Party poker fee?!

[celtic]

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

[4KSuited]

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.

[Doobs]

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.

[DungBeetle]

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.

[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.

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

[DungBeetle]

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.

[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.

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.

[Ironside]

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

[DungBeetle]

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.

[RED-DOG]

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.

[TightEnd]

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

[doubleup]

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