While the UKGC doesn't have oversight of NI (it has its
), there tends to be overlap on topics such as this and thus I would expect operators to behave similarly.
The UKGC rules on this changed a few years back after fraudsters saw it as an invitation to try and freeroll the casino (basically doing what you described - sign up with "slightly different" personal details to evade any self exclusion checks, then demand their money back when they lost) - at the expense of genuine cases of self exclusion / addiction who
As you've repeatedly attempted to get around self-exclusion checks, in the UKGC world the burden now falls on you rather than the operator - so while you believe you should be refunded (the freeroll) under responsible gambling rules, it's much more likely to see winnings voided as a terms of service breach (which is what they've done - refunded your deposits in the second instance).
Now should the operator have picked up that your details didn't match? Possibly, but no system can be 100% perfect and fraudsters will always be looking for ways to exploit that as a result... There may be a conversation to be had - but that would be between the operator and regulator, rather than yourself.
In an ideal world I'd agree - and in the past players would be made whole in a much wider range of circumstances. The problem is that fraudsters attacked this and keep pushing the envelope - such that the operator is forced into making more and more problematic decisions that either disproportionately increase their overhead, or significantly worsen the experience for everyone else (e.g. enhanced KYC at sign-up for all customers).
- Andrew Bettor (Mr A Bettor) self-excludes, his accounts are closed and money is returned to him.
- A month later, he tries to open a new account - and is rightly told he is self-excluded and unable to register. This is the system working as intended.
- Later on, "Andreew Bettor" becomes a member of the casino - all of these cases have people "accidentially" entering "slightly different details", possibly multiple times until they get one that works - and deposits as "Mr A Bettor".
- Issue one - short of having a strict validation process for all customers (the enhanced KYC checks we all complain about), there will be a margin of error here - fraudsters are absolutely pushing this to the limit because they assume that casinos aren't going to impose that burden on all customers (although it's telling that some have started to - one site I signed up to last year wanted to do an ID KYC before I was eligible for promotions and full account access).
- Given there are one or more discrepancies between the new account holder and the SE customer, automated systems are not guaranteed to pick up they are the same person (especially if the person keeps trying until they succeed), even though it's "obviously" the same person (an angle frequently argued against the casino, because the human-readable version does look obvious).
- Issue two - if casinos had to manually review every application, not only could players be waiting 48-72h to join but they would be asked for significantly more information on signup - this causes a significant increase in overheads for the casino and potential frustration for the customer when those documents aren't accepted and/or the request is deemed excessive or not achievable (e.g. people not on the electoral roll) and/or the manual review causes a mistake (as we inevitably will see with the new gamprotect trial).
- At this point, he starts depositing and withdrawing - the casino hasn't realised they are the same person yet so they will happily process withdrawals until a flag or threshold is raised by either party.
- Issue three - as the fraudster has the power of timing, there is no guarantee that the casino will be able to revert to the starting position and thus is being freerolled. I agree that the casino shouldn't profit from such a situation either and those proceeds should be donated to charity at a later date.
- Finally, the flag is raised - either by the customer highlighting that they're actually the SE customer, or the casino establishing the information themselves - and the account is closed out.
- Issue three (continued) - power of timing again, going back to the OP they initiated the process when they were £1000 down to recover their losses, but it was an automated flag (e.g. a £500 withdrawal) that snagged them in the second instance. I can think of many more examples but I'm not going to discuss them as I don't want to give ideas to them.
It absolutely sucks for genuine cases... but as we've seen with many similar threads (brand new forum accounts complaining about SE issues, often trying to freeroll the casino) the amount of SE abuse is a real problem.
 oops, I didn't realise the post was getting that long... well done if you got to the end! [/edit]