Broadway Gaming - self exclusion policies ignored!

[coolrunnings19]

It's one of those wait and see moments. The problem is for BG that it will all catch up with them at some point in time. They will end up getting fined (again) at the very least and then if they are not performing as well financially as they once were that's when they will go down that slippery slide. Look how many casinos already have closed this year alone. I do appreciate that things are getting tougher for them (higher taxes etc) like any other business but they were not helping themselves either with their conduct..as you say they have done it many times before!

 

[EkJR]

This Broadway gaming mob are well dodgy. I remember signing up to Dotty Bingo in 2014. Had an insane winning run and worked up a balance of 25k. They then said the max I could withdraw would be 4k a month although I could do that in several transactions but not all at once. Tried to put a take a break on and they refused to count the take a break days as part of the payment period. Eventually managed to get about 16k all in and blew the rest over the course of several months. Excluded permanently after that and was able to, unwittingly, open an account in 2017 but fortunately didn't deposit as I saw their name against it!

 

[Slottery]

Might have missed it for these many long posts, but how your original SE request was done @coolrunnings19 ? You made it through their site and ticked these boxes or emailed them? That could shed some light to their contact to you regarding account opening.

Would be interesting to see your original contact with them to see where they did refer that there was no RG issue included and asked you to confirm if that's the case, no RG and you confirm that you are in control to keep playing and accept it (don't remember it word to word). If you have mentioned clearly in your request that you want to be self-excluded because of gambling addiction, then they to state you something very different sounds very weird.

 

[coolrunnings19]

I did it all by e-mail. I specifically said I wanted a self exclusion for the maximum period (5 years) and they replied confirming that I had been self excluded for 5 years. Then 3 months later I was blocked from opening an account at a sister site but then was invited to open it etc if I agreed to honour the wagers etc. I completely understand that they offered it to me and I accepted. My mistake. But they should have never been allowed to offer a self excluded player an opportunity to breach a self exclusion agreement. The power lies with the casino on this point. They are selling the product and service. I don't gamble anymore either at land based bookies or online. But this was wrong and I am still contemplating taking them to court over it. They won't even agree to negotiate and meet halfway!

 

[coolrunnings19]

This Broadway gaming mob are well dodgy. I remember signing up to Dotty Bingo in 2014. Had an insane winning run and worked up a balance of 25k. They then said the max I could withdraw would be 4k a month although I could do that in several transactions but not all at once. Tried to put a take a break on and they refused to count the take a break days as part of the payment period. Eventually managed to get about 16k all in and blew the rest over the course of several months. Excluded permanently after that and was able to, unwittingly, open an account in 2017 but fortunately didn't deposit as I saw their name against it!

Yes that's another trick that they use...you can't withdraw more than 4 or 5k a month but you can deposit as much as you like. And that point about taking a break and not letting it count against withdrawal days is another way of saying no you need to play with your winnings and risk losing it...and guess what...it worked as you lost 10k whereas you could have withdrawn it to your bank!

 

[Slottery]

I did it all by e-mail. I specifically said I wanted a self exclusion for the maximum period (5 years) and they replied confirming that I had been self excluded for 5 years. Then 3 months later I was blocked from opening an account at a sister site but then was invited to open it etc if I agreed to honour the wagers etc. I completely understand that they offered it to me and I accepted. My mistake. But they should have never been allowed to offer a self excluded player an opportunity to breach a self exclusion agreement. The power lies with the casino on this point. They are selling the product and service. I don't gamble anymore either at land based bookies or online. But this was wrong and I am still contemplating taking them to court over it. They won't even agree to negotiate and meet halfway!

You by any change would be able to post screenshot (of course all personal details blurred) about your email that could be seen how they could come to the conclusion that there was nothing related to responsible gaming and contacted you with the email you posted here?

Then pretty much the whole story would be here for all to see from beginning to end of your interactions.

 

[EkJR]

You by any change would be able to post screenshot (of course all personal details blurred) about your email that could be seen how they could come to the conclusion that there was nothing related to responsible gaming and contacted you with the email you posted here?

Then pretty much the whole story would be here for all to see from beginning to end of your interactions.

You can't revoke a self exclusion in the UK, ever. So if he was excluded from the network he shouldn't have been able to open an account. It's really as simple as that.

 

[Slottery]

You can't revoke a self exclusion in the UK, ever. So if he was excluded from the network he shouldn't have been able to open an account. It's really as simple as that.

Would be still interesting to see what was original request to exclusion and how operator made decision that it have nothing to do with RG issues. Just will make it more obvious if RG issues were mentioned in request instead of lack of bonuses, close my account and support person made a incorrectly self-excluded account instead of just closing it.

Not saying it would change anything, but always having whole story instead of part of that when posting to public forums would give a better picture for all readers and commenters. By posting that last part of their interaction together with other ones already here, would really make casino much more irresponsible by contacting vulnerable player who requested to be self-excluded because of gambling addiction and would show them purely lying when stating that account closure didn't include anything about responsible gaming.

 

[coolrunnings19]

Would be still interesting to see what was original request to exclusion and how operator made decision that it have nothing to do with RG issues. Just will make it more obvious if RG issues were mentioned in request instead of lack of bonuses, close my account and support person made a incorrectly self-excluded account instead of just closing it.

Not saying it would change anything, but always having whole story instead of part of that when posting to public forums would give a better picture for all readers and commenters. By posting that last part of their interaction together with other ones already here, would really make casino much more irresponsible by contacting vulnerable player who requested to be self-excluded because of gambling addiction and would show them purely lying when stating that account closure didn't include anything about responsible gaming.

They asked me in another email why I wanted to close my account and I said I didn't like their games. They then asked me if I wanted to just take a break for 6 weeks but I said no I want to self exclude for the maximum possible period. That is how the conversation went and then they closed the account and applied a 5 year self exclusion. Like you said I could post the while thing on here but I doubt it will change anything. I think I just need to take them to court. I did make them an offer to split the difference but they were not interested. So I have done my bit and made my offer. They shouldn't need a player to specifically say I have a problem please self exclude me. The intention and willingness to have a self exclusion for the maximum period possible implies this.

 

[Slottery]

Thanks, no by any means not believing what you said, now whole picture is here and IMO there is mistake done. I'm not regulator or court, but hope it get sorted and addressed.

 

[coolrunnings19]

Thanks, no by any means not believing what you said, now whole picture is here and IMO there is mistake done. I'm not regulator or court, but hope it get sorted and addressed.

Well I must admit it was my fault to falling their trap. It was me that agreed to sign up and accept the their offer of their terms that I would honour my wagers. A few members on this feed feel that it is my fault (as you can see). But if it was them in my place they would be the first ones to pop up with a complaint. What i do know is wrong though isxthat they should never have offered me then terms in the first place so had it not been for them doing that, none of the subsequent goings on would have occurred. That's my argument. I had a self exclusion in place which they obviously knee about as the system picked it up. They obviously dug deep into it to find a way to get around it to allow a self excluded player to play. The thing is a few people are placing the blame on the player looking for a way around the self exclusion. They don't for a moment look at the casinos attempt to get around an agreement that they have created! If I am wrong I put my hands up in any situation and I am not saying I am an angel in this situation. But what I an saying is they have the ultimate power to sell or refuse to sell the product. They sold it. I didn't get to buy it. The UKGC know all this as I have sent everything to them. I an waiting to see if I need to take them to court to get my money back now or if the UKGC do their job properly and there would be no need for me to go that far.

 

[EkJR]

Well I must admit it was my fault to falling their trap. It was me that agreed to sign up and accept the their offer of their terms that I would honour my wagers. A few members on this feed feel that it is my fault (as you can see). But if it was them in my place they would be the first ones to pop up with a complaint. What i do know is wrong though isxthat they should never have offered me then terms in the first place so had it not been for them doing that, none of the subsequent goings on would have occurred. That's my argument. I had a self exclusion in place which they obviously knee about as the system picked it up. They obviously dug deep into it to find a way to get around it to allow a self excluded player to play. The thing is a few people are placing the blame on the player looking for a way around the self exclusion. They don't for a moment look at the casinos attempt to get around an agreement that they have created! If I am wrong I put my hands up in any situation and I am not saying I am an angel in this situation. But what I an saying is they have the ultimate power to sell or refuse to sell the product. They sold it. I didn't get to buy it. The UKGC know all this as I have sent everything to them. I an waiting to see if I need to take them to court to get my money back now or if the UKGC do their job properly and there would be no need for me to go that far.

It's black and white for me. Under their LCCP terms a self exclusion on the group cannot be broken until the period has lapsed, there is no recourse. If self excluded on that licence they would have had to wait 5 years until that exclusion had cleared. Think you have a case on that point alone. No other mitigating factors matter a jot.

 

[coolrunnings19]

Sorry to say but the chances of getting your deposits back from Broadway gaming are thin, I have seen so many people complaining about them with the same issue as yours and they got diddly squat back. Hopefully it will turn out different for you but I would not rely upon your money coming back. Just write it off as a loss and forget about it and if Broadway do one day refund you then yay you for extra money and don't do it again. Good luck

Agree with what you say and I think Broadway are one of those casino groups to avoid. They are not exactly a big name either so I am not sure on their financials. I have heard rumours that they are struggling. Perhaps that's why they don't want to pay as they cannot afford it. Hence why they are attempting to get as much money as possible from what ever avenues they can get it from. They already received a hefty fine from the UKGC in December 2017 so they are possibly still stung over that.

 

[coolrunnings19]

It's black and white for me. Under their LCCP terms a self exclusion on the group cannot be broken until the period has lapsed, there is no recourse. If self excluded on that licence they would have had to wait 5 years until that exclusion had cleared. Think you have a case on that point alone. No other mitigating factors matter a jot.

Well I reported this so we will see what they say. I know that Broadway's defence will be that they say I didn't like their games so the self exclusion was based on game preference. But then if someone did not like the games they simply wouldn't play. Why ask for a SE? The emails were not a straightforward yes you are self excluded. They offered me a six week break first etc and I said no thanks just a SE. And they asked me for how long so i said the maximum possible. They just have that point that they keep relying on. In my case I have all the emails and proof of all the wagers and deposits they accepted aswell as the self exclusion agreement.

 

[Slottery]

It's black and white for me. Under their LCCP terms a self exclusion on the group cannot be broken until the period has lapsed, there is no recourse. If self excluded on that licence they would have had to wait 5 years until that exclusion had cleared. Think you have a case on that point alone. No other mitigating factors matter a jot.

Not 100% black and white, there have been some rulings wher self-exclusion have been revoked due the reason account should not been self-excluded in a first place as player have been frustrated for bonuses or other services and just wanted to get rid of casino in question without mentioning anything RG related but account was self-excluded related to RG reasons.

Then player opened new account within the group and got automatically blocked because of SE in place in other brand, casino management made their research and came to conclusion that in any contacts or actions on account, nothing is referring player have any issues with problem gambling and then contacted player who wanted to open account inside the group and asked that kind of agreement like this casino did that player confirm that he/she don't have any previous or current problems with gambling and is in fully control of it, SE from account in question will be revoked as it should have been in place because at any time player haven't shown any RG signs and confirmed it, player have fully understood what he/she is doing now, accept all terms and conditions and taking full responsibility of decision and action made now.

There really have been this kind of rulings made for casinos favor, that was reason why asked whole conversation since beginning and exact phrasing in there and what they have had front of their eyes when have gone through players all account and contact history from all brands under same group.

As said earlier, brave decision to take from casino to revoke self-excluded account but if it was incorrectly added in first place and they can provide result of their review and why this decision has been taken and make who ever is judging complaint in question to agree with them that account should not have been self-excluded as not RG issues and revoking it as incorrectly added was sufficient decision after confirming it with player. Not saying it would be case in this situation, but this has happened and therefore having all the informatin and exact phrasing used can help understand why they even thought this as an option and made what they did. I assume we will later see how this decision will be reviewed and what will be outcome, based on provided facts, agree that there is mistake done but just to point out why asked original conversation between OP and Casino, few words can make a big difference when bringing this to any authorities to make a call.

 

[EkJR]

Not 100% black and white, there have been some rulings wher self-exclusion have been revoked due the reason account should not been self-excluded in a first place as player have been frustrated for bonuses or other services and just wanted to get rid of casino in question without mentioning anything RG related but account was self-excluded related to RG reasons.

Then player opened new account within the group and got automatically blocked because of SE in place in other brand, casino management made their research and came to conclusion that in any contacts or actions on account, nothing is referring player have any issues with problem gambling and then contacted player who wanted to open account inside the group and asked that kind of agreement like this casino did that player confirm that he/she don't have any previous or current problems with gambling and is in fully control of it, SE from account in question will be revoked as it should have been in place because at any time player haven't shown any RG signs and confirmed it, player have fully understood what he/she is doing now, accept all terms and conditions and taking full responsibility of decision and action made now.

There really have been this kind of rulings made for casinos favor, that was reason why asked whole conversation since beginning and exact phrasing in there and what they have had front of their eyes when have gone through players all account and contact history from all brands under same group.

As said earlier, brave decision to take from casino to revoke self-excluded account but if it was incorrectly added in first place and they can provide result of their review and why this decision has been taken and make who ever is judging complaint in question to agree with them that account should not have been self-excluded as not RG issues and revoking it as incorrectly added was sufficient decision after confirming it with player. Not saying it would be case in this situation, but this has happened and therefore having all the informatin and exact phrasing used can help understand why they even thought this as an option and made what they did. I assume we will later see how this decision will be reviewed and what will be outcome, based on provided facts, agree that there is mistake done but just to point out why asked original conversation between OP and Casino, few words can make a big difference when bringing this to any authorities to make a call.

Maybe in the EU mate, not in the UK. See attached. It's black and white.

 

[Slottery]

Maybe in the EU mate, not in the UK. See attached. It's black and white.

Sure it is. There are just some decision made where conclusion was that player actually didn't impress anywhere that wanted account to be selcf+excluded because of problem gambling but being unsatisfied for provided loyalty programs, bonuses or what so ever reasons and wanted to account be closed and playing elsewhere instead where feels to get better treatment as a customer, so closing account from one particular site would be considered to be right decision taken instead of self-exclude player when nothing related to problem gambling was brought out. Then when trying to register another site under same operator and license get account blocked because of self-exclusion when contacted support and asked reason for that.

Then management got all contact history to be reviewed to find out was request to close account anyhow related to RG issues and after going through all accounts, contacts and possible behaviour made decision that account was in first place incorrectly self-excluded as player wanted only not to be customer of one particular site for bonuses or other kind of reasons. Then contacted player who first contacted operator to ask why account got blocked at the time of registration and got reply that is related to SE from other site. Player then could give impression that didn't know that and asked account to be closed because of reason XYZ. Casino management took action to correct mistake done based on contact history and players explanation, sent email where asked player to clearly clarify that he/she understand what is happening, take all the responsibility about action to be made, is control of his/hers playing and accept full terms and conditions. Account opened.

And there are this kind of rulings been made when player afterwards requested all deposits back and ruling has been made in favor of casino as there was no any signs of problem gambling but only dissatisfied for one of their sites bonus programs (all material is provided from both of sides to instance who is making judgement), player contacted that other sites support to ask why couldn't register, got reply about SE, declined that it was not because of RG issues (which players contacts to casino were supporting) and based on all available material decision have been made for casinos favor for these reasons. No RG mentioned, no reason to SE player because of original request and reasoning in that, player was asking and requesting account on new site to be opened and agreed that RG issues didn't exist in a first place and agreed o this all in written when asked this in written by casino management.

Many things are really black and white on paper and in one sentence but when some regulatory body or court is investigating any case, there surprisingly are popping out more things and phrasing "Should have be aware", Should have understood that by stating XYZ", "Should have been understanding that making this kind of request and signing it", "There were no any reason from casino not to believe after reviewing all information available that player in questions should have been self-excluded because of gambling problem in a first place" etc.....

Not anyhow referring to this particular issue, not even have access to all information to be able to give proper opinion, but just to say that most of things are not black and white when it full be reviewed in court (as we see from telly every day ) but there are many factors to taken an account where one or other part should have reason or no to, in a spirit of this regulation and how it have been expressed by both parts and much more.

As knowing that these are fully and fairly as possible judged, there are many colors between total black and white where all available material suggest that both parties have been not perfect in some occasions, behaviour based on available information. All these results of disagreements are not published in public because of privacy and other reasons (also lost part would have change to get accused by providing some officially made ruling in public by bringing negative publicity to part who was found to be correct etc...).

Reason why even wanted to see where this begun from was mainly based on that we were provided some emails and information but never whole history, including original request made by OP and just was wondering why any casino would offer opportunity to agree their terms and everything in that letter to get one more depositing customer to make few deposits if they are 100% sure that what they do is bringing them huge fine and at least 100% sure not any revenue but losses when returning deposits and additional costs, loads of work hours to prepare all material and make their statement and negative publicity trying to take advantage about clear problem gambler. We see how this end and as mentioned few times earlier, based on information there is mistake done, just keep wondering why on earth in black and white case casino would make this decision where they can in best earn one players deposits and in worse get huge fined and possibly had to go through their all self-exclusion histories to show that this has been single issue, if that is the whole case, i wonder why person in question ever got to this position in casino to be able to make this kind of decision.

 

[EkJR]

Sure it is. There are just some decision made where conclusion was that player actually didn't impress anywhere that wanted account to be selcf+excluded because of problem gambling but being unsatisfied for provided loyalty programs, bonuses or what so ever reasons and wanted to account be closed and playing elsewhere instead where feels to get better treatment as a customer, so closing account from one particular site would be considered to be right decision taken instead of self-exclude player when nothing related to problem gambling was brought out. Then when trying to register another site under same operator and license get account blocked because of self-exclusion when contacted support and asked reason for that.

Then management got all contact history to be reviewed to find out was request to close account anyhow related to RG issues and after going through all accounts, contacts and possible behaviour made decision that account was in first place incorrectly self-excluded as player wanted only not to be customer of one particular site for bonuses or other kind of reasons. Then contacted player who first contacted operator to ask why account got blocked at the time of registration and got reply that is related to SE from other site. Player then could give impression that didn't know that and asked account to be closed because of reason XYZ. Casino management took action to correct mistake done based on contact history and players explanation, sent email where asked player to clearly clarify that he/she understand what is happening, take all the responsibility about action to be made, is control of his/hers playing and accept full terms and conditions. Account opened.

And there are this kind of rulings been made when player afterwards requested all deposits back and ruling has been made in favor of casino as there was no any signs of problem gambling but only dissatisfied for one of their sites bonus programs (all material is provided from both of sides to instance who is making judgement), player contacted that other sites support to ask why couldn't register, got reply about SE, declined that it was not because of RG issues (which players contacts to casino were supporting) and based on all available material decision have been made for casinos favor for these reasons. No RG mentioned, no reason to SE player because of original request and reasoning in that, player was asking and requesting account on new site to be opened and agreed that RG issues didn't exist in a first place and agreed o this all in written when asked this in written by casino management.

Many things are really black and white on paper and in one sentence but when some regulatory body or court is investigating any case, there surprisingly are popping out more things and phrasing "Should have be aware", Should have understood that by stating XYZ", "Should have been understanding that making this kind of request and signing it", "There were no any reason from casino not to believe after reviewing all information available that player in questions should have been self-excluded because of gambling problem in a first place" etc.....

Not anyhow referring to this particular issue, not even have access to all information to be able to give proper opinion, but just to say that most of things are not black and white when it full be reviewed in court (as we see from telly every day ) but there are many factors to taken an account where one or other part should have reason or no to, in a spirit of this regulation and how it have been expressed by both parts and much more.

As knowing that these are fully and fairly as possible judged, there are many colors between total black and white where all available material suggest that both parties have been not perfect in some occasions, behaviour based on available information. All these results of disagreements are not published in public because of privacy and other reasons (also lost part would have change to get accused by providing some officially made ruling in public by bringing negative publicity to part who was found to be correct etc...).

Reason why even wanted to see where this begun from was mainly based on that we were provided some emails and information but never whole history, including original request made by OP and just was wondering why any casino would offer opportunity to agree their terms and everything in that letter to get one more depositing customer to make few deposits if they are 100% sure that what they do is bringing them huge fine and at least 100% sure not any revenue but losses when returning deposits and additional costs, loads of work hours to prepare all material and make their statement and negative publicity trying to take advantage about clear problem gambler. We see how this end and as mentioned few times earlier, based on information there is mistake done, just keep wondering why on earth in black and white case casino would make this decision where they can in best earn one players deposits and in worse get huge fined and possibly had to go through their all self-exclusion histories to show that this has been single issue, if that is the whole case, i wonder why person in question ever got to this position in casino to be able to make this kind of decision.

Wow that took me a long time to read!! Lol. I totally get your points here, but if the casino have done this then they are already playing with fire regardless of RG or any other issue for the exclusion.

 

[Slottery]

Wow that took me a long time to read!! Lol. I totally get your points here, but if the casino have done this then they are already playing with fire regardless of RG or any other issue for the exclusion.

Yup, as said, it was "brave" decision to take from person who made it (and is responsible and authorized to make this kind of decision in his/hers role) and just wanted try to understand why on earth you make something like this if only possible outcome is you are f*cked, getting one players deposits is not really worth of it (at least almost) any situation. That's why exact phrasing, all interactions etc... can be playing part in ruling case to side or another.

In 100% black and white case is that player send email to casino by stating that he/she have so severe gambling addiction that he/she need to be self-excluded from gambling because of that at least for 5 years. Then if casino pro-actively without any contact from player is suggesting to open that account by accepting their terms and conditions, there is only black and white.

 

[coolrunnings19]

I didn't tell them In had a gambling problem. I told then I didn't like their games. Then after they asked me if I wanted to take a break I said no as I wouldn't ever want to play there then just please self exclude me. When asking me to accept the T and Cs at their sister site they never asked me to confirm that I had no responsible gaming issues but they did say that they felt that there were none. They came to that conclusion. Only when I asked for my deposits back did they then say that the reason why they came to the conclusion that there were no responsible gaming issues was because I said that I didn't like their games.

 

[Slottery]

They have given you their final decision about refunding your deposits, even you have given them some offer to pay only part of them (which i don't fully understand why to do it if you are 100% correct, why to lose 50% of your deposits if you are entitled to 100% of them?).

Don't see any other solution than bring this further through official routes. Here we can be guessing yes, no, maybe, but it don't help to get your issue solved as they not gonna change their opinion. Collect all your stuff together and take action against them. Here we only can speculate but nothing more.

 

[coolrunnings19]

Yes i understand that it is all speculation and I know that a court room is a long way away. Plus when you get there you never know how a judge will view it. You may get one who is anti gambling so he might we to make them pay. On the other hand he may want to teach me a lesson and say I shouldn't have done it, deal with it! But i know that the casino must prove that there were no responsible gaming issues. I never deposited at the first casino. Just at the second one. Bear in mind the games were the same anyway at both! If I wasn't a problem gambler there would have been no harm in leaving in open! Because as they say I had no gambling problems so why would i ask for a 5 year self exclusion???

 

[EkJR]

Yes i understand that it is all speculation and I know that a court room is a long way away. Plus when you get there you never know how a judge will view it. You may get one who is anti gambling so he might we to make them pay. On the other hand he may want to teach me a lesson and say I shouldn't have done it, deal with it! But i know that the casino must prove that there were no responsible gaming issues. I never deposited at the first casino. Just at the second one. Bear in mind the games were the same anyway at both! If I wasn't a problem gambler there would have been no harm in leaving in open! Because as they say I had no gambling problems so why would i ask for a 5 year self exclusion???

They have given you their final decision about refunding your deposits, even you have given them some offer to pay only part of them (which i don't fully understand why to do it if you are 100% correct, why to lose 50% of your deposits if you are entitled to 100% of them?).

Don't see any other solution than bring this further through official routes. Here we can be guessing yes, no, maybe, but it don't help to get your issue solved as they not gonna change their opinion. Collect all your stuff together and take action against them. Here we only can speculate but nothing more.

See what the UKGC say. I know what their definition of self exclusion is. Broadway have taken a big gamble here and my money is on the UKGC to rule against them in this case. The minute SE is involved and it's within the term they will bring the operator to task.

 

[Slottery]

Well I reported this so we will see what they say. I know that Broadway's defence will be that they say I didn't like their games so the self exclusion was based on game preference. But then if someone did not like the games they simply wouldn't play. Why ask for a SE? The emails were not a straightforward yes you are self excluded. They offered me a six week break first etc and I said no thanks just a SE. And they asked me for how long so i said the maximum possible. They just have that point that they keep relying on. In my case I have all the emails and proof of all the wagers and deposits they accepted aswell as the self exclusion agreement.

As you have reported them, best can do is wait t get some ruling. Some instance who have power to make ruling against them or your claim when having all material to review can solve this. Posting more repetitive posts here is not really going to help, but could give some other opinions for people about your means (which don't change facts when judgment is done based an all facts, but don't see any further benefits to make more public posts as you have explained your whole story already and have got advises can be provided), like you have offered part of possibly advised to get your deposits back to anyone who could assist you and give some to charity, you have offered deal to operator and keep posting about this in public instead of taking that action to go further as here it can't be done.

Some can take these kind of statements and make this thread already this long bit weird if your main cause is to get justice to unfair gambling operator. That could be done through UKGC, even they don't (AFAIK what posted here) don't handle individual complaints, they can investigate reported operators and are their practices breaching their license terms. Then everything should get sorted, but defending yourself here to us, not really make anything happen but wonder why you keep this thread alive even everything seems to be said.

Keep us updated how your process is going.

 

[coolrunnings19]

Just posting these emails so you can see what was said. I know a few of you asked for screenshots so I have taken out the personal info and this is what was said. Hopefully the attachments come through in the correct order!