Broadway Gaming - self exclusion policies ignored!

[colinsunderland]

Agree with a lot you say.

But in this case there is no mention of addiction. The OP has never mentioned having an addiction and by looks of things the casino had no reason to believe he had a gambling problem.

Remember this took place in June 2017 and at that time as many members on here have also stated they have done it many people self excluded for just about any reason. From not getting a bonus to a slow withdrawal.

Agreed, however whatever the reason, the fact remains, no matter what, the SE should not have been lifted until the end of the SE period. You can see my chat log above that I wasn't questioned about why I was asking and was even told (or not told I couldn't) continue playing under their license

 

[coolrunnings19]

Or they could pull the hidden ace in their terms which says only 5 year SE covers all sister brands, we made a mistake, here's your deposits back.

Both parties in this are as bad as each other.

As I said before I am not looking for sympathy and I have said yes I did it and should not have. But the only reason why it happened is that they did not stick by their systems by blocking me. If they did none of this would have happened. It was just by chance that I was speaking to a friend who is a manager at a bookies and he said that all the deposits and bets should be void.

 

[paul7388]

In this case everybody loses no

I have been told by somebody recently that this should not have been allowed to happen and they are in breach. It appears that some people think this is fishy? Not sure why.

Lol it is just the way it is. If you read all the posts on here you will see that some people have in the past used any excuse to try get money back from casinos. And there are others that seem to spend their lives trying to screw and defraud casinos any chance they get.

And over last year all you see is threads about getting deposits back. Some genuine some not.

So that will explain why some people find any post fishy. I try to stay out of discussions on SE i was merely wondering why the gap in time.

 

[Tirilej]

In this case everybody loses no

Yes and I don't think you should get your money back since you knew what you signed and what you were doing.
I also hope they will get a fine for breaking the rules.

 

[coolrunnings19]

Maybe, but isn't the risk then that they will get blackmailed because they could get caught silence it? Wasn't that happening just recently at William Hill. Not blackmailing but the story got out.

I don't want to see anyone get done. I would prefer it to be dealt with outside of court and without the GC but if they don't agree that they have in effect actioned this then I may have no other option

 

[coolrunnings19]

Lol it is just the way it is. If you read all the posts on here you will see that some people have in the past used any excuse to try get money back from casinos. And there are others that seem to spend their lives trying to screw and defraud casinos any chance they get.

And over last year all you see is threads about getting deposits back. Some genuine some not.

So that will explain why some people find any post fishy. I try to stay out of discussions on SE i was merely wondering why the gap in time.

That's fair enough and yes there is a gap in time. It would be more fishy if there was a gap of a day. It would look more suspicious then! Lose money and then ask fornit back the next day but this was nothing like it

 

[paul7388]

That's fair enough and yes there is a gap in time. It would be more fishy if there was a gap of a day. It would look more suspicious then! Lose money and then ask fornit back the next day but this was nothing like it

Yeah and some have done that on here lol which is why other members are sometimes suspicious about SE posts.

Anyway like i said i try stay out of them. So good luck anyway on getting your money back.

 

[Gaz237]

I don't want to see anyone get done. I would prefer it to be dealt with outside of court and without the GC but if they don't agree that they have in effect actioned this then I may have no other option

So in one breath you say, they are in the wrong and breaching the rules, it needs to be stopped from happening.

Then you don't want to see anyone get done, hope to get it sorted out of court?.

That's pretty selfish for anyone else that might get stung in the future.

To me now after this post. You starting this thread was purely to try and get the attention of the casino operators.

 

[myke35]

I think I see both sides of the argument here. The player would not have had an issue if they had got lucky but equally the casino is in breach of their regulatory requirements which could could have huge ramifications for them.

 

[coolrunnings19]

Yes and I don't think you should get your money back since you knew what you signed and what you were doing.
I also hope they will get a fine for breaking the rules.

We will have to wait and see

So in one breath you say, they are in the wrong and breaching the rules, it needs to be stopped from happening.

Then you don't want to see anyone get done, hope to get it sorted out of court?.

That's pretty selfish for anyone else that might get stung in the future.

To me now after this post. You starting this thread was purely to try and get the attention of the casino operators.

Believe what you want. They are assumptions. I have posted facts and provided evidence.

 

[coolrunnings19]

Yeah and some have done that on here lol which is why other members are sometimes suspicious about SE posts.

Anyway like i said i try stay out of them. So good luck anyway on getting your money back.

Thank you very much hope you have had a nice new year

 

[colinsunderland]

Yes and I don't think you should get your money back since you knew what you signed and what you were doing.
I also hope they will get a fine for breaking the rules.

The problem with that is, the UKGC don't agree. They should either refund everyone who are allowed to gamble while self excluded (as long as it was reasonable to detect them) or refund no one. Pretty much every ruling I have seen on cases involving SE breaches have resulted in deposits being returned, therefore all customers should be refunded, until the UKGC change the way they deal with them.

Ultimately SE is there to protect problem gamblers, it might get used for other reasons, but in this case, the casino are saying, ok problem gamblers, yes we will exclude you from this site, but hey, we have others and you are welcome to use them, and, actually, if you want to use us again, just tell us you don't have a gambling problem and we will let you gamble again anyway. That is completely out of order. Look at my chat, Gamstop wasn't mentioned, nor was I questioned at all on why I was asking about self exclusion. Try going onto Videoslots or Casumo and asking the same, see how long your account lasts!

I don't see why the players get all the hate in cases like this, especially from other players. If Tesco sell drink to a 15 year old they will get fined, you don't get people saying, ah well the 15 year old is as much to blame, they knew what they were doing. Simply because the retailer is the one who has to follow the rules.

 

[Tirilej]

The problem with that is, the UKGC don't agree. They should either refund everyone who are allowed to gamble while self excluded (as long as it was reasonable to detect them) or refund no one. Pretty much every ruling I have seen on cases involving SE breaches have resulted in deposits being returned, therefore all customers should be refunded, until the UKGC change the way they deal with them.

Ultimately SE is there to protect problem gamblers, it might get used for other reasons, but in this case, the casino are saying, ok problem gamblers, yes we will exclude you from this site, but hey, we have others are you are welcome to use them, and, actually, if you want to use us again, just tell us you don't have a gambling problem and we will let you gamble again anyway. That is completely out of order. Look at my chat, Gamstop wasn't mentioned, nor was I questioned at all on why I was asking about self exclusion. Try going onto Videoslots or Casumo and asking the same, see how long your account lasts!

I don't see why the players get all the hate in cases like this, especially from other players. If Tesco sell drink to a 15 year old they will get fined, you don't get people saying, ah well the 15 year old is as much to blame, they knew what they were doing. Simply because the retailer is the one who has to follow the rules.

It's not hate but I can't give any love or support to someone when I doesn't think it's right what he is doing. And why do you always have to compare to other companies? I'm talking casinos
I don't like this casino group so no love for them either and I am happy you took screenies to prove they are dealing with SE cases in the wrong way. I'm sure you will send it to ukgc and they will investigate.

 

[colinsunderland]

It's not hate but I can't give any love or support to someone when I doesn't think it's right what he is doing. And why do you always have to compare to other companies? I'm talking casinos
I don't like this casino group so no love for them either and I am happy you took screenies to prove they are dealing with SE cases in the wrong way. I'm sure you will send it to them and they will get investigated.

because its a way of pointing out how the law works, you say he shouldn't get refunded, yet previous cases clearly show he should.
Do you think its fair 888 had to refund £3.5 million in deposits? Or should they have been allowed to keep it?

 

[Tirilej]

because its a way of pointing out how the law works, you say he shouldn't get refunded, yet previous cases clearly show he should.
Do you think its fair 888 had to refund £3.5 million in deposits? Or should they have been allowed to keep it?

Sorry, I forgot to say it's my personal opinion that he shouldn't get paid.
My opinion in the other case I can't tell you because I haven't read about it.
Now the old lady went to bed

 

[pinnit2014]

IMO the motives or wishes of the OP are neither here nor there. Casinos know their responsibilities to RG, they know the UKGCs view of them. If they can’t be arsed to implement procedures to be compliant with them then that’s on them: be it the fine for non compliance or the additional penalty to refund deposits.

What amazes me is that casinos know the consequences of this but still continue with their laissez faire attitude towards some of it.

Does the OP deserve to be redunded? My personal and others views are irrelevant - if they’ve broke their compliance then yes.

 

[imnick1985]

I'd just like to chip in here in regards to Broadway gaming, i had the same issue i played at lucky24/7 and excluded and then a month or so later at casino of dreams. My complaint is that i closed the accounts as the sites were just lacking many of the providers i like to play, however for the last 12-18 months i get a minumum of 2 texts messages each and every bloody week spamming me with an offer. Bearing in mind i self excluded and always untick boxes when signing up regarding "recieving promotional material" and have twice emailed them to take me off the promotional list they still send me crap. Very annoyed, would not reccommend this company at all.

 

[bebo67]

He shouldn't get paid He shouldn't have "tested" the waters to see what he could get away with. What he should of done right after he got that email was to be very indignant and reported them right away!

 

[imnick1985]

The problem with that is, the UKGC don't agree. They should either refund everyone who are allowed to gamble while self excluded (as long as it was reasonable to detect them) or refund no one. Pretty much every ruling I have seen on cases involving SE breaches have resulted in deposits being returned, therefore all customers should be refunded, until the UKGC change the way they deal with them.

Ultimately SE is there to protect problem gamblers, it might get used for other reasons, but in this case, the casino are saying, ok problem gamblers, yes we will exclude you from this site, but hey, we have others and you are welcome to use them, and, actually, if you want to use us again, just tell us you don't have a gambling problem and we will let you gamble again anyway. That is completely out of order. Look at my chat, Gamstop wasn't mentioned, nor was I questioned at all on why I was asking about self exclusion. Try going onto Videoslots or Casumo and asking the same, see how long your account lasts!

I don't see why the players get all the hate in cases like this, especially from other players. If Tesco sell drink to a 15 year old they will get fined, you don't get people saying, ah well the 15 year old is as much to blame, they knew what they were doing. Simply because the retailer is the one who has to follow the rules.

I have to agree with your opinion Colin, if you request a 5 year self exclusion there cannot be a point in time where the Casino can open the account and they know that as has been discussed above. If all is true then the casino is more than playing with fire as the fine could be huge for this sort of breach.
I have an account at Lucky 24/7 and at Casino of Dreams but i don't think i have ever actually deposited as they don't have my sort of slots (BTG,WMS etc).
I was sure i closed them both but it appears they are open.
Anyway i just thought i'd mention (as im trying to exclude now to see what the process is as im never going to deposit here), that its a right pain, Firstly you have to confirm an email, then you have to wait for up to 15 minutes for a text message - I have been waiting now 25 minutes and no text has arrived. Not great if you were out of control or on tilt. Not sure why its not as simple as on most casinos.

 

[colinsunderland]

IMO the motives or wishes of the OP are neither here nor there. Casinos know their responsibilities to RG, they know the UKGCs view of them. If they can’t be arsed to implement procedures to be compliant with them then that’s on them: be it the fine for non compliance or the additional penalty to refund deposits.

What amazes me is that casinos know the consequences of this but still continue with their laissez faire attitude towards some of it.

Does the OP deserve to be redunded? My personal and others views are irrelevant - if they’ve broke their compliance then yes.

That is exactly it. It doesn't matter if we think the player should be refunded or not, the UKGC think they should.
The UKGC doesn't help in situations like this by making it so hard to make a complaint and taking so long to investigate, in the event you get them to actually do something.

Having spoken to the OP, there is information he has kept out the thread (for genuine reasons) that actually make Broadway Gaming look a lot worse than they do already. I would question if the UKGC are fit to carry on, if they do not make a ruling against BG in this case.

Remember, this is a wholesale failing in the RG system at Broadway Gaming, not just a single instance, I can guarantee there are more customers who have been allowed to carry on playing at BG properties, after self exclusion has been taken. Thats not a presumption on a one sided version of events, it was confirmed when I asked support about it.

@imnick1985 if you think you have self excluded yet the accounts are open, I would do a SAR on BG, that should reveal any SE flags/requests they hold on you.

 

[coolrunnings19]

He shouldn't get paid He shouldn't have "tested" the waters to see what he could get away with. What he should of done right after he got that email was to be very indignant and reported them right away!

I didn't know then what I know now (or what I came to learn). Even a couple of months after I didn't know what they had done was wrong and not allowed.

 

[imnick1985]

Just like to add its now been 9 hours and still no text message from either Casino of Dreams or Lucky 24/7! (The email is the final step of the not so easy exclusion process they operate) - the site instructions clearlty state - Your Self Exclusion period will not commence until you validate the e-mail we've sent you and complete step 3.
Not ideal for anyone out of control. I have double checked my mobile number to make sure they have the correct details.
I know its not completely relevent to what the Op's complaint is but might be of use.

 

[Casinomeister]

I think that the online casinos should take a page from the book on "how to deal with unwanted players" from the land based casinos in Las Vegas.

If you are banned from playing at a casino in Vegas (either by cheating, being rude to staff, breaking rules like photographing the sports bars [oops - but I just got a warning] , claiming to have a gambling problem, etc.) and you reenter, you'll be arrested for trespassing.

I'd like to see that happen online. You won't have Self Excluded players trying to take advantage of the system any more. Not saying that this is the case here - I'm just sayin'.

 

[coolrunnings19]

Just like to add its now been 9 hours and still no text message from either Casino of Dreams or Lucky 24/7! (The email is the final step of the not so easy exclusion process they operate) - the site instructions clearlty state - Your Self Exclusion period will not commence until you validate the e-mail we've sent you and complete step 3.
Not ideal for anyone out of control. I have double checked my mobile number to make sure they have the correct details.
I know its not completely relevent to what the Op's complaint is but might be of use.

Well it just shows how they do not follow the commission's policies. It's another part of SE that they are relaxed on and then when people do end up going out of control they should have acted sooner. If someone wants to leave then why make them wait? It should be instant. They are asking for trouble otherwise. Have you have received anything off them??

 

[colinsunderland]

I think that the online casinos should take a page from the book on "how to deal with unwanted players" from the land based casinos in Las Vegas.

If you are banned from playing at a casino in Vegas (either by cheating, being rude to staff, breaking rules like photographing the sports bars [oops - but I just got a warning] , claiming to have a gambling problem, etc.) and you reenter, you'll be arrested for trespassing.

I'd like to see that happen online. You won't have Self Excluded players trying to take advantage of the system any more. Not saying that this is the case here - I'm just sayin'.

But in this case they actually manually lifted a self exclusion and invited the player back, thats a bit different to the normal thing you see in here. Clearly the player was wanted! Whatever reason or excuse a player gives for wanting a SE removing, it should never be done.