Deposit with a third party card

The company initially asked me for proof of my IBAN, as there was an issue with its verification. I sent the required proof and was then officially informed by the company that my IBAN was successfully verified.

I have sent all the required identification and verification documents that were requested of me.

I sent the details of the cards that had been used for transactions on my account.

The specific cards belong to my son and I declared this to the company from the beginning. I did not try to hide this specific fact. On the contrary, I cooperated fully in order to prove that the transactions were made with his knowledge and consent.

The company additionally requested proof of ownership of the Revolut card with the last digits 4081, as well as contact information for the cardholder.

I provided the company with my son's contact number and also sent a Solemn Declaration via Gov.gr, in which he confirms that the transactions totaling €160, which were made with the cards with the last digits 6300 and 4081, were made with his knowledge and consent and that he is the owner of the specific cards.

I also sent my son's IBAN, as requested.

In addition, the company contacted my son himself by phone, in order to confirm the relevant information and his consent.

After sending all the above supporting documents, I was informed by the company that "the documents you sent us have been forwarded for review and an update is expected."

Despite the fact that I have responded to all of the company's requests and have sent all of the information requested, approximately 15 days have now passed during which my account remains closed, without having received clear information about the outcome of the audit, whether there is anything further pending, or when the process will be completed.

I have contacted customer service repeatedly and the response I receive is that the case is "still being processed," but without providing me with any specific information or timeline.

At the same time, I have repeatedly sent emails to the company, without receiving a substantive response to my case.

For the case, the company itself has registered my relevant requests/complaints with numbers:

#03896992

#03896974

The most important issue for me is that, due to the account being blocked, I cannot access my money and winnings, which are a significant amount, nor can I make a withdrawal.

Furthermore, part of my profits has already been subject to taxation/withholding by the company, with an amount of €2,000 already withheld as tax, which makes it even more serious for me that I have not been able to access or withdraw my money to this day.

I am not asking for any company audit to be bypassed. I have fully accepted the verification process and have cooperated at every stage. What I am asking for is for the audit to be completed within a reasonable time frame and for me to be clearly informed of the outcome.

In the event that the company considers that the use of third-party cards constitutes a violation of its terms, I request that I be clearly informed of what the specific violation is, what the decision has been made and, most importantly, what will happen to my existing balance and winnings.

To date I have not received any clear information that my funds have been seized, cancelled or will not be returned to me. However, I have been deprived of access to them for approximately 15 days, without specific information about the completion of the audit.

For all the above reasons, I ask the EEEP to examine my case and, within the framework of its responsibilities, to investigate:

why is my account still closed,

if there is still anything pending on my part,

if the company has completed checking the supporting documents I sent them,

What is the company's position regarding the use of my son's cards, given that this has been declared and documented and he has contacted the company by phone,

and most importantly what is going to happen to my balance and winnings and how can I access them and withdraw them.

I am at the disposal of the EEEP to provide any additional information or document required and can provide all of my correspondence with Pamestoixima / Allwyn, the company's requests, my responses, the evidence I sent, as well as the relevant communications data.

Hello,

I believe I can say that I understand you seek answers and explanations, and the casino has not provided that to you. From your perspective you cooperated in order to get the account verified, but instead the account is still blocked.

I just want to ask rit from the start whether this situation is related to the casino "Pame Stoixima Casino" please? I'm asking because I spot one request for a complaint that could not be accepted and another one pending.

In my opinion, the fact that the third-party payment option was deliberately used for the deposit, even though you mentioned that you informed the casino about it, may cause problems. From the description I cannot specifically say whether the deposit was made first and then the casino was informed or whether the casino decided that it was okay and you can continue.

Since your account remains closed, I understand that the payouts won't be processed unless the verification part ends. For now, it all, in my opinion, depends on the outcome of the verification.

This is certainly not an easy situation and I would also expect some conclusion from the casino.

I want to file a new complaint regarding my case with Pame Stoixima / Allwyn, because there is now a very specific and serious financial issue that remains unresolved.

My account number was 780156503.

Allwyn decided to permanently close my account, citing as the main reason the use of two cards belonging to my son, i.e. a third party. The total amount deposited through these cards was only €160.

I do not dispute that the specific cards belonged to my son. This fact was stated and confirmed to the company. My son cooperated with Allwyn, contacted them and confirmed that he was the cardholder and that he was aware of and consented to the specific transactions.

I, for my part, fully cooperated with all checks. I provided my identification details, card details, proofs, Solemn Declarations, my son's contact details, IBAN and any other document requested.

Allwyn, after completing its audit, invoked regulations regarding the use of third-party payment instruments and closed my account.

But the crucial issue is this:

Allwyn itself cites a regulation according to which, when it is confirmed that a third-party payment instrument was used, the capital deposited must be returned to the legal holder of that payment instrument.

In my case, the amount of deposits through my son's cards was €160.

Despite the fact that Allwyn invokes this very rule to justify closing my account and not returning my money, the €160 has never been returned to the actual cardholder, according to what we know and according to what the company has evidently disclosed to us.

This is the main subject of my new complaint.

Allwyn has invoked the regulations to cancel my winnings and close my account, but at the same time has not proven that it has returned the capital of €160 to the legitimate cardholder.

I want to be absolutely clear that I am not asking Casino Guru to ignore the rule regarding third-party cards.

Instead, I ask that it be examined whether Allwyn applied the very rule it relies on.

If the company claims that the specific deposits of €160 were impermissible because they were made with third-party cards, then, according to the position it itself invokes, the amount of the paid-up capital must be returned to the legal holder of the cards.

However, to date I have not received clear and conclusive information that this happened.

I have not been given:

exact refund amount,

return date,

proof of transaction,

details of the account to which the refund was made,

nor confirmation from the actual cardholder that he received the €160.

This is particularly important because Allwyn has closed my account and has already canceled/not refunded money citing these regulations.

At the same time, in its final decision it states that the available balance of my account was €4,370.74 and that the profits associated with deposits via third-party cards were treated in accordance with its terms.

However, even if Casino Guru accepts that Allwyn was entitled to apply this particular rule regarding third-party deposits, a very simple question remains:

Where is the €160 of the real cardholder?

It is not reasonable, in my opinion, for the company to invoke a rule to withhold or cancel profits, but at the same time be unable to prove that it returned the paid-up capital itself to the legitimate cardholder.

My son had cooperated with Allwyn and had provided her with the information requested to identify and confirm ownership of the cards.

At a later stage, the company even sent him a special statement in which there was a field to declare an IBAN in case of a refund.

This particular last statement was never signed by my son and was not submitted to Allwyn.

Therefore, I ask Casino Guru not to consider the return of €160 as proven just because Allwyn claims that it has made or would make a return.

I request that Allwyn be asked for actual proof of the transaction.

If the €160 has indeed been refunded, the company should be able to prove:

the exact amount,

the date,

the way of return,

the beneficiary,

and the payment method or account to which the refund was made.

If the company claims that the €160 was not refunded because there is a specific reason, I ask that it explain it in writing and document it.

There is also a second issue that I consider important.

Allwyn permanently closed my account and did not refund/cancel the money in it, citing as the main reason the use of two cards belonging to my son. The total amount deposited through these cards was only €160.

I do not dispute that the cards belonged to my son. This fact was reported to Allwyn and my son fully cooperated with the company, confirming that he was the cardholder and that he was aware of and consented to the specific transactions. For my part, I sent all identification details, card details, Responsible Declarations, contact details, IBAN and all additional supporting documents requested from me.

Allwyn cites in its final decision the regulations regarding the use of third-party payment instruments. According to the same rule that the company invokes, when the use of such an instrument is confirmed, the paid capital is returned to the legal owner of the payment instrument, while any profits associated with the specific deposit are not returned.

The crucial issue is that Allwyn has not proven that it ever returned the €160 to the actual cardholder.

I have not been given it to date:

proof of return of €160,

date of the alleged return,

transaction details,

confirmation that my son received the amount,

nor a clear explanation of where the specific €160 is today.

Therefore, I ask Casino Guru to specifically examine whether Allwyn has actually applied the same regulation it claims. I am not asking that the rule regarding third-party cards be ignored. I am asking that it be checked whether, after the company decided to apply this rule, it has actually returned the funds to the legitimate cardholder.

There is one more important thing. Allwyn asked my son for his details and IBAN as part of the verification process. Later, she sent him a separate statement, which included a field where he had to state the IBAN to which he wanted any refund to be paid.

This particular last statement was never signed by my son and was not submitted to Allwyn.

Therefore, there is no specific signed order on his part that selects an account for the refund of €160.

At the same time, Allwyn states in its final decision that the available balance of my account was €4,370.74 and that the profits associated with the third-party deposits were canceled.

However, I request a clear financial settlement. The €160 of third-party deposits do not match the total balance of €4,370.74. The company must specifically explain what amount it considers capital, what profits, what amount it associates with the €160 deposits, what amount it canceled and, most importantly, what amount it actually returned to the legitimate cardholder.

Furthermore, Allwyn states that during our communication, "serious doubts" arose regarding the exclusive use and management of my account. To date, she has not presented me with specific evidence to prove that my son or any other person was managing my account. The fact that the cards belonged to my son is not in itself proof of management of the account.

I ask Casino Guru to ask Allwyn:

To prove with an actual transaction receipt that the €160 was returned to the legitimate cardholder.

Please indicate the exact date, amount and account/instrument to which the refund was made.

If no refund was made, she should specifically explain why the rule she is citing was not applied.

To provide full settlement of the amount of €4,370.74, with separation of capital and profits.

Explain exactly what amount he considers to be related to the deposits of €160 and what amount was cancelled.

Provide specific evidence for the claim that a third party was managing my account.

My basic request is simple: since Allwyn invokes the rule that the capital from a third-party payment instrument is returned to the rightful owner, to prove that the €160 was actually returned.

If they have not been returned, I request that they be returned to the actual cardholder in a manner that can be proven and is truly accessible to the beneficiary.

I ask Casino Guru to continue examining the case and request specific answers and evidence from Allwyn for the €160, as well as the full financial settlement of my account.

Hello again.

I have read your updates. I understand that Allwyn has now made a final decision to close your account and that your main question is whether the €160 deposited with your son’s cards has been returned to him. You are also asking for an explanation of how Allwyn dealt with the €4,370.74 account balance.

I can see that you have submitted a new complaint covering these points. Your first complaint request was rejected, and the new one is still awaiting assessment. The forum discussion does not itself mean that the new complaint has been accepted or that we have begun investigating Allwyn’s decision.

If the new complaint is accepted, the complaint team will review the information and tell you what can be examined. For now, please keep any evidence concerning the €160 refund, your son’s confirmation, and Allwyn’s final decision available for that process. I do not want to speculate about whether a refund has been made or how the balance was calculated without that evidence.

I understand why you want a clear answer. We will update you through the complaint process once the new request has been assessed.

I would like to return to the rejection of my complaint, as I believe that there is a specific point in the case that has not been answered.

I am not disputing the casino's decision regarding my account in this message. What I am asking for is to be examined whether the refund procedure provided for in the casino's own terms and conditions was followed.

According to the rule invoked by Pamestoixima/Allwyn in my case, when it is established that a payment instrument belonging to a third party was used, the amount of the deposit must be returned to the legal holder of the specific payment instrument.

In my case, the total amount of deposits made through these cards amounts to €160. I have already provided the necessary evidence proving that the cards belong to my son and have fully cooperated with the verification process.

The problem is that, despite the casino's invocation of this specific regulation, it has not been proven to date that the €160 was actually returned to the legitimate cardholder.

I believe that there is a very simple and objective question here that can be answered with specific evidence:

Was the refund of €160 made or not?

If the casino claims that the money was refunded, I would like to ask them to present the relevant proof, so that it can be seen when the refund was made, for what amount and in what way.

If, on the contrary, the refund has not been made, then I believe that the issue remains open and the casino should be asked to fulfill the specific obligation provided for in their terms.

I would like to emphasize that I am not asking for my winnings to be paid out, nor am I asking for the casino's rules to be ignored. I am only asking for confirmation that the original deposit amount was returned to the real cardholder, as provided for by the rule used by the casino itself in my case.

For this reason, I believe that my complaint should not be rejected without examining the specific issue and without clear proof of the return.

I have already sent the relevant information and can provide it again, if required.

I ask Casino Guru to request specific confirmation and proof from the casino for the return of €160 and to examine the case based on this specific issue.

Thanks for the review.

Hello, I just wrote this to the other person:

"Hello, in my opinion, you ask for something we cannot provide.

"Has the €790 actually been returned to the legitimate cardholder?" Our approach is a bit different; we focus on whether the casino could, under concrete circumstances, void the winnings.

That's, in my opinion, the reason why the complaint request could not be approved.

Is it possible that the other person who posted in the thread "Deposit with a third party card" is related? because I explained more or less the same thing a few days ago."

I understand what you both seek but cannot provide it.

It may be better to keep your conversation in one thread, since both profiles say the same thing. Thank you.

Hello,

I would like to clarify once again what exactly the issue I am asking for to be examined is.

I am not asking you to judge at this point whether the casino had the right to void my winnings. This issue concerns solely the refund of funds deposited via third party cards.

The casino states in its regulations that, when the use of a third-party payment method is detected, the deposit amount is returned to the legitimate card holder.

In my case, the amount of deposits made through the third party's cards amounts to €160.

This specific amount has not been received by the legitimate cardholder.

Therefore, to date, from the legal owner's perspective, the refund of €160 has not been made.

If the casino claims that the money has already been refunded, then there is a very specific question that can be answered with evidence:

To which payment method or account was the €160 paid and who was the actual beneficiary of this refund?

There is even a serious question about whether, if the casino did indeed make a transfer, it was made to an account that was no longer active/available or to which the legal owner could not receive the money.

So I don't think a general answer like "the return was carried out" is enough.

If the casino claims to have completed the refund, I request that they provide specific proof showing:

the amount of €160,

the date of return,

the means by which it was made,

the account/payment method to which the money was sent and

that the money was actually delivered and made available to the legitimate cardholder.

This is the only issue I ask to be examined.

I am not requesting the return of my winnings through this complaint. I am requesting that it be determined whether the original amount of €160 was indeed returned to the legitimate cardholder, as provided for by the rule invoked by the casino itself.

If the casino cannot prove that the rightful owner received and accessed the €160, I consider the issue of refund to be pending.

Please, therefore, consider this specific issue independently of the issue of cancellation of winnings.

Hello, I understand what you're saying; however, it literally is not relevant because I have no way of investigating the situation.

I'll say this in a more direct manner; maybe that will help narrow possible misunderstanding: This is not the complaint. The complaint request was rejected.

The mediators decided the claim is out of our approach. I believe I explained the reason: We can only help decide whether the winnings should be paid or not, but we cannot provide any clarification or investigation into whether the deposit was returned to the legitimate cardholder.

I'm sorry to say that the only thing I can add is that I understand you disagree with the outcome.