blonde poker forum

Poker Forums => The Rail => Topic started by: verndog158 on December 06, 2016, 11:53:23 AM



Title: Party poker fee?!
Post by: verndog158 on December 06, 2016, 11:53:23 AM
Is this normal?!

Just received an email from party poker saying I'm being charged an admin fee of £1.16 as I haven't been playing. And they will continue to do so until my balance is £0. I assume this is legit, but is this standard/ fair?


Title: Re: Party poker fee?!
Post by: TightEnd on December 06, 2016, 12:12:02 PM
its certainly unpopular, but covered in the t and cs

log in once every six months and play one 1c hand (obviously, much more would be welcomed but probably less likely when people get these emails!), simplest way round it


Title: Re: Party poker fee?!
Post by: celtic on December 06, 2016, 12:56:57 PM
What admin is required on an account that isn't used?


Title: Re: Party poker fee?!
Post by: verndog158 on December 06, 2016, 12:58:42 PM
What admin is required on an account that isn't used?

Exactly what I thought, seems a bit of a joke!


Title: Re: Party poker fee?!
Post by: Mohican on December 06, 2016, 01:24:51 PM
Is this normal?!

Just received an email from party poker saying I'm being charged an admin fee of £1.16 as I haven't been playing. And they will continue to do so until my balance is £0. I assume this is legit, but is this standard/ fair?
Beat them to it and empty your account to £0


Title: Re: Party poker fee?!
Post by: verndog158 on December 06, 2016, 01:30:49 PM
Is this normal?!

Just received an email from party poker saying I'm being charged an admin fee of £1.16 as I haven't been playing. And they will continue to do so until my balance is £0. I assume this is legit, but is this standard/ fair?
Beat them to it and empty your account to £0

haha i was actually surprised there was £1.16 in there if im honest!!


Title: Re: Party poker fee?!
Post by: Mohican on December 06, 2016, 01:34:35 PM
Is this normal?!

Just received an email from party poker saying I'm being charged an admin fee of £1.16 as I haven't been playing. And they will continue to do so until my balance is £0. I assume this is legit, but is this standard/ fair?
Beat them to it and empty your account to £0

haha i was actually surprised there was £1.16 in there if im honest!!
I'd remove what's left on principle, even if it only buys a bag of crisps.


Title: Re: Party poker fee?!
Post by: doubleup on December 06, 2016, 02:49:37 PM
Is this normal?!

Just received an email from party poker saying I'm being charged an admin fee of £1.16 as I haven't been playing. And they will continue to do so until my balance is £0. I assume this is legit, but is this standard/ fair?

If you think that's bad 888/Pacific actually took $20k+ from an account under this term.

There isn't a hope in hell that this clause is legal under the UK Consumer Rights Act, but the UKGC doesn't gaf about much except problem and underage gambling and money laundering, everything else is fair game as we all know.


Title: Re: Party poker fee?!
Post by: bergeroo on December 06, 2016, 03:17:01 PM
yeah it is basically theft, but it is in the terms and conditions, so nothing you can do. I'm sure they have made a fair amount from dead people over the years.

 It has always been like that with Party. All people can do is show them they object and maybe they will change it.


Title: Re: Party poker fee?!
Post by: EvilPie on December 06, 2016, 04:33:06 PM
What admin is required on an account that isn't used?

Perhaps it's to cover all the spam they have to send out to try to get you back?


Title: Re: Party poker fee?!
Post by: DungBeetle on December 06, 2016, 04:55:53 PM
What admin is required on an account that isn't used?

Client money reconciliations potentially depending on jurisdiction.


Title: Re: Party poker fee?!
Post by: doubleup on December 06, 2016, 05:05:49 PM
What admin is required on an account that isn't used?

Client money reconciliations potentially depending on jurisdiction.

lol


Title: Re: Party poker fee?!
Post by: T8MML on December 06, 2016, 06:42:25 PM
Don't start me off!

While I was in hospital for a few months I got the exact same email. I wrote to them explaining my situ and that it was not possible to play whilst in hospital never mind the fact that with only one arm working at the time, therefore playing online poker might be a problem. The sum of money involved was irrelevant.

They didn't respond (a sad trait with PP) but still took the money. After getting out one of my first jobs was to empty the remaining 67p and remove the software. Of course as a regular and supporter of DTD I went back but I have little or no time for PP and have found just recently that their customer service is still a joke. Thankfully I'm able to see the difference between the cretins and DTD who have always been superb!


Title: Re: Party poker fee?!
Post by: bookiebasher on December 06, 2016, 07:35:35 PM
Don't start me off!

While I was in hospital for a few months I got the exact same email. I wrote to them explaining my situ and that it was not possible to play whilst in hospital never mind the fact that with only one arm working at the time, therefore playing online poker might be a problem. The sum of money involved was irrelevant.

They didn't respond (a sad trait with PP) but still took the money. After getting out one of my first jobs was to empty the remaining 67p and remove the software. Of course as a regular and supporter of DTD I went back but I have little or no time for PP and have found just recently that their customer service is still a joke. Thankfully I'm able to see the difference between the cretins and DTD who have always been superb!
e

Spot on


Title: Re: Party poker fee?!
Post by: DungBeetle on December 07, 2016, 12:12:23 AM
What admin is required on an account that isn't used?

Client money reconciliations potentially depending on jurisdiction.

lol

lol?  Multiple long standing Dormant clients with micro balances are a pain.  I assume you are mocking without elaborating because Party are in a non regulated jurisdiction?


Title: Re: Party poker fee?!
Post by: doubleup on December 07, 2016, 09:59:27 AM
What admin is required on an account that isn't used?

Client money reconciliations potentially depending on jurisdiction.

lol

lol?  Multiple long standing Dormant clients with micro balances are a pain.  I assume you are mocking without elaborating because Party are in a non regulated jurisdiction?

No I'm mocking because there is simply no way that they cost anything in the least bit significant to administer.  Poker companies have also taken some very large balances as well not micro balances.  The money is simply being confiscated.  Insurance companies and banks have had to deal with dormant accounts for decades.  At no time have they been permitted to enrich themselves with the funds.

 


Title: Re: Party poker fee?!
Post by: DungBeetle on December 07, 2016, 11:57:09 AM
What admin is required on an account that isn't used?

Client money reconciliations potentially depending on jurisdiction.

lol

lol?  Multiple long standing Dormant clients with micro balances are a pain.  I assume you are mocking without elaborating because Party are in a non regulated jurisdiction?

No I'm mocking because there is simply no way that they cost anything in the least bit significant to administer.  Poker companies have also taken some very large balances as well not micro balances.  The money is simply being confiscated.  Insurance companies and banks have had to deal with dormant accounts for decades.  At no time have they been permitted to enrich themselves with the funds.

 

Different jurisdictions have different rules. The "cost" of dormant accounts is obviously operational risk.  It's not an admisteairon cost as such as it is just another line on the system.  The cost is the dormant accounts lead to a real issue being overlooked.

The FCA allow very small balances to be paid away to charity after a lengthy 5 year process with conditions.  Depending on where your company is regulated the rules will be different in each case (and seemingly in Party's case allows them to absorb it).  Somebody asked what cost an unused account creates.  I gave a suggestion.  If your regulator allows you to get rid of dormant accounts this is a valid reason to do so (whether you think the particular rule is unfair to customers or not). 


Title: Re: Party poker fee?!
Post by: EvilPie on December 07, 2016, 01:30:24 PM
For a Company willing to paint a 737 as a promotion stunt to then upset existing clients by stealing £1.16 off them seems pretty ridiculous.

Where's the logic?



Title: Re: Party poker fee?!
Post by: RED-DOG on December 07, 2016, 01:47:11 PM
Surely to God this practice has to be counter productive.

It pisses people off.

When you are in business, you should not piss people off if at all possible. Fact.


Title: Re: Party poker fee?!
Post by: doubleup on December 07, 2016, 01:50:29 PM
What admin is required on an account that isn't used?

Client money reconciliations potentially depending on jurisdiction.

lol

lol?  Multiple long standing Dormant clients with micro balances are a pain.  I assume you are mocking without elaborating because Party are in a non regulated jurisdiction?

No I'm mocking because there is simply no way that they cost anything in the least bit significant to administer.  Poker companies have also taken some very large balances as well not micro balances.  The money is simply being confiscated.  Insurance companies and banks have had to deal with dormant accounts for decades.  At no time have they been permitted to enrich themselves with the funds.

 

Different jurisdictions have different rules. The "cost" of dormant accounts is obviously operational risk.  It's not an admisteairon cost as such as it is just another line on the system.  The cost is the dormant accounts lead to a real issue being overlooked.

The FCA allow very small balances to be paid away to charity after a lengthy 5 year process with conditions.  Depending on where your company is regulated the rules will be different in each case (and seemingly in Party's case allows them to absorb it).  Somebody asked what cost an unused account creates.  I gave a suggestion.  If your regulator allows you to get rid of dormant accounts this is a valid reason to do so (whether you think the particular rule is unfair to customers or not). 


The additional operational risk of dormant accounts is minute.  The money is being confiscated and the T&Cs should state that rather that implying that it is a charge for some sort of service or cost incurred.

Party were the first to come up with the "dormant account fee" scam, but after the GRA accepted it, other companies started using it.  The UKGC doesn't bother to check T&C, so it is used in the UK.  As I mentioned above Pacific/888 emptied thousands from accounts.  I would have no objection to small amounts going to charity being in T&C, but substantial amounts should be returned to the depositor and that failing be sent to some government body and could be reclaimed at some future point if required (I think Australia does this).



Title: Re: Party poker fee?!
Post by: arbboy on December 07, 2016, 01:50:59 PM
Surely to God this practice has to be counter productive.

It pisses people off.

When you are in business, you should not piss people off if at all possible. Fact.

It only pisses off the people who log back into their account to find out it has happened.  I would imagine 99% of people it happens to never know it has happened and have totally written off the money anyway because they don't know it is there.  Of the remaining 1% of people who are pissed off i imagine a fair few of them will still play there anyway in the future should they wish to play poker again.

It is pretty standard now among most online sports betting operators not just party poker.


Title: Re: Party poker fee?!
Post by: verndog158 on December 07, 2016, 01:52:40 PM
Do agree with the above post, it isnt the money, just the principal. Taking £1.16 now could stop some people loading up for grand prixs/ deepstacks/ festivals in the future. Luckily Im one of DTDs biggest fan boys so after a moan ill probably get over it.
Does Rob/DTD know about this? or is it just something Partypoker have in their T&Cs that has nothing to do with the DTD partnership?


Title: Re: Party poker fee?!
Post by: RED-DOG on December 07, 2016, 01:53:11 PM
Surely to God this practice has to be counter productive.

It pisses people off.

When you are in business, you should not piss people off if at all possible. Fact.

It only pisses off the people who log back into their account to find out it has happened.  I would imagine 99% of people it happens to never know it has happened and have totally written off the money anyway because they don't know it is there.  Of the remaining 1% of people who are pissed off i imagine a fair few of them will still play there anyway in the future should they wish to play poker again.

It pisses me off and I have never had an account there.


Title: Re: Party poker fee?!
Post by: TightEnd on December 07, 2016, 03:03:10 PM
Does Rob/DTD know about this? or is it just something Partypoker have in their T&Cs that has nothing to do with the DTD partnership?

11.1 and 11.2 in the T and C's long before the DTD partnership started.

https://www.partypoker.com/terms-and-conditions.html

Personally not a fan of it, for all the reasons people mention on the thread, but am not speaking for DTD on that.
was also surprised to hear Tim Blake wasn't reimbursed given his reason for not playing was serious illness. I was under the impression that if a player provides a reason like that for lack of play then the charge isn't levied.


Title: Re: Party poker fee?!
Post by: verndog158 on December 07, 2016, 03:15:20 PM
Does Rob/DTD know about this? or is it just something Partypoker have in their T&Cs that has nothing to do with the DTD partnership?

11.1 and 11.2 in the T and C's long before the DTD partnership started.

https://www.partypoker.com/terms-and-conditions.html

Personally not a fan of it, for all the reasons people mention on the thread, but am not speaking for DTD on that.
was also surprised to hear Tim Blake wasn't reimbursed given his reason for not playing was serious illness. I was under the impression that if a player provides a reason like that for lack of play then the charge isn't levied.

fair enough, i never thought that it was something implemented by DTD/ Rob, as I said Im a huge fan of theirs!

Seems like the PartyPoker support is fairly lacklustre in getting back to people, thats not from personal experience but from what I've read on various social media. What a shame, hope DTD doesnt suffer as a result

P.S. can i have my £1.16 back yet?


Title: Re: Party poker fee?!
Post by: DungBeetle on December 07, 2016, 03:54:58 PM
What admin is required on an account that isn't used?

Client money reconciliations potentially depending on jurisdiction.

lol

lol?  Multiple long standing Dormant clients with micro balances are a pain.  I assume you are mocking without elaborating because Party are in a non regulated jurisdiction?

No I'm mocking because there is simply no way that they cost anything in the least bit significant to administer.  Poker companies have also taken some very large balances as well not micro balances.  The money is simply being confiscated.  Insurance companies and banks have had to deal with dormant accounts for decades.  At no time have they been permitted to enrich themselves with the funds.

 

Different jurisdictions have different rules. The "cost" of dormant accounts is obviously operational risk.  It's not an admisteairon cost as such as it is just another line on the system.  The cost is the dormant accounts lead to a real issue being overlooked.

The FCA allow very small balances to be paid away to charity after a lengthy 5 year process with conditions.  Depending on where your company is regulated the rules will be different in each case (and seemingly in Party's case allows them to absorb it).  Somebody asked what cost an unused account creates.  I gave a suggestion.  If your regulator allows you to get rid of dormant accounts this is a valid reason to do so (whether you think the particular rule is unfair to customers or not). 


The additional operational risk of dormant accounts is minute.  The money is being confiscated and the T&Cs should state that rather that implying that it is a charge for some sort of service or cost incurred.

Party were the first to come up with the "dormant account fee" scam, but after the GRA accepted it, other companies started using it.  The UKGC doesn't bother to check T&C, so it is used in the UK.  As I mentioned above Pacific/888 emptied thousands from accounts.  I would have no objection to small amounts going to charity being in T&C, but substantial amounts should be returned to the depositor and that failing be sent to some government body and could be reclaimed at some future point if required (I think Australia does this).



Unless you work for Party you have no idea what their operational risk is from dormant accounts.  They may have top end systems so you may be correct and it is minute.  They may have lack of automation in areas so the operational risk may be of concern to them with whatever procedures their regulator makes them carry out.  Statements, Client Money, Regulatory returns blah blah blah.   Not sure why you seem to want to argue about it to be honest.  Someone asked for an example of a cost of dormant accounts and I gave them one.   Whether you think it's an abuse of clients is irrelevant to my point.  I would agree with you that it is indeed very poor practice of that is what you are trying to get at with your original "lol".  I would also agree with your last sentence as to what would be sensible business practice.


Title: Re: Party poker fee?!
Post by: Tal on December 07, 2016, 04:21:02 PM
The only reason banks don't charge you for looking after your money - and even pay you for the privilege - is because they make so much money off people with other products (mortgages, loans, credit cards, insurance, etc) that they don't need to.

If Party can't make money off you because you're not playing on their site, why should they have all the trouble of looking after your money?

I didn't know they charged and I've only found out today (or if I read it in the terms and conditions when I signed up, I've forgotten). I don't have an issue with it, though. Would prefer they didn't do it, but I don't have an issue with it.


Title: Re: Party poker fee?!
Post by: doubleup on December 07, 2016, 04:29:17 PM
The only reason banks don't charge you for looking after your money - and even pay you for the privilege - is because they make so much money off people with other products (mortgages, loans, credit cards, insurance, etc) that they don't need to.

If Party can't make money off you because you're not playing on their site, why should they have all the trouble of looking after your money?

I didn't know they charged and I've only found out today (or if I read it in the terms and conditions when I signed up, I've forgotten). I don't have an issue with it, though. Would prefer they didn't do it, but I don't have an issue with it.


It isn't a charge, it's confiscation.  If it was actually a charge it would be in proportion to the services provided.  Pacific/888 "charged" more than $2k a month under the same T&C.

As already discussed in the thread banks aren't allowed to confiscate funds in dormant accounts and obviously they aren't making any money from "other products" in these cases.



Title: Re: Party poker fee?!
Post by: pleno1 on December 07, 2016, 04:35:36 PM
I'm not sure on profitability of doing this vs pissing people off, but stars announced they were doing basically same thing as wel now, 888 obviously do it too. Industry standard "unfortunately" but maybe makes sense for reasons we don't know.


Title: Re: Party poker fee?!
Post by: RED-DOG on December 07, 2016, 05:44:26 PM
I'm not sure on profitability of doing this vs pissing people off, but stars announced they were doing basically same thing as wel now, 888 obviously do it too. Industry standard "unfortunately" but maybe makes sense for reasons we don't know.


If there's a good reason they should tell everyone what it is.


Title: Re: Party poker fee?!
Post by: celtic on December 08, 2016, 02:38:46 PM
Does Rob/DTD know about this? or is it just something Partypoker have in their T&Cs that has nothing to do with the DTD partnership?

11.1 and 11.2 in the T and C's long before the DTD partnership started.

https://www.partypoker.com/terms-and-conditions.html

Personally not a fan of it, for all the reasons people mention on the thread, but am not speaking for DTD on that.
was also surprised to hear Tim Blake wasn't reimbursed given his reason for not playing was serious illness. I was under the impression that if a player provides a reason like that for lack of play then the charge isn't levied.

fair enough, i never thought that it was something implemented by DTD/ Rob, as I said Im a huge fan of theirs!

Seems like the PartyPoker support is fairly lacklustre in getting back to people, thats not from personal experience but from what I've read on various social media. What a shame, hope DTD doesnt suffer as a result

P.S. can i have my £1.16 back yet?

If you promise to get seriously ill, I will send you £1.20 :)


Title: Re: Party poker fee?!
Post by: 4KSuited on December 08, 2016, 04:17:30 PM
The only reason banks don't charge you for looking after your money - and even pay you for the privilege - is because they make so much money off people with other products (mortgages, loans, credit cards, insurance, etc) that they don't need to.

If Party can't make money off you because you're not playing on their site, why should they have all the trouble of looking after your money?

I didn't know they charged and I've only found out today (or if I read it in the terms and conditions when I signed up, I've forgotten). I don't have an issue with it, though. Would prefer they didn't do it, but I don't have an issue with it.


It isn't a charge, it's confiscation.  If it was actually a charge it would be in proportion to the services provided.  Pacific/888 "charged" more than $2k a month under the same T&C.

As already discussed in the thread banks aren't allowed to confiscate funds in dormant accounts and obviously they aren't making any money from "other products" in these cases.


Without wishing to be pedantic, it's fair to say that banks make money on the dormant accounts by lending it to other customers at higher interest rates than they pay the dormant account holder. They can also use it to place on deposit with other institutions at higher rates of interest. On this basis, the banks just love a dormant account or two.


Title: Re: Party poker fee?!
Post by: Doobs on December 08, 2016, 07:28:23 PM
The only reason banks don't charge you for looking after your money - and even pay you for the privilege - is because they make so much money off people with other products (mortgages, loans, credit cards, insurance, etc) that they don't need to.

If Party can't make money off you because you're not playing on their site, why should they have all the trouble of looking after your money?

I didn't know they charged and I've only found out today (or if I read it in the terms and conditions when I signed up, I've forgotten). I don't have an issue with it, though. Would prefer they didn't do it, but I don't have an issue with it.


It isn't a charge, it's confiscation.  If it was actually a charge it would be in proportion to the services provided.  Pacific/888 "charged" more than $2k a month under the same T&C.

As already discussed in the thread banks aren't allowed to confiscate funds in dormant accounts and obviously they aren't making any money from "other products" in these cases.


Without wishing to be pedantic, it's fair to say that banks make money on the dormant accounts by lending it to other customers at higher interest rates than they pay the dormant account holder. They can also use it to place on deposit with other institutions at higher rates of interest. On this basis, the banks just love a dormant account or two.

Banks/insurance companies hate accounts with little in.  The costs of running them far outweigh the amount gained in interest.  If somebody had left 50k on deposit it may be a different story.

Banks/insurers can confiscate the money in these accounts after a certain period of time - around 15 years I think.  Before they do this, they will spash a decent sum on trying to trace the holder.  If it is a small sum in the account, this isn't a profit making exercise.

In addition, banks/insurers can and will charge these accounts.  Some bank accounts have fees on them.  Insurers can charge policy fees, mortality charges etc on paid up accounts.  So long as such fees are fair, and spelled out I don't see an issue.  Though it is probably fair to say insurers can fall over due to "treating customers fairly" rules they should follow.  Even then with a long dormant policy where the holder isn't traceable then it is still ok to confiscate.

The $20k 888 alleged confiscation has got absolutely f all to do with this.  It is a separate company, and their terms and conditions must be completely different (think Party is max 5 euros).  There must be zero chance that would be seen as a fair  contract (or terms and conditions) in a uk court if it was taken away for non playing.  If it was taken away for cheating etc. that would be a different story.

As it is I just don't have an issue here, it is pretty unlikely that a court would find a £1 charge excessive, and it isn't hard to find in the ts and cs.   

Whether it is in Party's interest to charge it is another question.  I think it is likely self defeating, because of bad publicity. But even that isn't clear cut as some people will respond by starting playing again.  Suspect Party have a better handle on this than I do.


Title: Re: Party poker fee?!
Post by: DungBeetle on December 08, 2016, 11:15:45 PM
The only reason banks don't charge you for looking after your money - and even pay you for the privilege - is because they make so much money off people with other products (mortgages, loans, credit cards, insurance, etc) that they don't need to.

If Party can't make money off you because you're not playing on their site, why should they have all the trouble of looking after your money?

I didn't know they charged and I've only found out today (or if I read it in the terms and conditions when I signed up, I've forgotten). I don't have an issue with it, though. Would prefer they didn't do it, but I don't have an issue with it.


It isn't a charge, it's confiscation.  If it was actually a charge it would be in proportion to the services provided.  Pacific/888 "charged" more than $2k a month under the same T&C.

As already discussed in the thread banks aren't allowed to confiscate funds in dormant accounts and obviously they aren't making any money from "other products" in these cases.


Without wishing to be pedantic, it's fair to say that banks make money on the dormant accounts by lending it to other customers at higher interest rates than they pay the dormant account holder. They can also use it to place on deposit with other institutions at higher rates of interest. On this basis, the banks just love a dormant account or two.

Nope.  Banks hate dormant accounts with small balances.


Title: Re: Party poker fee?!
Post by: doubleup on December 08, 2016, 11:28:36 PM
The only reason banks don't charge you for looking after your money - and even pay you for the privilege - is because they make so much money off people with other products (mortgages, loans, credit cards, insurance, etc) that they don't need to.

If Party can't make money off you because you're not playing on their site, why should they have all the trouble of looking after your money?

I didn't know they charged and I've only found out today (or if I read it in the terms and conditions when I signed up, I've forgotten). I don't have an issue with it, though. Would prefer they didn't do it, but I don't have an issue with it.


It isn't a charge, it's confiscation.  If it was actually a charge it would be in proportion to the services provided.  Pacific/888 "charged" more than $2k a month under the same T&C.

As already discussed in the thread banks aren't allowed to confiscate funds in dormant accounts and obviously they aren't making any money from "other products" in these cases.


Without wishing to be pedantic, it's fair to say that banks make money on the dormant accounts by lending it to other customers at higher interest rates than they pay the dormant account holder. They can also use it to place on deposit with other institutions at higher rates of interest. On this basis, the banks just love a dormant account or two.

Banks/insurance companies hate accounts with little in.  The costs of running them far outweigh the amount gained in interest.  If somebody had left 50k on deposit it may be a different story.

Banks/insurers can confiscate the money in these accounts after a certain period of time - around 15 years I think.  Before they do this, they will spash a decent sum on trying to trace the holder.  If it is a small sum in the account, this isn't a profit making exercise.

In addition, banks/insurers can and will charge these accounts.  Some bank accounts have fees on them.  Insurers can charge policy fees, mortality charges etc on paid up accounts.  So long as such fees are fair, and spelled out I don't see an issue.  Though it is probably fair to say insurers can fall over due to "treating customers fairly" rules they should follow.  Even then with a long dormant policy where the holder isn't traceable then it is still ok to confiscate.

The $20k 888 alleged confiscation has got absolutely f all to do with this.  It is a separate company, and their terms and conditions must be completely different (think Party is max 5 euros).  There must be zero chance that would be seen as a fair  contract (or terms and conditions) in a uk court if it was taken away for non playing.  If it was taken away for cheating etc. that would be a different story.

As it is I just don't have an issue here, it is pretty unlikely that a court would find a £1 charge excessive, and it isn't hard to find in the ts and cs.   

Whether it is in Party's interest to charge it is another question.  I think it is likely self defeating, because of bad publicity. But even that isn't clear cut as some people will respond by starting playing again.  Suspect Party have a better handle on this than I do.

Party appear to have changed their term to €5 - they used to levy a % of balance as Ladbrokes do* and 888/Pacific did in the example above.  I don't actually object to a small fixed charge as long as the customer is advised to withdraw beforehand.

ps insurance companies and banks most certainly can't levy specific charges aimed at orphaned funds eg paid-up policies if they can't trace the policyholder.

*https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/dec/07/ladbrokes-bookmakers-punter-refunded-money



Title: Re: Party poker fee?!
Post by: DungBeetle on December 08, 2016, 11:42:12 PM
The only reason banks don't charge you for looking after your money - and even pay you for the privilege - is because they make so much money off people with other products (mortgages, loans, credit cards, insurance, etc) that they don't need to.

If Party can't make money off you because you're not playing on their site, why should they have all the trouble of looking after your money?

I didn't know they charged and I've only found out today (or if I read it in the terms and conditions when I signed up, I've forgotten). I don't have an issue with it, though. Would prefer they didn't do it, but I don't have an issue with it.


It isn't a charge, it's confiscation.  If it was actually a charge it would be in proportion to the services provided.  Pacific/888 "charged" more than $2k a month under the same T&C.

As already discussed in the thread banks aren't allowed to confiscate funds in dormant accounts and obviously they aren't making any money from "other products" in these cases.


Without wishing to be pedantic, it's fair to say that banks make money on the dormant accounts by lending it to other customers at higher interest rates than they pay the dormant account holder. They can also use it to place on deposit with other institutions at higher rates of interest. On this basis, the banks just love a dormant account or two.

Banks/insurance companies hate accounts with little in.  The costs of running them far outweigh the amount gained in interest.  If somebody had left 50k on deposit it may be a different story.

Banks/insurers can confiscate the money in these accounts after a certain period of time - around 15 years I think.  Before they do this, they will spash a decent sum on trying to trace the holder.  If it is a small sum in the account, this isn't a profit making exercise.

In addition, banks/insurers can and will charge these accounts.  Some bank accounts have fees on them.  Insurers can charge policy fees, mortality charges etc on paid up accounts.  So long as such fees are fair, and spelled out I don't see an issue.  Though it is probably fair to say insurers can fall over due to "treating customers fairly" rules they should follow.  Even then with a long dormant policy where the holder isn't traceable then it is still ok to confiscate.

The $20k 888 alleged confiscation has got absolutely f all to do with this.  It is a separate company, and their terms and conditions must be completely different (think Party is max 5 euros).  There must be zero chance that would be seen as a fair  contract (or terms and conditions) in a uk court if it was taken away for non playing.  If it was taken away for cheating etc. that would be a different story.

As it is I just don't have an issue here, it is pretty unlikely that a court would find a £1 charge excessive, and it isn't hard to find in the ts and cs.   

Whether it is in Party's interest to charge it is another question.  I think it is likely self defeating, because of bad publicity. But even that isn't clear cut as some people will respond by starting playing again.  Suspect Party have a better handle on this than I do.

Party appear to have changed their term to €5 - they used to levy a % of balance as Ladbrokes do* and 888/Pacific did in the example above.  I don't actually object to a small fixed charge as long as the customer is advised to withdraw beforehand.

ps insurance companies and banks most certainly can't levy specific charges aimed at orphaned funds eg paid-up policies if they can't trace the policyholder.

*https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/dec/07/ladbrokes-bookmakers-punter-refunded-money



You can pay away "client money" to charities though if you made extensive efforts to trace the holders after many years as Doobs says.  Covered in FCA handbook from memory but the rules are a nightmare if you do want to do it.  Ultimately this is likely loosely regulated organisations using sensible rules to adopt questionable practices.


Title: Re: Party poker fee?!
Post by: doubleup on December 09, 2016, 12:02:05 AM
The only reason banks don't charge you for looking after your money - and even pay you for the privilege - is because they make so much money off people with other products (mortgages, loans, credit cards, insurance, etc) that they don't need to.

If Party can't make money off you because you're not playing on their site, why should they have all the trouble of looking after your money?

I didn't know they charged and I've only found out today (or if I read it in the terms and conditions when I signed up, I've forgotten). I don't have an issue with it, though. Would prefer they didn't do it, but I don't have an issue with it.


It isn't a charge, it's confiscation.  If it was actually a charge it would be in proportion to the services provided.  Pacific/888 "charged" more than $2k a month under the same T&C.

As already discussed in the thread banks aren't allowed to confiscate funds in dormant accounts and obviously they aren't making any money from "other products" in these cases.


Without wishing to be pedantic, it's fair to say that banks make money on the dormant accounts by lending it to other customers at higher interest rates than they pay the dormant account holder. They can also use it to place on deposit with other institutions at higher rates of interest. On this basis, the banks just love a dormant account or two.

Banks/insurance companies hate accounts with little in.  The costs of running them far outweigh the amount gained in interest.  If somebody had left 50k on deposit it may be a different story.

Banks/insurers can confiscate the money in these accounts after a certain period of time - around 15 years I think.  Before they do this, they will spash a decent sum on trying to trace the holder.  If it is a small sum in the account, this isn't a profit making exercise.

In addition, banks/insurers can and will charge these accounts.  Some bank accounts have fees on them.  Insurers can charge policy fees, mortality charges etc on paid up accounts.  So long as such fees are fair, and spelled out I don't see an issue.  Though it is probably fair to say insurers can fall over due to "treating customers fairly" rules they should follow.  Even then with a long dormant policy where the holder isn't traceable then it is still ok to confiscate.

The $20k 888 alleged confiscation has got absolutely f all to do with this.  It is a separate company, and their terms and conditions must be completely different (think Party is max 5 euros).  There must be zero chance that would be seen as a fair  contract (or terms and conditions) in a uk court if it was taken away for non playing.  If it was taken away for cheating etc. that would be a different story.

As it is I just don't have an issue here, it is pretty unlikely that a court would find a £1 charge excessive, and it isn't hard to find in the ts and cs.   

Whether it is in Party's interest to charge it is another question.  I think it is likely self defeating, because of bad publicity. But even that isn't clear cut as some people will respond by starting playing again.  Suspect Party have a better handle on this than I do.

Party appear to have changed their term to €5 - they used to levy a % of balance as Ladbrokes do* and 888/Pacific did in the example above.  I don't actually object to a small fixed charge as long as the customer is advised to withdraw beforehand.

ps insurance companies and banks most certainly can't levy specific charges aimed at orphaned funds eg paid-up policies if they can't trace the policyholder.

*https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/dec/07/ladbrokes-bookmakers-punter-refunded-money



You can pay away "client money" to charities though if you made extensive efforts to trace the holders after many years as Doobs says.  Covered in FCA handbook from memory but the rules are a nightmare if you do want to do it.  Ultimately this is likely loosely regulated organisations using sensible rules to adopt questionable practices.


The charity bit must be a pretty recent change as the best use of unclaimed assets was being debated for years.  In any case as far as poker accounts are concerned, as I said I don't object to a small fixed amount.  I do still think that the % of balance fee as previously practised by Party and still used by Ladbrokes and others is a disgrace and hopefully will be banned after the Competition Authority investigation into bookies' behaviour.




Title: Re: Party poker fee?!
Post by: Ironside on December 09, 2016, 12:14:56 AM
i had £5 on 365 which i never really used had the money on there to watch a footy game  that wasnt being shown in this country but they were showing. They sent me an email saying as i hadnt used the site in a while they were going to start taking a fee. I logged on withdrew the £5 and its no claiming 1% apr interest in my bankacccount not theres


Title: Re: Party poker fee?!
Post by: DungBeetle on December 09, 2016, 11:44:16 AM
The only reason banks don't charge you for looking after your money - and even pay you for the privilege - is because they make so much money off people with other products (mortgages, loans, credit cards, insurance, etc) that they don't need to.

If Party can't make money off you because you're not playing on their site, why should they have all the trouble of looking after your money?

I didn't know they charged and I've only found out today (or if I read it in the terms and conditions when I signed up, I've forgotten). I don't have an issue with it, though. Would prefer they didn't do it, but I don't have an issue with it.


It isn't a charge, it's confiscation.  If it was actually a charge it would be in proportion to the services provided.  Pacific/888 "charged" more than $2k a month under the same T&C.

As already discussed in the thread banks aren't allowed to confiscate funds in dormant accounts and obviously they aren't making any money from "other products" in these cases.


Without wishing to be pedantic, it's fair to say that banks make money on the dormant accounts by lending it to other customers at higher interest rates than they pay the dormant account holder. They can also use it to place on deposit with other institutions at higher rates of interest. On this basis, the banks just love a dormant account or two.

Banks/insurance companies hate accounts with little in.  The costs of running them far outweigh the amount gained in interest.  If somebody had left 50k on deposit it may be a different story.

Banks/insurers can confiscate the money in these accounts after a certain period of time - around 15 years I think.  Before they do this, they will spash a decent sum on trying to trace the holder.  If it is a small sum in the account, this isn't a profit making exercise.

In addition, banks/insurers can and will charge these accounts.  Some bank accounts have fees on them.  Insurers can charge policy fees, mortality charges etc on paid up accounts.  So long as such fees are fair, and spelled out I don't see an issue.  Though it is probably fair to say insurers can fall over due to "treating customers fairly" rules they should follow.  Even then with a long dormant policy where the holder isn't traceable then it is still ok to confiscate.

The $20k 888 alleged confiscation has got absolutely f all to do with this.  It is a separate company, and their terms and conditions must be completely different (think Party is max 5 euros).  There must be zero chance that would be seen as a fair  contract (or terms and conditions) in a uk court if it was taken away for non playing.  If it was taken away for cheating etc. that would be a different story.

As it is I just don't have an issue here, it is pretty unlikely that a court would find a £1 charge excessive, and it isn't hard to find in the ts and cs.   

Whether it is in Party's interest to charge it is another question.  I think it is likely self defeating, because of bad publicity. But even that isn't clear cut as some people will respond by starting playing again.  Suspect Party have a better handle on this than I do.

Party appear to have changed their term to €5 - they used to levy a % of balance as Ladbrokes do* and 888/Pacific did in the example above.  I don't actually object to a small fixed charge as long as the customer is advised to withdraw beforehand.

ps insurance companies and banks most certainly can't levy specific charges aimed at orphaned funds eg paid-up policies if they can't trace the policyholder.

*https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/dec/07/ladbrokes-bookmakers-punter-refunded-money



You can pay away "client money" to charities though if you made extensive efforts to trace the holders after many years as Doobs says.  Covered in FCA handbook from memory but the rules are a nightmare if you do want to do it.  Ultimately this is likely loosely regulated organisations using sensible rules to adopt questionable practices.


The charity bit must be a pretty recent change as the best use of unclaimed assets was being debated for years.  In any case as far as poker accounts are concerned, as I said I don't object to a small fixed amount.  I do still think that the % of balance fee as previously practised by Party and still used by Ladbrokes and others is a disgrace and hopefully will be banned after the Competition Authority investigation into bookies' behaviour.




Yes it's from about 2 years ago I think but the efforts you have to go to to locate the owner are extensive.  I think there is even a rule that says if Joe Bloggs turns up years later you still need to pay him even if you have already followed the procedure and donated.  That's fine though as organisation gets to zap the dormant account if it wants at their own risk while client is still protected if he ever shows up.

As you say this is a world away from the rules governing bookies and poker firms.


Title: Re: Party poker fee?!
Post by: RED-DOG on December 09, 2016, 11:49:54 AM

I have never had an account there.



I've just realised that this is a lie. I do have an account but I only opened it use it for DTD stuff.


Title: Re: Party poker fee?!
Post by: TightEnd on December 09, 2016, 04:33:29 PM
Ladbrokes has issued an apology and a refund to an irate sports betting customer after it removed £1,300 worth of “dormant account fees” from the customer’s account.

https://uk.pokernews.com/news/2016/12/ladbrokes-refund-irate-sports-betting-customer-25980.htm?utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=homefeed&utm_source=rss


Title: Re: Party poker fee?!
Post by: doubleup on December 09, 2016, 05:44:35 PM
Ladbrokes has issued an apology and a refund to an irate sports betting customer after it removed £1,300 worth of “dormant account fees” from the customer’s account.

https://uk.pokernews.com/news/2016/12/ladbrokes-refund-irate-sports-betting-customer-25980.htm?utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=homefeed&utm_source=rss

Do try to keep up

..........
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/dec/07/ladbrokes-bookmakers-punter-refunded-money