Ladbrokes Coral SE Fail

[kierangrayson]

Account was closed by me in 2020 under i believe was self exclusion for 5 years.

I tried to login on Saturday and account was suspended and advised to contact support. They confirmed account was closed but claimed not under SE which i dispute.

Their agent stated that i do have a SE with one of the Entain Sister sites and that i should open a new account with Ladbrokes. The SE i applied on the sister site should have been applied across the Entain Groups full list on firms. In the absence of that, the fact their agent knows i'm SE, they should not then be allowing and promoting opening of a new account. They did this and this is not player protection as in knowing of vulnerabilities they imposed no restrictions on the new account.

This allowed a SE customer to recklessly deposit around £750 in a period of 2 hours. My partner who is heavily aware of my SE and previous gambling addictions discovered this the following morning.

A complaint was put to Ladbrokes and evidence to support 3 points raised to them:

As a known SE customer from a site under the Entain Group (so the info was available on their system, the willfully confirm i would need to open a new account on their Ladbrokes site.

As i was SE and it was known to them, when i completed that action last year this should have been applied by them across all groups under them. They are owned by the same group under the same license. They did not do this

In 2020 BETDAQ contacted me advising an issue had caused the deposit limit function to not work and i was as such allowed to deposit more than i should have been able to. They refunded this as payment to me. I highlighted my concerns about my gambling habits and that i was out of control and addicted. This prompted them to close my account which is understandable. As at the time they were part of the Ladbrokes group i feel again that the account closure should have been at that point applied across their group.

i asked at the time BETDAQ closed the account that they specifically limit my deposit level across the brands under the Entain Group. So effectively rather than each site having an individual limit it would be cumulative. I was advised that this was put to their compliance team but no response was made.



Ladbrokes should not have allowed registration of an account when aware a vulnerable customer is SE at a brand under the group. Their verification process should have confirmed that an exclusion was in place and rejected this.

Further to this when i SE last year at a sister site, this should have been applied group wide and prevented any further deposits since then as they were aware of vulnerabilities.

Further to this when BETDAQ were aware of vulnerabilities and as such decided to close my account, this should have been applied group wide and prevented any further deposits since then.



These points were put to the Ladbrokes team who specifically confirmed that they would need to investigate particularly around the self exclusion issue. In response Ladbrokes simply responded by stating that they had reported me to GamProtect and closed all accounts under Entain Group. I agree with this action. They make no reference to any other points put to them around self exclusion and suggesting that in light of this i should open a new account. They refused to respond at all to any self exlclusion points.



The Player Protection team who confirmed this have refused to respond to my email response which advises they have not investigated, considered or responded to my SE points. This is their response which is not acceptable.



They are not operating inline with safer gambling and protection of vulnerable players and are clearly avoiding a compelling point as they cannot defend their actions. Their complaint response and refusal to deal with points is an obvious admission that their actions are against regulations.



Their action of reporting me to GamProtect is an action to cover themself as much as it is to cover me, this is an action that should have been imposed in 2020 and 2023 at least.



The disputed amount is what was deposited after opening the account this week. I may seek a refund of deposits made after the account closure with BETDAQ in 2020, and SE in 2023, this would be a refund of all deposits made to Entain Group after the closure event (s) and for this i have requested a list of deposits that i have made to each operator so i can find the total amount made to them.

If a player circumvents any process to obtain an account and it is later found out this is the case, the casino would suspend the account and funds from that player. This would likely include that if they have registered with an operator and they have found to be self excluded at a sister site, they would have circumvented the process and breached the rules. In this example Ladbrokes have willingly broken the rules and then suspended me after obtaining deposits which i would say is under false pretences.

 

[nfehily]

Are the days of adults taking responsibility for their actions completely over? We have welcomed and received our nanny state.

 

[jasonuk]

So some clarifying notes here:

• Entain has their websites listed under UKGC license 54743, which was activated in July 2019.
• Betdaq was included on this license until late 2021, when it was sold (and now operates as a separate company under licence 34865).
• The Gamprotect trial started in 2022 - after the first incident occurred.

Section 15 of Ladbrokes terms and conditions are going to be what is key here, and they - like a lot of operators - will stress that it's a best effort on their part. 15.4, 15.7.14 and 15.7.15 all state that they won't be liable for anything outside their "reasonable control".

In the case of Betdaq, the key will be what they applied to your account - unless you explicitly asked to be self-excluded (which given you asked for a group-wide deposit limit, it sounds like you did not) then they can apply whichever section makes sense - Entain are notorious for stunts like this so it's entirely plausible they terminated your account instead.

In the case of the third site, it'll depend on what and when you did this, as your timeline is somewhat ambiguous. If the self-exclusion occurred before the licenses were joined up in 2019, then cross-license self exclusion rules may apply which means you are not guaranteed to be excluded from all sites in the group. That a chat agent was aware of this and allegedly advised you to sign up to a sister site is somewhat alarming.

Unless you can prove that a) you had a self exclusion in play, and b) you registered with exactly the same details, then Entain can and will use Section 15 to get out of paying you - as they love to do.

Unfortunately, fraudsters abused the self exclusion process to the extend that operators had to withdraw their goodwill from the genuine cases - so now-a-days it'll be settled as a breach of the terms and conditions (and funds forfeit either to them or to charity) rather than returned to you in most cases.

There are more aggressive "problem gambling" tools out there, like Bet Blocker which can help.

 

[jasonuk]

If a player circumvents any process to obtain an account and it is later found out this is the case, the casino would suspend the account and funds from that player. This would likely include that if they have registered with an operator and they have found to be self excluded at a sister site, they would have circumvented the process and breached the rules. In this example Ladbrokes have willingly broken the rules and then suspended me after obtaining deposits which i would say is under false pretences.

Just to add, on this part:

In your example above, the onus would be on you rather than Ladbrokes, unless you used exactly the same details - they would be able to argue that you are attempting to evade any self-exclusion tools and thus aren't liable.

It absolutely sucks, but thank the fraudsters for that.

 

[kierangrayson]

Hi Jason

Thanks for the feedback.

In terms of the BETDAQ issue, you are right I didn’t specifically state a SE no so I take your point, it’s a case of what should morally be done (as most operators do) and what they legally need to. So yes I mentioned many points around problematic gambling, so much so that he terminated the BETDAQ account but that’s as far as he went which is likely legally ok.

Second SE was 2023 with the foxy brand, and that was applied by them to FG and FB rather than across the whole Entain Group. All the other accounts I had with these brands was 100% the same details. The new Ladbrokes account setup was also 100 % the same details as foxy so there was nothing done to circumvent anything at all.

The Ladbrokes chat agent confirmed that she could see that I have a SE in place with another brand in the group but she said you’ll need to create a new account with Ladbrokes as you’ll need to undergo verification if they can’t open your old account that was closed. I thought any operators operating under the same licences and that shared customer data had to apply any restrictions across all brands. That’s got to fall under reasonable surely?

 

[kierangrayson]

Are the days of adults taking responsibility for their actions completely over? We have welcomed and received our nanny state.

So self excluding is surely taking responsibility. Now if the Operators aren’t applying the rules as they should do and leaving themselves legal loopholes to avoid any, liability rather than actively taking a moral approach to safe practices, then players can only do so much.
A casino taking responsibility is certainly not advising any known SE customer to register a new account is it. While I have to take a level of responsibility in the matter, I should not have been allowed to register, deposit or bet with them, they are regulated and have a duty of care, they should carry checks out and failed to do any such action.
So I’m not really claiming “nanny state” when I’m self excluded and the operator doesn’t apply the restriction.

 

[kierangrayson]

Just to add, on this part:

In your example above, the onus would be on you rather than Ladbrokes, unless you used exactly the same details - they would be able to argue that you are attempting to evade any self-exclusion tools and thus aren't liable.

It absolutely sucks, but thank the fraudsters for that.

How can a player prove that especially if self excluded. If the operator has verified the account then they surely have to be satisfied the details are correct.
Would any mismatch in details not flag against the accounts with the other group brands tho, say if you used a different address or email address etc
My accounts across the other brands were all the same details as Foxy that got SE. The new account opened with Ladbrokes was exactly the same too as what was SE.
When Ladbrokes wrote to me telling me they had applied Gamstop to their whole group obviously all my active accounts shut, there’s never been any suggestion from them that I circumvented anything to try and avert the blame onto me

 

[jasonuk]

In terms of the BETDAQ issue, you are right I didn’t specifically state a SE no so I take your point, it’s a case of what should morally be done (as most operators do) and what they legally need to.

What they can do, what they should do and what they will do are three very different things sadly.

Entain love to remind people about their "commitments" to responsible gambling, despite repeatedly being hit with increasingly large fines from the UKGC in 2017, 2019, 2022 and more. They very much see it as a "cost of doing business".

The problem is, the UKGC don't appear to be willing to consider the actual solution, which is to suspend their license. You can imagine other showers of shite operators pulling the same tricks would smarten up pretty quickly if they knew their license was genuinely at risk.

Second SE was 2023 with the foxy brand, and that was applied by them to FG and FB rather than across the whole Entain Group. All the other accounts I had with these brands was 100% the same details. The new Ladbrokes account setup was also 100 % the same details as foxy so there was nothing done to circumvent anything at all.

Something sounds very wrong with this - historically, multi-operator self-exclusions hit stumbling blocks because each site operated on a distinct UKGC license. That doesn't apply here because Foxy is also under 54743.

How can a player prove that especially if self excluded. If the operator has verified the account then they surely have to be satisfied the details are correct.

There's been some tension in the industry about where these checks should be performed - for example, fully completed during the sign-up process, within 72 hours of signup, at time of first withdrawal.

You can understand who wants what there - the more friction at the start of the process, the more likely the player abandons the sign-up and goes elsewhere.

Would any mismatch in details not flag against the accounts with the other group brands tho, say if you used a different address or email address etc

This is where things get murky very quickly - because the more fuzzy the matching, the more likely it'll flag up false positives. We've seen a handful of cases over the years where people have had to fight for funds because of a self-exclusion, only to establish the SE actually applied to a different customer.


Anyway, back to the topic... the standard complaints paths would apply - customer service, internal complaint, ADR, and then (potentially expensive) legal action. Normally I'd be mentioning CM's PAB service but Entain refuse to discuss player issues with other ADR services - so that'll be a non-starter.

As mentioned earlier the path to success is very thin and you pretty much have to prove they have failed in their "reasonable control" (which despite the name, is the bare minimum - and often less - than they are legally required to do).

Once you've completed that process, you can of course get in touch with the UKGC over this as a regulatory concern - they can't help you get your money back (because they refuse to engage in player complaints), but knowing that Entain are still doing this after multiple fines will give them ammunition to fire again... although I suspect it'll be yet another fine rather than doing the right thing and pulling their license.

 

[kierangrayson]

Brilliant info Jason and sadly pretty much I’d already read up on that you’ve confirmed.

Ladbrokes live chat were initially “very concerned and helpful” when it came to concerns and wanted to investigate safer gambling problems..Ver quickly that became non comment, an email of “we’ve SE you from all Entain group brands for life (which is actually only 5 years)”. No comments on safer gambling SE breaches, complaint raised and wait 28 days I’m told..

Clear the brief is do not comment at all in relation to these sort of complaints for fear of incriminating themself at all in anything they say.

PAB routes they seem ignorant too then. I’ve reported it to the UKGC so see what comes of it. I can raise a civil small claims case for a minimal fee to recover a losses since the SE on that license. I can put a simple claim together myself claiming their failing to ensure safer gambling practices, when aware of a SE they then allowed registration of a new account and also failed to SE all accounts under the same licence.

If I put a claim in for the losses with this new ladcrooks account for £750 it would cost me £70 to claim. Any history on if they would defend this type of case? Certainly can’t imagine they’d risk challenging anything where a judgement would go against them and the UKGC get wind of it? Is it something they’ve a history of fighting or do they look at resolving quietly under some NDA so it doesn’t hit courts?

 

[jasonuk]

Clear the brief is do not comment at all in relation to these sort of complaints for fear of incriminating themself at all in anything they say.

Yes, once it's been escalated then customer services will be instructed to say nothing.

PAB routes they seem ignorant too then.

PAB is a free community service provided by CM, and Max has a pretty good record on that - however it requires the operator to play ball, and Entain are notorious for not doing that (and is similarly true for most of the big UK bookmakers). I wanted to mention it for sake of completeness, but no point wasting time when the inevitable response will be "no can do".

I’ve reported it to the UKGC so see what comes of it.

As mentioned above, this will purely be in a regulatory capacity - the UKGC refuse to investigate player complaints and will redirect you to the operator and/or ADR.

I can raise a civil small claims case for a minimal fee to recover a losses since the SE on that license. I can put a simple claim together myself claiming their failing to ensure safer gambling practices, when aware of a SE they then allowed registration of a new account and also failed to SE all accounts under the same licence.

This will be further down the line - and trying to skip steps (internal complaint, ADR etc) risks undermining your own case. Unfortunately, the earlier steps will take time - it could be three months before you get to the point above. Also, you will absolutely need to get your ducks in a line - because any ambiguities, as flagged earlier in the thread, could be detrimental to your chances.

Any history on if they would defend this type of case? Certainly can’t imagine they’d risk challenging anything where a judgement would go against them and the UKGC get wind of it? Is it something they’ve a history of fighting or do they look at resolving quietly under some NDA so it doesn’t hit courts?

Tough to say, because a lot of it gets swept under the carpet. I would imagine the letter before action will indicate what - if anything - they are going to do to try and make the problem disappear. Any settlement will likely include a non-disclosure clause, and no admission of fault on their part (a "goodwill gesture" as it were).

And if they don't back down, then you have to make your case - and nothing is guaranteed. We've seen members in the past wave "legal action" about as if they're guaranteed to win the case - not appreciating the time, money and energy needed, and in some cases vastly overstating their chance of success. What happened is likely to be an expensive lesson anyway, and sometimes it is better not to make a bad situation worse.

 

[Webzcas]

The horse has bolted I am afraid. The only positive course of action that you can take is install BetBlocker or similar on all your internet enabled devices. This is the ONLY action that you have control over.

If you spoke to the agent on the phone, the call would have been recorded, likewise if you spoke to them via live chat, there would be a transcript of the conversation.

You may have a slight chance of getting your money back, but the advice Jason has provided above is on point.

Likewise you could initiate a PAB with @maxd but Ladbrokes ie ENTAIN are an animal that likely not provide much in the way of discourse, I am guessing we as in Casinomeister, will get the talk to the hand treatment.

What you could do is approach the UKGC, but again, not holding out much hope.

As for a small claims action, sure if you want more stress and worry.

Sorry if the above is probably not what you want to read and hear

 

[maxd]

Likewise you could initiate a PAB with @maxd but Ladbrokes ie ENTAIN are an animal that likely not provide much in the way of discourse, I am guessing we as in Casinomeister, will get the talk to the hand treatment.

Quite so! They've always been "talk to the hand" specialists and nothing in that regard has changed in 15+ years.

- Max

 

[justdoit]

BetMGM I thing is same ppl as Ladbroke Party Coral etc they scamming lot of gamblers

 

[jasonuk]

BetMGM I thing is same ppl as Ladbroke Party Coral etc they scamming lot of gamblers

Yes and no - Entain (Ladbrokes, Coral, Bwin, Party etc) are partnered with MGM Resorts International for BetMGM, however their UK website is outsourced to and operated by LeoVegas rather than run by Entain directly.

 

[kierangrayson]

The horse has bolted I am afraid. The only positive course of action that you can take is install BetBlocker or similar on all your internet enabled devices. This is the ONLY action that you have control over.

If you spoke to the agent on the phone, the call would have been recorded, likewise if you spoke to them via live chat, there would be a transcript of the conversation.

You may have a slight chance of getting your money back, but the advice Jason has provided above is on point.

Likewise you could initiate a PAB with @maxd but Ladbrokes ie ENTAIN are an animal that likely not provide much in the way of discourse, I am guessing we as in Casinomeister, will get the talk to the hand treatment.

What you could do is approach the UKGC, but again, not holding out much hope.

As for a small claims action, sure if you want more stress and worry.

Sorry if the above is probably not what you want to read and hear

Hello mate

Thanks for the reply, I agree totally with you and the info provided by all ( in particular Jason ) is bang on.
I’ve written the “experience” off to be fair but anything back is a bonus.
The agent chat was over live chat so I’ve got a transcript of it, how useful and weighty it is is debatable I guess.
Yeah it’s a case of “no comment” to anyone it seems and as they’re under no legal obligation to mediate with anyone they obviously just avoid it all.
I’ve reported to UKGC but I know that they don’t investigate individual complaints so that avenues also very limited. Can only hope a few people have fed back similar to the GC and so they will act at some point.
I’ve done the small claims previously with a bank so understand the process can be difficult.
I suppose the only hope is that rather than paying out to defend a claim they would payout at mediation stage to avoid the risks. I’d assume a case of “responsible gambling” nature would be a bit of a hot potato and not something they would risk losing in court, especially when the values quite low. Might be wrong completely but I’d expect any judgements against them would be detrimental if the UKGC acted on them again.

 

[kierangrayson]

This is Ladbrokes very caring agent Natalie on live chat.

 

[jasonuk]

That is absolutely shocking.

It seems like they think they're still on separate licenses (where they probably could - at least historically - get away with different rules for different "labels") - but

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

makes no reference to "sites" or "labels", it purely says "licensees" and "customers".

If MPs want to see why the UKGC isn't fit for purpose - Entain is a perfect example. They've been fined £25m for these repeated failures over recent years, and they very much consider it a cost of doing business given they're more than happy to carry on doing it.

For the amount in question, they might pay out because every additional step costs them more money (ADR usually costs them a couple of hundred pounds for example), but similarly they don't want to set precedents that are bad for themselves so they are more likely to dig their heels in out of spite. I guess time will tell...

 

[kierangrayson]

Yeah it’s frightening mate. There’s literally no accountability is there it’s slapped on the wrist, fined what is pittance to them, accept some “improvement measure”, move on and repeat very shortly afterwards.

Sad really that no one is actually interested it’s just a big PR stunt that is significant. Probably too much money changing hands to actually police anything!

As I say I’ve kinda written it off but it would be nice to get it. In truth if I totalled every deposit from the point of SE on all brands under that licence it might be possibly 3k. But yes I guess they don’t want to be seen as easy pickings if anyone files a claim.

Ladcrooks have no concern it seems, won’t respond to any emails now, told them it’s gone to UKGC and nothing. MP route might be worth a try but who knows.

Surely if LCCP has been breached and there’s clear written evidence which shows their actions can’t be seen as reasonable or fair then I’d not expect they’d attempt to defend a civil claim. Losing that can’t be any good for their public image?

 

[HappyAda]

I'm wondering what measures players can take to protect their rights? What resources or authorities can help in case of problems with dishonest operators?

 

[kierangrayson]

Just a quick query, in terms of the deposits have I got any grounds at all for any sort of recovery via the bank? I know chargebacks are a bit naughty but is there anything along the lines of the company should not have authorised and accepted payments from a Player who is self excluded?
I suspect the short answer may be no and potentially detrimental to any future claim if chargebacks are applied. They shouldn’t have allowed / accepted the payment so they knew they had no right to take payments? Cheers

 

[L&L-Jan]

I'm wondering what measures players can take to protect their rights? What resources or authorities can help in case of problems with dishonest operators?

Start the complaints procedure, which most likely results in a negative outcome and from there you can go to the assigned ADR. According to their terms its BIAS.

All properly regulated casino have a complaints procedure in their terms with reference to their adr if the outcome of the complaint is not to your satisfaction.

 

[maxd]

"According to their terms its BIAS."

 

[L&L-Jan]

"According to their terms its BIAS."

Ow wow ahahhahaha, good morning to you too mate Getting another coffee

 

[jasonuk]

Surely if LCCP has been breached and there’s clear written evidence which shows their actions can’t be seen as reasonable or fair then I’d not expect they’d attempt to defend a civil claim. Losing that can’t be any good for their public image?

Since you're a few months off from this scenario, I can mention it as a hypothetical (and standard disclaimers, I am not a lawyer etc) - the key with any civil claim is that your liabilities are capped (e.g. to the original small claims filing fees). We've heard horror stories in the past of people taking larger cases to court (since small claims only covers £10k), losing and being liable for significant costs. So instead of getting their money back, they've lost twice as much - or more.

If they think they can use a case to set a dangerous precedent in their favour - they absolutely will give it a go. A significant part of a malicious complaints procedure is getting people to abandon their complaints - and the thought of a substantial cost for litigating the case would certainly do that.

I'm wondering what measures players can take to protect their rights? What resources or authorities can help in case of problems with dishonest operators?

As Jan mentioned, although it will vary by country - and the Kansspelautoriteit are one of the oddball cases when it comes to these processes. After a bit of digging I'm struggling to find any reference to an ADR, similarly regulated casinos mention their internal complaints procedure (the one I looked at mentioned up to 8 weeks) and that's it.

The UKGC and KSA both will accept complaints about operators in a regulatory aspect. The problem tends to be they need a bulk of such complaints to be in a position to take any action - and may still decline to score an open goal when they can.

 

[kierangrayson]

"According to their terms its BIAS."

Am I to assume that EYEBAS have a reputation for being biased towards operators rather than in an open and fair manner for both parties?