<div class="bbWrapper"><blockquote data-attributes="" data-quote="dunover" data-source="post: 799982"
class="bbCodeBlock bbCodeBlock--expandable bbCodeBlock--quote js-expandWatch">
<div class="bbCodeBlock-title">
<a href="/forums/goto/post?id=799982"
class="bbCodeBlock-sourceJump"
rel="nofollow"
data-xf-click="attribution"
data-content-selector="#post-799982">dunover said:</a>
</div>
<div class="bbCodeBlock-content">
<div class="bbCodeBlock-expandContent js-expandContent ">
Absolutely! The UKGC are aware of the EMSEB issue and are dragging their feet although I hear on good authority action is imminent regarding this loophole which only profits the casino. Excluders are GREAT revenue streams for certain casinos, as they are likely to lose control, 'do their bollocks' and never withdraw. Which it sounds like you have, and I'm sorry to hear it. By the way keep copies of any e-mails regarding this as they are time-stamped and are acceptable in legal matters as evidence. <br />
<br />
The UKGC rules at present exacerbate this situation by not having definitive words regarding TAB/SE which all reputable casinos take to be automatic and self-set instantly. Some choose to read it otherwise and unfortunately delay TAB/SE just long enough for you to lose your shirt by making you do it by e-mail or contacting CS, thus when you are losing control this gains them that valuable window of time to relieve you of the rest of your funds while you are 'on one'. It's shit, it stinks and I think it's fucking disgusting they are allowed at present to get away with it due to the ineptitude of the UKGC and their failure to change a few words in their rules which will remove any ambiguity.<br />
<br />
Until they do, there will always be some shithouse operations who deliberately take advantage of problem gamblers. <img src="/forums/styles/default/casinomeister/smilies/mad.gif" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":mad:" title="Mad :mad:" data-shortname=":mad:" />
</div>
<div class="bbCodeBlock-expandLink js-expandLink"><a role="button" tabindex="0">Click to expand...</a></div>
</div>
</blockquote><br />
Jim i wish you well with your phone call with UKGC but i wouldn't hold much hope with them and without knowing anything of your circumstances and how pig headed you may be unfortunately the amount of money at stake may not warrant you getting a lawyer, Maltese/Gib lawyers or International firms that work in these jurisdictions don't come cheap.<br />
<br />
Dunover the TAB/SE is something i talked to the UKGC at length about over the last 6 months. It is a defective piece of legislation (and it will be pointed out to anyone speaking to UKGC that they don't make the legislation they just "enforce" it) for the simple reason it is open to "interpretation". It gives operators who want the chance to do exactly as you have stated, delay the procedure long enough for withdrawals to be reversed/tilt to continue. There is no given timeframe for when it has to be implemented, the UKGC will tell you they expect it to be "within a reasonable time".<br />
Now since the minimum period for TAB is 24 hours when exactly do they think a "reasonable" time would be? There are many Casino's out there who do not offer 24/7 support so if you decide you need to action TAB at 1am on a Sunday morning for a 24hr period is "reasonable" for it to be action'd at say 11am in the morning? (some don't even have support on a sunday so it will be 11am monday). NO of course it is not if you want a break for a day you obviously don't want it in 1 or 2 days time, all that had to be done with the rules regarding SE/TAB was make it clear cut, it should be fully automated and instant. In the case of SE it should lock the account immediately but require a SE form filling out when support return to rubber stamp it -the ramifications of SE are onerous and customers have to be made fully aware of exactly what they are doing as there is no coming back.<br />
<br />
You are dealing with relatively new legislation but i can't help but think it was badly thought out and far too open to operator abuse.Why have rules that aren't watertight, all it does is lead to issues.Here is another example , the UKGC insist that anyone holding a licence has a UK presence - ""<i>So if an applicant’s head office and registered office addresses are overseas, the applicant will have to provide a correspondence address that is in the UK. That address must be a genuine address at which such papers can be served that will reach the applicant in good time. The address cannot be a PO Box address and needs to be somewhere where the applicant, for example, has a consistent staff presence or it could be the address of an official representative of the applicant such as an accountant, solicitor or auditor. Such a correspondence address in the UK must be maintained for the life of the licence, if granted.</i>" <br />
The UKGC require this so "they can contact the operator over licencing issues and do so in the UK without having to correspond with Malta/Gib etc.". BUT this is only for the UKGC's benefit, they will not disclose that UK address to you and in many instances neither will the Operator so Joe punter has to run off and deal with them in offshore jurisdiction's. I can think of no legitimate reason any Company you are dealing with can't disclose a business address in a Country they are operating in?<br />
<br />
SE gets even messier the other way around ie when you HAVEN'T self excluded but there is data there to say that you have. I had a recent issue where i opened an account with "Dunder" to find it blocked as i was "permanently self excluded from BETSPIN". I had NEVER SE'd from BETSPIN (this all came about from GUTS closing account) and worse had been happily playing away at RIZK for 6months or more. Now the usual suspects will say "oh but the people at RIZK will realise their mistake and sort that out" . That does not wash with me one iota given that in another thread Yuts Gits (he can't get my name right either) said "<i>Hi mac82 - to back up Captain Rizk, you are welcome to have an account with Guts too - albeit one restricted from reload bonuses but allowing for free spins eligibility due to the fact that some notes I have dug up from back in the days this happened to you that the decision was also based on apparent links to other accounts to maximise the use of available bonuses.<br />
Now please BEFORE you go ballistic at my statement above let me once again outline - I do not know whether it is accurate or not - I am just stating information that I am receiving. It might well even be inaccurate, as I mentioned was well before my time, on a different gaming platform - I did not make nor assess these decisions.</i><br />
<br />
The potential for disaster here is huge , what happens if you have a massive win a year or two down the line at RIZK? I only knew there was data saying i was self-excluded because i opened the Dunder account. Had i not what was to say staff hadn't left or the company had been sold and when it came to my payout i was told "sorry your self-excluded payout denied".You simply cannot say that is not a possibility ,someone mentioned in another thread that you could prove you hadn't self-excluded but that isn't an option, you can only prove that you DID (copy of email stating you wish to self exclude) you won't have anything to prove the alternative, so if said casino says to you "prove you DIDN'T SE" what exactly are you going to come up with?? The issue i had with GUTS only dates back to February 2015 ,Tony (who blocked the account) is still there and already they can't find the backup to qualify exactly what the issue was with my account but Yits felt free to throw out the "apparent links to other accounts to maximise the use of available bonuses" and despite having the open opportunity for 8months (asked in thread guts/betspin/rizk and generally the issue with groups and operators linked by licence) and numerous emails to everyone in charge at Guts/Rizk to qualify or retract those remarks he hasn't done so.Neither have they been able to sort the mess out with accounts being closed/opened/closed despite assurances in that thread 8 months ago that "procedures had been put in place" - i'm still dealing with this shit currently.<br />
<br />
It's one thing to be denied an account but quite another to be playing on a platform where information is floating about that you "shouldn't be there,permanently self excluded" especially when its apparent to me at least that as time passes ("back in the day" to Tony/Yits is 1 year) they may well not be able to get any backup for that info, what exactly are you going to do then????<br />
In essence SE is a mess but it has the potential for disaster BOTH ways and i actually think the scenario outlined above could turn out to be even more of a problem especially where GUTS/RIZK/BETSPIN etc are concerned.<br />
<br />
Here is an extract of the communication from RIZK after the DUNDER issue: <i>"We have investigated your case <b>thoroughly</b> with our sister sites and your account was first blocked at Betspin due to bonus abuse. The permanent Self-exclusion was set on the account to prevent you from creating any accounts on our network and to prevent you from abusing our promotions.<br />
However, when you wanted to create an account with Rizk.com we gave you a benefit of doubt and made you an exception.We've been happy to have you and would like to see you continue playing "</i><br />
<br />
It was<b> first</b> blocked at GUTS (hadn't heard of BETSPIN then) and I NEVER played at BETSPIN and the tone of "gave you the benefit of the doubt" well that really rattled my cage, i didn't need the benefit of the doubt , it was their mess right from day one at GUTS (read the guts/betspin/rizk and problems with operator sharing licences thread). Its crystal clear to me that if that is the result of a "thorough" investigation their business is just a mess.<br />
And if your "permanently self-excluded" thats it, your self excluded as i must have been given: Captain Rizk 21st march "Earlier this month we upgraded our cross referencing software and procedures to ensure that these type of situations should not happen in the future, this means that anyone that has an exclusion from any of the brands should NOT even be able to register at another brand during an exclusion period. "</div>