Bookmaker Victor Chandler SCAM - Refusing to payout $37,000

jumperabv3

JJ_Egan wrote: »

Difficult to see from the posts the exact reason for VC to say the user has broken what rule .

Using another person to place bets .. yes guilty .
Opening more than one account would need to see the evidence from VC .

Would you take it to IBAS?

JJ_Egan

Not sure as IBAS may well have no control over a non UK company .
Even one that is a member .
But the reasons for closure of the account and voiding of bets may be made clear if IBAS did get involved so worth a try .


a) the Operator holds an Operating Licence from the Gambling Commission and the Dispute concerns a wager which is subject to the laws of England and Wales, or Scotland; save that IBAS may, in its absolute discretion, deal with Disputes arising in other jurisdictions; and
(b) the Operator is registered, or becomes registered with IBAS, prior to the adjudication of the Dispute; and

jumperabv3

JJ Egan,
Just an update - SBR has dealt with it and Victor Chandler sent me an email from their management, currently I am waiting for that person to send an email to Victor Chandler authorizing me to speak on his behalf (as he cannot communicate in English), and I will see how things go.

keyser666

keep us updated, dont forget casinomeister to register this complaint with as well

dealer_wins

I see this was posted on SBR and it was decided it was a multi accounter, so now it comes on here all innocent!!

jumperabv3

dealer_wins wrote: »

I see this was posted on SBR and it was decided it was a multi accounter, so now it comes on here all innocent!!

I'm afraid you're wrong, but I guess just like the other posters in that thread you have some reading comprehension problems. I feel sorry for you. English is supposed to be your mothertongue, isn't it?

In practice, SBR is investigating the claim with VC, this has been escalated to their management, and they are both now looking into the matter. There was no decision and nothing ruled out yet, so if you guys like to listen to some posters who like to assume things then by all means don't generalize and don't turn your assumptions to be facts, because that shows lack of understanding of facts and lack of reading comprehension of another thread.

If you want to base things on facts then by all means do so once you have the evidence, currently that player is strictly denying all allegations of having 2nd account and that is now being examined, there is no decision and no ruling and no outcome yet whatsoever. The only thing I know right now is that SBR has received permission from the player to investigate the matter and VC has been advised accordingly.

wealdroam

jumperabv3 wrote: »

I'm afraid you're wrong, but I guess just like the other posters in that thread you have some reading comprehension problems. I feel sorry for you. English is supposed to be your mothertongue, isn't it?

In practice, SBR is investigating the claim with VC, this has been escalated to their management, and they are both now looking into the matter. There was no decision and nothing ruled out yet, so if you guys like to listen to some posters who like to assume things then by all means don't generalize and don't turn your assumptions to be facts, because that shows lack of understanding of facts and lack of reading comprehension of another thread.

If you want to base things on facts then by all means do so once you have the evidence, currently that player is strictly denying all allegations of having 2nd account and that is now being examined, there is no decision and no ruling and no outcome yet whatsoever. The only thing I know right now is that SBR has received permission from the player to investigate the matter and VC has been advised accordingly.

So why didn't you tell us about the 'second account accusation'?

Anything else you want to disclose?

LilElvis

wealdroam wrote: »

So why didn't you tell us about the 'second account accusation'?

Anything else you want to disclose?

He did mention it - it's in the morass of information in the first post.

jumperabv3 wrote: »

The company is claiming this person has more than 1 account with them, however he denies those allegations and he has only 1 single account!

gik

wealdroam wrote: »

So why didn't you tell us about the 'second account accusation'?

Anything else you want to disclose?

They did say in the OP:-

'The company is claiming this person has more than 1 account with them'

wealdroam

gik wrote: »

They did say in the OP:-

'The company is claiming this person has more than 1 account with them'

LilElvis wrote: »

He did mention it - it's in the morass of information in the first post.

Oops... sorry.