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..
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: