Party poker fee?!

[doubleup]

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.

 

[DungBeetle]

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). 

[EvilPie]

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?

[RED-DOG]

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.

[doubleup]

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).

[arbboy]

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.

[verndog158]

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?

[RED-DOG]

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.

[TightEnd]

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.

[verndog158]

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?

[DungBeetle]

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.

[Tal]

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.

[doubleup]

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.

[pleno1]

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.

[RED-DOG]

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.