Cross brand exclusion - UK?

Vicky87

Newbie member
Joined
Nov 28, 2013
Location
England
Hi, I have read a lot of threads on this forum over time, and something that sticks in my mind is how a lot of members say under UKGC regs, an exclusion is across all sites on said license. Is this correct or have I misunderstood somewhere or missed some info? Currently having some issues where a site is claiming that exclusion is only on the site the exclusion was made on. However, same label have refused winnings as exclusions exist on same license. So I am obviously a little confused by this as that appears to be wanting it both ways? If both 'rules' exist then if an exclusion exists anywhere, they can refuse any winnings, but also keep all deposits, essentially a win win for them, as I understand it? Also, it appears no checking is done before a withdrawal is requested, so by that time, some players might be massively down..and have no actual way of winning. And only find this out after a win is denied. Clearly if all is lost, the regs suddenly do not apply too and its tough for the player.

Also slightly odd is the fact that support keeps talking about MGA regs randomly, where as I am in the UK, surely UK regs cover me? UKGC was only mentioned for them to say rules say that any winnings have to be withheld and only deposits returned as exclusion on network exists, they said they would be risking their license should they pay winnings when they know a SE exists on the network, which I guess is fair enough. However, they then switched back to MGA for how apparently a self exclusion is only for one site and NOT cross network. Though eventually claimed that UKGC also say its only on one site rather than cross brand.

Besides lurking here a lot, I don't have too much experience of casinos mind. Its only been since support brought up a self exclusion that I have been looking about to see if they are correct. I didn't even know the site I excluded on was on the same licese as current site until support brought it up. I took the refusal of winnings (subsequent refund of deposits in that case, rather than winnings paid) on the chin, as it seems thats the correct interpretation of the regs But I don't see how it can be right to return deposits when someone wins, but not if they lose also? Basically, if I have a permanent self exclusion on one site, does this carry over to every site on the license, in the UK? And do casinos legally have to refuse winnings because of a self exclusion on another site on same license?

As a slight aside, the casino I am currently having issues with allowed loads of deposits, then when a small withdrawal was asked for suddenly loads of documents were needed so I could be verified. I thought this was meant to have ended now? As I understood it, players must be verified before depositing these days. Obviously it might be different if large withdrawal requested, or proof of income or something, but this was literally under 100 quid when the deposits are at least 20x that. I am not complaining about that part though as had docs already there just incase (though took near 4 days to verify with them), but..given the exclusion thing and this together, it kind of seems this casino is playing a bit loose with UKGC regs, only actually following them when it suits them to do so, such as when a withdrawal that takes someone over lifetime deposits is asked for, suddenly, only deposits can be refunded as an exclusion exists and its against regs to pay winnings in that situation apparently.

I guess the above kind of ties in with the problem I am having. Because if an exclusion exists on one site..then surely when depositing on another, when the verification is done, the exclusion would be noticed at that stage, not only later when withdrawal is requested?

Finally, if I am correct in that a SE should be across all sites on the license, where do I go from here? Support has told me

'The self exclusion was set as Brand only, this can be done under UKGC regulations.
Related accounts are only excluded upon players request or sue to a responsible gaming report.'

(pasted as recieved, obviously they meant 'due' rather than sue, just a typo)

So they seem to say that UKGC do not say an exclusion should be carried over? But from everything I have read, this seems to not be the case and it should be carried over, especially as a permanent exclusion. Please tell me where I misunderstood, if I did too. As I said, not exactly a seasoned player so a lot of this is just from reading around for hours.

If this is in wrong section too then I apologize..seemed to fit best here.

Also to clarify, I am certainly not trying to have it both ways like the casino is. I just wish to know which approach is correct, as you would think its EITHER pay winnings OR refund deposits (ie..make all bets void, is the way it seems to be put). I have both going on at the same time, from casinos on same license. So whichever way its meant to go, casino is in the wrong IMO. Obviously it would be wrong for me to expect both winnings and refunds, as that makes it impossible for casino to win. But thats the equivalant of what the casino is doing by my reckoning.

Its not even for huge amounts, at this stage its more the principle of it. Either my 1k winings should be paid on site A and deposits on site B retained. Or 1.4k deposits refunded on site B. Surely its not acceptable to return deposits only in case of a win and retain them otherwise..
 
Last edited:

danofthewibble

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2018
Location
UK
Basically - self exclusion in the UK is per licence. There may be multiple brands on that licence, so if you're excluded from Casino A, you're also excluded from all others under that licence number.

However, a business can also own more than one licence. So you may be excluded on the licence for Casino A, but they don't have to exclude you if Casino B is on another licence.

To muddy it a bit more, they can still choose to exclude you against ALL of their licences, but they don't have to. (And I think you could argue that if they cross-licence excluded you, they should pay out any winnings before closing your account, as this is their choice rather than their obligation.)

No (reputable) MGA site should have accepted you unless they have a UKGC licence, so hopefully they're just confused.
 

Vicky87

Newbie member
Joined
Nov 28, 2013
Location
England
Thank you, thats how I interpretted it all.

The license situation, am I right in thinking thats the list of sites that come up when you click on the UKGC link on the bottom of the casino home page? If so, they are not on seperate licenses.

Withholding winnings is casinos choice rather than a regulation? If so I was blatantly lied to rather than a mistake made as I was told that the UKGC say specifically that no winnings should be payed to an excluded player (on same license) but the account should be returned to how it would be if it never existed basically, hence refunding deposits as bets were all void. As I said, I accepted this as it seemed this was correct, but if its not..then I don't know what to think here.

From what you said, it would be best to go for the attempting to get the win option, instead of deposits? (deposits were refunded already on the one where I won, but assume I could ask for the difference)

Obviously the win was less than the deposits, but am willing to go for either, just I am sure I am entitled to one of them. They can even pick tbh if they want but they seem to be not acknowleding the clear problem here. I just want them to play fair. Not exactly a large win/loss, but its just the situation seems shocking and if this is something thats regular, I can see it causing huge issues for some players tbh.

Actually considering stopping gambling altogether through this as its so stressful and I feel quite cheated which I have never felt before from any casino. Gambling is pretty much my only vice though and being housebound kind of means..I can do not that much else really!
 

colinsunderland

Experienced Member
webmeister
MM
Joined
Jan 28, 2016
Location
uk
Naming the casinos in question would help immensely, chances are someone else has had similar, or we can look at the T&C's, check license etc.

If they are refusing winnings on the grounds of a SE at another casino, then they should refund deposits, so they have done the right thing there. (edited this bit as re-read your posts)

If they are on the same license, then you should complain to the UKGC.
 

danofthewibble

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2018
Location
UK
I was under the impression they didn't have to pay out winnings if you'd been excluded on the same licence. But if the UKGC has confirmed otherwise, and your winnings were higher than your total deposits, I'd be pursuing the winnings, but as goodwill to them suggesting they subtract the deposits already refunded from the overall win.

Which Casino/licence is it?

(And yes, the licence should always be on the front page of the casino site, and in most cases accessible just by clicking the Gambling Commission logo.)
 

Vicky87

Newbie member
Joined
Nov 28, 2013
Location
England
No UKGC didn't confirm, thats just what I have intepreted from my hours of searching. I would feel a bit cheeky asking for the win but also the deposits, even as goodwill as that would put casino at a loss which is not fair really. Just either win, or deposits would be fine, and an aknowledgment that they were in the wrong. (edited..I think I read that bit wrong. Winnings minus the already refunded deposits would be fine, thats all I would expect anyway as otherwise they are losing a lot)

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


List of casinos on license^

Exclusion is on trada. Loss is karamba. Win was playfrank.
 

danofthewibble

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2018
Location
UK
No UKGC didn't confirm, thats just what I have intepreted from my hours of searching. I would feel a bit cheeky asking for the win but also the deposits, even as goodwill as that would put casino at a loss which is not fair really. Just either win, or deposits would be fine, and an aknowledgment that they were in the wrong. (edited..I think I read that bit wrong. Winnings minus the already refunded deposits would be fine, thats all I would expect anyway as otherwise they are losing a lot)

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


List of casinos on license^

Exclusion is on trada. Loss is karamba. Win was playfrank.

Ah, Aspire. It's possible @TradaCasino may be able to assist - not the same casino, but on the same licence and a decent rep.
 

Vicky87

Newbie member
Joined
Nov 28, 2013
Location
England
If it was before, would they not still need to crosscheck given exclusions on the group were applied to trada?

This is how this has happened actually. I did not know trada was in same group. Have since started reading the trada moving to AG thread today but not finished yet. Very long thread.

Even if the exclusion was before the move, they clearly they knew about the exclusion and deemed it relevant. As they used it to retain winnings. Then to refuse deposit refund also. So even if it was before, the fact that they were the ones who told me about it kind of says they have access to tradas excluded players list? Or tradas excluded players were migrated along with site.

Its all so confusing. All of this was around the same time too. After winnings were withheld, I searched a bit to check and found out playfrank was on same license as trada. Then that karamba is also. Thats when I started thinking depoisits should be returned, as they used SE on one site so clearly it should be on others too, not only applied if player wins something.

Whatever the outcome here, I am never going near any aspire global sites again. Though, the exclusion should be over all so I shouldn't have the option to anyway.
 

danofthewibble

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2018
Location
UK
I had a Trada account originally, but when they migrated to Aspire it was automatically excluded because I had excluded on an AG site years ago (before I knew what it meant!).

Yours seems to be the same in reverse. Not a simple solution as they are obliged to apply the exclusion, but I always feel it unfair that a business transaction between two companies can impact their customer who shouldn't be expected to track back through every licence they may have played under in case they might have excluded!

I'd definitely be pinging @TradaCasino and possibly doing a PAB if you're not happy.
 

Vicky87

Newbie member
Joined
Nov 28, 2013
Location
England
If AG exclusions applied to trada, then I would think it would be the other way round too. Well, they seem to have said it is the other way around as they used it for the refusal of payout.

Ugh. I am so annoyed over this whole thing. Really really wish I hadn't bothered.

I remember joining trada before November last year. Was on there for a while. Support told me that my exclusion on trada started 20/11/2019. Which seems convenient as that seems to be the day that the merge happened, so weird timing. Am thinking possibly this means I excluded before that date, but when the changeover happened, the exclusion was carried, hence saying it started the day of the switch, if that makes sense?
 

danofthewibble

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2018
Location
UK
Check your emails - I would expect that they would have emailed you to confirm your account was excluded once you did it?
 

brizman

On a Break
Joined
Jul 5, 2019
Location
Britain
It's a minefield to be honest..Kindred claim they didnt apply 32 red exclusion when the bought them over. But did apply s.e. when they bought stan james? Its hard to know where u stand. Also, casinos have been shown to allow players to play on a sister site, but apply exclude terms to others.
To sum up..it's as clear as mud.:confused:
 

Vicky87

Newbie member
Joined
Nov 28, 2013
Location
England
I don't have emails from that far back. It might well have been the 20th, but I thought it was before this. But support on karamba told me it was 20/11/19, then when I checked with tradas live chat (though turned out to be same agent!) they said 20/11/19 also.

But yes, I did SE from trada, for life. However, I had no idea they were on aspire network until support told me this.

Have had another email claiming UKGC allow exclusions for UK players on only one site on the network. Which again, I feel is false from what I have read.

Latest email says

'We are contacting you in regards to your previous email. Please note that this information is correct - we offer two types of Self Exclusion - the Self Exclusion on single brand only and the Self Exclusion on the network level. On our related brand you activated the Self exclusion for that brand only. Can you please confirm if you would like the Self Exclusion on our entire network?'

I have replied here saying that basically them offering single site exclusions doesn't have anything to do with UKGC regulations as far as I can tell. They can offer it, maybe for people playing elsewhere, but it seems quite clear that UK should be cross license. Have also taken them up on offer of cross site exclusion now, though pointed out that that shouldn't currently be an issue anyway as the exclusion should have been applied before now anyway!

When I actually excluded, I do not remember any option of 'single brand or network' as claimed mind. But regardless, if I was offered that and chose single then..would that override UKGC?

As they insist on stating they are following the regs when I am almost positive they are not, it seems I am going to have to escalate this tbh. Do you think an ADR would help here, or should I go to gambling commission directly? It seems from reading (again) that GC does not take individual cases though, so I wouldn't think that would help much at all..though it could go towards building a case for a fine from them or something (which would hopefully stop others getting stuck in this mess in the future..), if more than me has had same issue.

Also though, apparently you need to have exhausted all other options before UKGC.

Thanks for the replies.
 
Last edited:

colinsunderland

Experienced Member
webmeister
MM
Joined
Jan 28, 2016
Location
uk
The 20.11.19 was the date they switched to the Aspire network, unless it was a massive coincidence then it's likely you excluded before then.
If you go through the trada thread when they moved, Rachel or Connor confirm that any SE on Trada will transfer to the Aspire network the day they move, possibly around pages 10-15.

Under UK regulations, you are excluded from all Aspire sites. Their support is one of the worst in the industry, take no notice of them, you may as well talk to a ball of wool, at least it wouldn't give you incorrect information.

You won't be paid your winnings, however you should get all deposits from 20.11.19 refunded.

If they refuse, then you could possible PAB here, @maxd do you deal with SE complaints, and are Karamba responsive at all? If not, then make a formal complaint to Aspire Global, and then if you get nowhere complain to the UKGC. It won't be a quick process though.

I would also send a SAR requesting the date of SE, and a copy of any chats and/or emails relating to your SE, the address is DPO@aspireglobal.com
 

brizman

On a Break
Joined
Jul 5, 2019
Location
Britain
I don't have emails from that far back. It might well have been the 20th, but I thought it was before this. But support on karamba told me it was 20/11/19, then when I checked with tradas live chat (though turned out to be same agent!) they said 20/11/19 also.

But yes, I did SE from trada, for life. However, I had no idea they were on aspire network until support told me this.

Have had another email claiming UKGC allow exclusions for UK players on only one site on the network. Which again, I feel is false from what I have read.

Latest email says

'We are contacting you in regards to your previous email. Please note that this information is correct - we offer two types of Self Exclusion - the Self Exclusion on single brand only and the Self Exclusion on the network level. On our related brand you activated the Self exclusion for that brand only. Can you please confirm if you would like the Self Exclusion on our entire network?'

I have replied here saying that basically them offering single site exclusions doesn't have anything to do with UKGC regulations as far as I can tell. They can offer it, maybe for people playing elsewhere, but it seems quite clear that UK should be cross license. Have also taken them up on offer of cross site exclusion now, though pointed out that that shouldn't currently be an issue anyway as the exclusion should have been applied before now anyway!

When I actually excluded, I do not remember any option of 'single brand or network' as claimed mind. But regardless, if I was offered that and chose single then..would that override UKGC?

As they insist on stating they are following the regs when I am almost positive they are not, it seems I am going to have to escalate this tbh. Do you think an ADR would help here, or should I go to gambling commission directly? It seems from reading (again) that GC does not take individual cases though, so I wouldn't think that would help much at all..though it could go towards building a case for a fine from them or something (which would hopefully stop others getting stuck in this mess in the future..), if more than me has had same issue.

Also though, apparently you need to have exhausted all other options before UKGC.

Thanks for the replies.
Talking absolute rubbish..i bet they didn't offer single site exclude or network exclusion when you set it. Another casino trying to fob player off with utter tripe. Hope you get your deposits back, but unfortunately casinos know players have no real power when complaining. ADR doesnt deal with s.e. and gambling commission don't want to know. Don't even inform you of any outcome or not!! Weighted for casinos I'm afraid.
 

colinsunderland

Experienced Member
webmeister
MM
Joined
Jan 28, 2016
Location
uk
If it was before the move (which looks likely) then it was a single site exclusion as Trada were stand alone. The OP wouldnt have known it affected other sites, as it wouldn't have when she signed up.
 

Vicky87

Newbie member
Joined
Nov 28, 2013
Location
England
Thanks for the replies. It does seem my initial understanding was correct, regardless of how much they try to gaslight me. They were right to refuse winnings because of the exclusion. So it looks to be the return of deposits I should push for, rather than payment of winnings (was never going to try for both as thats unfair)

I do think the exclusion was before November last year. In which case, its clear they knew about the exclusion as it looks like I was added to their database after the merge. It would be far too much of a coincidence if it was actually on that day, and it seems like ages ago, not a few months..mind my perception of time is majorly messed up at the minute. The reps saying tradas exclusions will be excluded on aspire also goes in my favour really. Still going through that thread, slowly but surely, on page 7 now so will get there soon.

Will try once more, if support answers me. But after that will try another route. I cannot see myself getting anywhere at all though when they are outright lying to me about it all.
 
Top