are in a pickle having already paid 8k to the cardholder who wasn't actually named in the casino account.

I think the appropriate course of action would be to refund the deposits, taking into account the net position of the account, i.e. 3+6k = 9k to the good according to the OP. So there is no net gain or loss on it.

Again, as said above, this means further exacerbating their failure to act in the first place and paying out 8k to that card which means AML and KYC hasn't been followed to the rules. So refunding now compounds that issue. It's a tricky one for both parties, neither of whom have covered themselves in glory.

 

[jasonuk]

I think the appropriate course of action would be to refund the deposits, taking into account the net position of the account, i.e. 3+6k = 9k to the good according to the OP. So there is no net gain or loss on it.

I deposit around 5k so around 5 deposits and had withdrawal excepted and paid out of 8000. Nothing was flagged up about anything and at the time didn't even consider I was in the wrong.

The next day I thought if carry on from where I was didn't go to plan and deposited around 22000 and ended up requesting 28000 .

It sounds like the second £6k profit was blocked - so would be talking about the £27k deposited and the £8k withdrawn, leaving a net loss of £19k.

Depending on the account activity, they could include other transactions in their investigation, which may adjust the figure up or down further. Anyone's guess how that will play out given companies rarely discuss it in public.

 

[OliverCooper]

Using even a friend's data can still be equated with using someone else's data (and it`s not known whether he agreed or not)

 

[Avernite]

Money should be returned to the friends card/bank account. Casino's should never be able to profit over these situations, nor should the player.

 

[bamberfishcake]

What was the problem with the original card?

28K is a lot to deposit through somebody else's card. But I guess if you're paying for it, then it's not such a big deal, it just seems like an unusual situation.

The idea of being in control of your payment methods is to prevent money laundering and fraud, hence why casinos don't like deposits from cards you don't own. I imagine this would raise a flag during an AML audit.

p.s. Have any other requests been made from BetFred that you have been unable to comply with? i.e. SOW.

If this is just a straight block without refunding deposits, with no chance of a conversation over the situation, then it's not fair. You would think that 28K is nothing to BetFred in the grand scheme of things and would just refund the deposits and close the account to avoid any problems.

 

[deleted20230517]

You can't use another persons card, account or whatever to deposit. Impossible. In breach with TOS with almost every casino out there.

Best you can get or hope for is those deposits to have returned to the original card.

 

[Webzcas]

Using someone else's card is a major no no when it comes to any form of online betting or gambling, sportsbook, casino or otherwise. Anyone who has placed even one bet in the past would know of this term, even if they are not au fait with any others.

It is also pretty straightforward as to why this term and condition is in place.

Sorry, but you are out of luck IMO and as mentioned by Jeroensgambling above, the most you can hope for are the deposits returned back to the original card.

 

[Lemon]

If you were guaranteed to get your deposits back in these situations then you'd get loads of people breaking the rules in the hope they get into early profit and have a successful withdrawal, knowing full well that if they don't they can just trigger the rule breach and get their money back.

It's a bit of a mess to be honest, but that's why you should read the rules first. Sounds really unfair to have your deposits withheld as well but if they don't do that then it's effectively a free gamble - win and you might be able to get some of the profit out along with your deposit, lose and you just get your money back.

It's pretty obvious that the account-holder should only deposit using their own card. It's not like this rule was introduced recently and you've been on holiday or something so missed the change. Thousands of pounds deposited from someone else's card is classic money-laundering behaviour. Must have set off more red flags than a communist rally.

Good luck either way ?

 

[jasonuk]

If you were guaranteed to get your deposits back in these situations then you'd get loads of people breaking the rules in the hope they get into early profit and have a successful withdrawal, knowing full well that if they don't they can just trigger the rule breach and get their money back.

It's a bit of a mess to be honest, but that's why you should read the rules first. Sounds really unfair to have your deposits withheld as well but if they don't do that then it's effectively a free gamble - win and you might be able to get some of the profit out along with your deposit, lose and you just get your money back.

It's pretty obvious that the account-holder should only deposit using their own card. It's not like this rule was introduced recently and you've been on holiday or something so missed the change. Thousands of pounds deposited from someone else's card is classic money-laundering behaviour. Must have set off more red flags than a communist rally.

Good luck either way ?

Agreed, I can imagine there are people out there trying this as a variation of the "responsible gambling" fraud (as an explanation to those unaware: people who sign up to sites maliciously with "slightly different details" to evade the self-exclusion checks, then demanding their money back as a freeroll - often shouting loudly on forums such as CM, there's a long list of such banned people sadly - when they lost because they had self-excluded).

It would only be a free gamble if the operator failed in their due diligence and allowed a withdrawal - which they did in this case. A rogue player would try and use such a mechanism for a free gamble (as they did by exploiting the responsible gambling rules, which the UKGC had to subsequently tighten up to the detriment of genuine problem gamblers), but similarly the operator being allowed to keep the deposits when they have no expectation to pay out would similarly be a free gamble. The most logical position is to undo everything, but who knows at this stage.

If it had been £200 it would have been a tricky situation, that there's a couple of extra zeros (putting it above most AML and KYC thresholds) makes it really problematic - remember some of the UKGC examples against WH's £19.2m fine were smaller amounts than this... and didn't have the complication of using payment methods of a third party.

 

[simon3311]

Agreed, I can imagine there are people out there trying this as a variation of the "responsible gambling" fraud (as an explanation to those unaware: people who sign up to sites maliciously with "slightly different details" to evade the self-exclusion checks, then demanding their money back as a freeroll - often shouting loudly on forums such as CM, there's a long list of such banned people sadly - when they lost because they had self-excluded).

It would only be a free gamble if the operator failed in their due diligence and allowed a withdrawal - which they did in this case. A rogue player would try and use such a mechanism for a free gamble (as they did by exploiting the responsible gambling rules, which the UKGC had to subsequently tighten up to the detriment of genuine problem gamblers), but similarly the operator being allowed to keep the deposits when they have no expectation to pay out would similarly be a free gamble. The most logical position is to undo everything, but who knows at this stage.

If it had been £200 it would have been a tricky situation, that there's a couple of extra zeros (putting it above most AML and KYC thresholds) makes it really problematic - remember some of the UKGC examples against WH's £19.2m fine were smaller amounts than this... and didn't have the complication of using payment methods of a third party.

I have a positive up date. Well the correct direction anyway.

 

[simon3311]

This may give people In similar situations hope
The gambling commission clearly states and highlighted in AOL legislation that 3rd party deposits should be actioned at the earliest point possible and never on a large win or a withdrawal request.
The fact is that over 2 days there where around 15 large deposits which all.where an opportunity to intervene. I received a security message and AOL check and a safer gambling ill 5 mins after my request. There was also around 3hour gap between my last deposit and my final withdrawal if an internal AOL trigger was met like they said it should of been actioned on the deposit
IBAS have exsepted my case and is ongoing

 

[jasonuk]

The gambling commission clearly states and highlighted in AOL legislation that 3rd party deposits should be actioned at the earliest point possible and never on a large win or a withdrawal request.

The highlighted part is wrong - because in some circumstances the withdrawal request is the CDD/AML trigger.

It's frequently misquoted because people see that withdrawals shouldn't be unreasonably delayed, and don't realise that regulatory requirements (ID check, CDD/AML triggered by a withdrawal) are genuine reasons for a delay.

On the flip side, operators that defer those checks until withdrawal are in the wrong, but the UKGC isn't punishing them for doing it so they keep doing it as a way to stealth reverse withdrawals.

The fact is that over 2 days there where around 15 large deposits which all.where an opportunity to intervene. I received a security message and AOL check and a safer gambling ill 5 mins after my request. There was also around 3hour gap between my last deposit and my final withdrawal if an internal AOL trigger was met like they said it should of been actioned on the deposit

Pretty much as we summarised 17 months ago - Betfred missed a lot of opportunities to lock your account down and investigate.

I have a positive up date. Well the correct direction anyway.

IBAS have exsepted my case and is ongoing

I don't want to be the bearer of bad news, but given your statement in the previous post I think it's important to add some perspective:

• IBAS accepting the case is the very first step (of many) in the ADR process.
• 17 months is a long time to wait to file with ADR - your additional rights start to erode after 6 months, and ADR can often reject claims more than 12 months old (unless there are extraneous circumstances, which there could be here).
• Given the problems relate with third party payments and possibly responsible gambling, there is a risk that ADR are not able to adjudicate on some or all of the complaint.
• As the amount in question likely exceeds £10,000 then ADR would not be binding on Betfred anyway. Although any successful claim may help with subsequent legal action if required (which is beyond the scope of this forum, and you would need to seek legal advice)

It's one step forward... but you've still got a long road ahead. I hope you can get it sorted.

 

[Mark_Lottomart]

The highlighted part is wrong - because in some circumstances the withdrawal request is the CDD/AML trigger.

It's frequently misquoted because people see that withdrawals shouldn't be unreasonably delayed, and don't realise that regulatory requirements (ID check, CDD/AML triggered by a withdrawal) are genuine reasons for a delay.

On the flip side, operators that defer those checks until withdrawal are in the wrong, but the UKGC isn't punishing them for doing it so they keep doing it as a way to stealth reverse withdrawals.


Pretty much as we summarised 17 months ago - Betfred missed a lot of opportunities to lock your account down and investigate.




I don't want to be the bearer of bad news, but given your statement in the previous post I think it's important to add some perspective:

• IBAS accepting the case is the very first step (of many) in the ADR process.
• 17 months is a long time to wait to file with ADR - your additional rights start to erode after 6 months, and ADR can often reject claims more than 12 months old (unless there are extraneous circumstances, which there could be here).
• Given the problems relate with third party payments and possibly responsible gambling, there is a risk that ADR are not able to adjudicate on some or all of the complaint.
• As the amount in question likely exceeds £10,000 then ADR would not be binding on Betfred anyway. Although any successful claim may help with subsequent legal action if required (which is beyond the scope of this forum, and you would need to seek legal advice)

It's one step forward... but you've still got a long road ahead. I hope you can get it sorted.

Jason I admire your knowledge! Lots of valid points here and while I don’t want to get into the points of the original complaint I just wanted to say!

 

[simon3311]

The highlighted part is wrong - because in some circumstances the withdrawal request is the CDD/AML trigger.

It's frequently misquoted because people see that withdrawals shouldn't be unreasonably delayed, and don't realise that regulatory requirements (ID check, CDD/AML triggered by a withdrawal) are genuine reasons for a delay.

On the flip side, operators that defer those checks until withdrawal are in the wrong, but the UKGC isn't punishing them for doing it so they keep doing it as a way to stealth reverse withdrawals.


Pretty much as we summarised 17 months ago - Betfred missed a lot of opportunities to lock your account down and investigate.




I don't want to be the bearer of bad news, but given your statement in the previous post I think it's important to add some perspective:

• IBAS accepting the case is the very first step (of many) in the ADR process.
• 17 months is a long time to wait to file with ADR - your additional rights start to erode after 6 months, and ADR can often reject claims more than 12 months old (unless there are extraneous circumstances, which there could be here).
• Given the problems relate with third party payments and possibly responsible gambling, there is a risk that ADR are not able to adjudicate on some or all of the complaint.
• As the amount in question likely exceeds £10,000 then ADR would not be binding on Betfred anyway. Although any successful claim may help with subsequent legal action if required (which is beyond the scope of this forum, and you would need to seek legal advice)

It's one step forward... but you've still got a long road ahead. I hope you can get it sorted.

I've been in contact with betfred throughout this period generally waiting weeks in-between emails . I was only issued my Dl a few weeks ago
It took months just to get that sent

 

[simon3311]

I've been in contact with betfred throughout this period generally waiting weeks in-between emails . I was only issued my Dl a few weeks ago
It took months just to get that sent

Tbh a little step forward is better than I've had
Allot has happened. I've been in contact weekly and tbh it was mainly waiting for documentation from compliance.

 

[simon3311]

I've been in contact with betfred throughout this period generally waiting weeks in-between emails . I was only issued my Dl a few weeks ago
It took months just to get that sent

Tbh a little step forward is better than I've had
Allot has happened. I've been in contact weekly and tbh it was mainly waiting for documentation from compliance

 

[simon3311]

Just quickly please
If AML checks are triggered at withdrawal why wasn't it triggered when I withdraw 8k the previous day. If checks where done then we wouldn't be having this conversation and I'd still have hair

Tbh a little step forward is better than I've had
Allot has happened. I've been in contact weekly and tbh it was mainly waiting for documentation from compliance

 

[Mark_Lottomart]

Just quickly please
If AML checks are triggered at withdrawal why wasn't it triggered when I withdraw 8k the previous day. If checks where done then we wouldn't be having this conversation and I'd still have hair

Hey Simon,

I don’t want to get into specifics and I’m obviously not linked to the company you played with but as a general rule operators are expected to look at players in more detail at certain levels.

Some are total deposits, some are total withdrawals and the some are aggregated sum of deposits and withdrawals. Loss amounts or win amounts are also considered for these thresholds which is in line with guidance.

These are business set thresholds before they complete the required additional due diligence on a player. Operators have different thresholds of what that looks like for different reasons but for example if an operator sets a limit of £5k transactions (deposits and withdrawals, a theoretical amount) then if you deposit £5 and withdraw £4995 then you’ve hit that threshold.

Most complaints on here are from players who say “they only asked me for my documents when I withdrew” but the reality is those are the only ones we hear of as because when players are asked when they deposit it’s less of an issue as they just don’t deposit.

Hope that helps!
Mark

 

[jasonuk]

I've been in contact with betfred throughout this period generally waiting weeks in-between emails . I was only issued my Dl a few weeks ago
It took months just to get that sent

They shouldn't have been dragging it out for so long, but I believe that would be a valid reason for a delayed ADR. So what I said about timelines doesn't apply in this case.

Just quickly please
If AML checks are triggered at withdrawal why wasn't it triggered when I withdraw 8k the previous day. If checks where done then we wouldn't be having this conversation and I'd still have hair

It will depend on how much information you have already sent to them - the larger deposits and that withdrawal trigger CDD/AML checks. As Mark discusses above, it is then up to the operator to interpret the UKGC guidelines and apply them to their business (the rules have recently been clarified - but obviously do not apply retroactively to a situation from 2023).

It should be noted that a CDD/AML check does not necessarily result in a paperwork request - but that scenario tends to apply to smaller depositors who win big or somebody who has already jumped through sufficient hoops previously. For a larger depositor, you will quickly start hitting those plus responsible gambling checks (that will require proof of income, funds, or however else you can sustain your gambling at the current deposit level).

You have been pretty up front about the volume and size of deposits - so it's curious how Betfred haven't slammed the brakes on sooner. Whether someone has genuinely messed up (in a big way), or cynically they've ignored the guidelines and it has come back to haunt them.

The UKGC has issued fines to licensees for similar behaviour in the past, but the fines are not a big enough deterrent and you could argue they consider it a cost of doing business. That doesn't influence your case in any way, but it's useful background knowledge to be aware of.

 

[simon3311]

They shouldn't have been dragging it out for so long, but I believe that would be a valid reason for a delayed ADR. So what I said about timelines doesn't apply in this case.


It will depend on how much information you have already sent to them - the larger deposits and that withdrawal trigger CDD/AML checks. As Mark discusses above, it is then up to the operator to interpret the UKGC guidelines and apply them to their business (the rules have recently been clarified - but obviously do not apply retroactively to a situation from 2023).

It should be noted that a CDD/AML check does not necessarily result in a paperwork request - but that scenario tends to apply to smaller depositors who win big or somebody who has already jumped through sufficient hoops previously. For a larger depositor, you will quickly start hitting those plus responsible gambling checks (that will require proof of income, funds, or however else you can sustain your gambling at the current deposit level).

You have been pretty up front about the volume and size of deposits - so it's curious how Betfred haven't slammed the brakes on sooner. Whether someone has genuinely messed up (in a big way), or cynically they've ignored the guidelines and it has come back to haunt them.

The UKGC has issued fines to licensees for similar behaviour in the past, but the fines are not a big enough deterrent and you could argue they consider it a cost of doing business. That doesn't influence your case in any way, but it's useful background knowledge to be aware of.

Thankyou for your response.
I've just provided the transaction history of my transfers to the account card I used . Just to eliminate any fraudulent views.
Not that anypoint fraud was mentioned or reported.
Just frustrating how this has been dealt with and to be honest I don't normally deposit large amounts and could nt afford to lose that much in 1 weekend .
It's the fact i only won pretty much the amount I had deposited and have only requested my deposits back so in theory they are still 6k in profit.
Really appreciate your time and information you've provided.

 

[simon3311]

Thankyou for your response.
I've just provided the transaction history of my transfers to the account card I used . Just to eliminate any fraudulent views.
Not that anypoint fraud was mentioned or reported.
Just frustrating how this has been dealt with and to be honest I don't normally deposit large amounts and could nt afford to lose that much in 1 weekend .
It's the fact i only won pretty much the amount I had deposited and have only requested my deposits back so in theory they are still 6k in profit.
Really appreciate your time and information you've provided.

 

[jasonuk]

Not sure if there was supposed to be more to your last message - you've got the quoted text (from the message before) but nothing else appeared.

 

[simon3311]

Hey Simon,

I don’t want to get into specifics and I’m obviously not linked to the company you played with but as a general rule operators are expected to look at players in more detail at certain levels.

Some are total deposits, some are total withdrawals and the some are aggregated sum of deposits and withdrawals. Loss amounts or win amounts are also considered for these thresholds which is in line with guidance.

These are business set thresholds before they complete the required additional due diligence on a player. Operators have different thresholds of what that looks like for different reasons but for example if an operator sets a limit of £5k transactions (deposits and withdrawals, a theoretical amount) then if you deposit £5 and withdraw £4995 then you’ve hit that threshold.

Most complaints on here are from players who say “they only asked me for my documents when I withdrew” but the reality is those are the only ones we hear of as because when players are asked when they deposit it’s less of an issue as they just don’t deposit.

Hope that helps!
Mark

Little update very confusing would appreciate an opinion. My case is at panel awaiting betfred response.

Betfred have claimed that after my account was closed 11400 was refunded to balance my account I clearly never received this or is was never returned to the 3rd party card.
The last message/email I received prior to the compliance/complaints procedure was brutal email stating account closure and confirmation that any funds in my account or pending withdrawals would not be payable due to breach of terms and conditions and the refusal to conduct any further communication on there decision. And if fraudulent activity was and is the reason of there decision I very much doubt an attempt to refund a undisguised random amount based on my life time net transaction history back to a 3rd party card flagged fraudulent would be attempted

 

[simon3311]

Little update very confusing would appreciate an opinion. My case is at panel awaiting betfred response.

If there withdrawal T and C s state that EVERY withdrawal requested are Subject to security and AML checks what ever the requested amount which is why a 24 time frame is implemented.

Deposits aren't checked in the same way as we are all aware.

This is why my 28k attempt was flagged .

If every single withdrawal has to be managed the same way its pretty clear the 8k the day before that was paid should of flagged the same as 28k if the same process was actioned. So there AML checks ethier failed or where ignored
My point is if they were aware of possible fraudulent activity and where allowing multiple deposits and high lose the money I won should be part of the risk they chose to take when at any point they could of stopped it .
Do i have a valid point ?

 

[simon3311]

 

[simon3311]

Not sure if there was supposed to be more to your last message - you've got the quoted text (from the message before) but nothing else appeared.

Don't know what happened there

 

[5ta]

I have seen this issue before and I am 100% certain that the industry is TAKING THE PISS.

If you can't withdraw, then you can't deposit. Not play the oh conveniently card and convince the masses it's ok. It's not. Even if I am the only one who believes this.

UKGC or equivalent and courts should stick to the basic principle of a two way street. Not a two tier street.
Honestly, shame on anyone who thinks its ok for them to take the money but not pay it back.

Mate, if I empty my funds into the casino account with a wheelbarrow while smoking a fat spliff singing a rick astley hit and they accept it, you better believe how I am expecting my withdrawal.

Stupid ? The point is simple.

 

[simon3311]

I have seen this issue before and I am 100% certain that the industry is TAKING THE PISS.

If you can't withdraw, then you can't deposit. Not play the oh conveniently card and convince the masses it's ok. It's not. Even if I am the only one who believes this.

UKGC or equivalent and courts should stick to the basic principle of a two way street. Not a two tier street.
Honestly, shame on anyone who thinks its ok for them to take the money but not pay it back.

Mate, if I empty my funds into the casino account with a wheelbarrow while smoking a fat spliff singing a rick astley hit and they accept it, you better believe how I am expecting my withdrawal.

Stupid ? The point is simple.

Update

After IBAS contact . Betfred have now agreed to review the 3rd party deposits and how they where funded. Sent proof it was my funds awaiting response

 

[simon3311]

Update

After IBAS contact . Betfred have now agreed to review the 3rd party deposits and how they where funded. Sent proof it was my funds awaiting response

IBAS on hold until I receive a response from betfred

 

[Avernite]

Is there a reason you keep quoting your own posts?

 

[simon3311]

Is there a reason you keep quoting your own posts?

Didn't know I was doing that. Not sure what I'm doing wrong

 

[simon3311]

Didn't realise I had to delete the above before replying. Apologies. Technology not my strongest asset

 

[simon3311]

The highlighted part is wrong - because in some circumstances the withdrawal request is the CDD/AML trigger.

It's frequently misquoted because people see that withdrawals shouldn't be unreasonably delayed, and don't realise that regulatory requirements (ID check, CDD/AML triggered by a withdrawal) are genuine reasons for a delay.

On the flip side, operators that defer those checks until withdrawal are in the wrong, but the UKGC isn't punishing them for doing it so they keep doing it as a way to stealth reverse withdrawals.


Pretty much as we summarised 17 months ago - Betfred missed a lot of opportunities to lock your account down and investigate.




I don't want to be the bearer of bad news, but given your statement in the previous post I think it's important to add some perspective:

• IBAS accepting the case is the very first step (of many) in the ADR process.
• 17 months is a long time to wait to file with ADR - your additional rights start to erode after 6 months, and ADR can often reject claims more than 12 months old (unless there are extraneous circumstances, which there could be here).
• Given the problems relate with third party payments and possibly responsible gambling, there is a risk that ADR are not able to adjudicate on some or all of the complaint.
• As the amount in question likely exceeds £10,000 then ADR would not be binding on Betfred anyway. Although any successful claim may help with subsequent legal action if required (which is beyond the scope of this forum, and you would need to seek legal advice)

It's one step forward... but you've still got a long road ahead. I hope you can get it sorted.

 

[simon3311]

Thought I'd update the situation just to maybe help anybody else out.

Betfred after ibas contact agreed to view my statements highlighting that my funds where used to deposit and wasn't any fraud involved

I pushed even before my account was closed but my evidence wasn't wanted .
21 months later they found those documents sufficient evidence that only my funds where used .

The case is still ongoing but they have agreed to pay my winning but I believe thst was easier than facing AML failures.

If anyone has been unfortunate enough to use a 3rd party card and having problems.
I would advice you unless it's a value of money you value more than you sanity to just forget it.

Thanks for advice

 

[Avernite]

Thought I'd update the situation just to maybe help anybody else out.

Betfred after ibas contact agreed to view my statements highlighting that my funds where used to deposit and wasn't any fraud involved

I pushed even before my account was closed but my evidence wasn't wanted .
21 months later they found those documents sufficient evidence that only my funds where used .

The case is still ongoing but they have agreed to pay my winning but I believe thst was easier than facing AML failures.

If anyone has been unfortunate enough to use a 3rd party card and having problems.
I would advice you unless it's a value of money you value more than you sanity to just forget it.

Thanks for advice

Glad it's come to a favourable conclusion for you. Please take this as a lesson to only ever deposit with your own funds under your name in future, as you appear to have gotten very, very lucky.

 

[simon3311]

Glad it's come to a favourable conclusion for you. Please take this as a lesson to only ever deposit with your own funds under your name in future, as you appear to have gotten very, very lucky.

The way I've been treated and the journey I've undertaken to get to this point is a very harsh lesson I wouldn't call it lucky ill call it persistent when you do something not knowing its wrong its not wrong just careless and tbh the money came irrelevant towards the end I'm just glad it's nearly over.
.
Thanks

 

[simon3311]

Glad it's come to a favourable conclusion for you. Please take this as a lesson to only ever deposit with your own funds under your name in future, as you appear to have gotten very, very lucky.

Anybody careless enough to do what I did .
If you want a conclusion
Over 300 emails
Countless compliance and safer gambling hoops
I would stronglt concider your next steps.
If I knew this then I'd of walked away .
Really appreciate everyone contributing

 

[Webzcas]

Many thanks for keeping us up to date regarding your situation. Looks and sounds like you have finally reached a favourable conclusion!

But yes, when gambling online ALWAYS use your own bank cards or wallet account that are in your own name!

 

[simon3311]

Many thanks for keeping us up to date regarding your situation. Looks and sounds like you have finally reached a favourable conclusion!

But yes, when gambling online ALWAYS use your own bank cards or wallet account that are in your own name!

Not fully over I got the 16k winnings but 12k still not resolved.
Investigation ongoing

Also I was reading a case regarding ladbrokes in 2022 failing aml.checks and acting on problem gambling I haven't enterered conversation.
Do I just start a new thread would like advice you only really notice how much of problem gsmbler I was when you look into things

 

[jasonuk]

Thought I'd update the situation just to maybe help anybody else out.

Betfred after ibas contact agreed to view my statements highlighting that my funds where used to deposit and wasn't any fraud involved

I pushed even before my account was closed but my evidence wasn't wanted .
21 months later they found those documents sufficient evidence that only my funds where used .

The case is still ongoing but they have agreed to pay my winning but I believe thst was easier than facing AML failures.

If anyone has been unfortunate enough to use a 3rd party card and having problems.
I would advice you unless it's a value of money you value more than you sanity to just forget it.

Thanks for advice

Be careful of saying too much at this point, ADR usually requires radio silence during negotiations and it sounds like you are at a pretty pivotal point of proceedings. If it is resolved in your favour, I would still add fortunate to the list despite your persistence.

The amount of money involved is large enough that they may be concerned about court proceedings - and by untangling the money web they can either a) prove you were funded by a third party, which kills your dispute stone dead or b) prove you weren't funded by a third party, pay up and make the problem go away without risking a problematic ruling in court.

Fingers crossed for a positive conclusion.

Also I was reading a case regarding ladbrokes in 2022 failing aml.checks and acting on problem gambling I haven't enterered conversation.
Do I just start a new thread would like advice you only really notice how much of problem gsmbler I was when you look into things

You can start a new thread for it, but given the time elapsed your options are going to be fairly limited - as we discussed earlier in the thread ADR normally reject complaints over 12 months old (with exceptions: the previous scenario counts as one, this would likely not).

Also the act of problem gambling alone isn't enough to warrant a refund, the amount of self-exclusion fraud put paid to that concept a few years ago. So there would need to be a clear and obvious error from Ladbrokes, and even then given the time elapsed that may not be sufficient.

At least you are starting to put the problem into perspective, and hopefully you are getting help where needed - it sounds like a lot of money and the intensity of gambling advertising (both honest and dishonest) is putting a lot of people to the test right now.

[edit] I see you already have [/edit]