Gamesys - Failed Self Exclusion

[bluebird10]

I self excluded on JackpotJoy in February 2021, the confirmation said “Your self-exclusion also covers any other accounts you hold on websites operated by the Gamesys Group; those being Virgin Games, MONOPOLY Casino, Starspins, Heart Bingo.”

From May 2021 (4 months after the start of my exclusion) until October 2024 I was able to bet freely on a Virgin Games account.

I had the Virgin Games account prior to self excluding and the account used the same email address, as well as my name, dob and the same deposit method as my JackpotJoy account.

They closed the Virgin Games account in October 2024 because I had created a new JackpotJoy account which must have flagged some stuff up.

Is there any recourse here for them to allowing me to continue spending?

I don’t think the onus was on me to tell them I had a Virgin Games account because the self exclusion confirmation said, “If you have any accounts on these websites which are registered using any alternative personal details, it is your responsibility to notify us”, and I wasn’t using any alternative personal details.


Can I open a complaint?
For more context the gambling was in peaks and troughs, so some days was £1000 deposits, then I’d lose and set a low deposit limit for a few months, then remove it and spend a few grand in a couple of days. This never caused them any concern.

Just to add, I am now in recovery and have implemented GamStop. I have been through every bit of gambling I did over the last 5 years and it was a wake up call, what I thought was maybe £5k lost is closer to £50k.

 

[essuk]

I would think youre due a refund. Make a formal complaint to virgin games. Send them a copy of the email and ask for a refund of your net deposits over the period.

 

[Webzcas]

Welcome to the forum first off. But what I am about to write won't probably go down too well, but nevertheless I am going to say the following:

Why did you open up a Virgin Games account some years after self excluding from JackpotJoy, without asking the casino for your self exclusion to be lifted?

Surely you must have known that they would likely find out should you hit a win and go to withdraw? So why do it, knowing full well, that you basically have no chance of cashing out anything?

Yeah, the casino should not have allowed you to open up an account, but sometimes these things fall through the cracks. Which brings me back to my point above. Knowing full well that you would have slim to no chance of ever making a successful withdrawal, being self excluded from the group, what possessed you to do this?

Yet here you are, asking if you can get your deposits back.

Sorry but you do need to take some accountability for your actions. I suggest visiting betblocker.org and downloading and installing their app on all your devices.

 

[essuk]

@webcaz a little harsh. The whole point of self exclusion is that someone cant control their actions. I would imagine people arent thinking logically at such times.

 

[maxd]

Normally we’d be happy to accept a PAB on this if for no other reason than the player would learn what the law of the land is in such situations. Here though the prospects are dire: Virgin is 100% “talk to the hand” on player complaints from 3rd parties like us so the chances of us being able to help the player are infinitesimal.

That said, Webzcas’ statement is maybe not what the player wanted to hear but true and fair nonetheless. The player says "I wasn’t using any alternative personal details” but that assumes they know what the casino system uses to determine such things. If they do then congratulations to them because I’ve been working in player complaints for 18 years and I would not make that assumption. In other words, player’s assumptions aside the "it is your responsibility to notify us” clause is valid and applicable, IMHO. And the player well knew it.

Bottom line: by all means give the “return deposits please” thing a go but be well aware that your chances are slim and the problem is in good part of your own making. Don’t be surprised if you come up short.

As to “you need to take responsibility” being harsh, well so are lots of things in life but that doesn’t make them any less true or real. Trying to help problem gamblers is good thing, giving everyone a free pass to claim they are a victim at every turn is not. Somewhere the line has to be drawn and the casinos — for instance — cannot and should not be responsible for being everyone’s nanny.

- Max

 

[Webzcas]

@webcaz a little harsh. The whole point of self exclusion is that someone cant control their actions. I would imagine people arent thinking logically at such times.

Yes, I agree sadly and even shocked myself somewhat. So sorry if I come across not very friendly.

 

[conker]

I would think youre due a refund. Make a formal complaint to virgin games. Send them a copy of the email and ask for a refund of your net deposits over the period.

I think this is good advice.

 

[bluebird10]

Welcome to the forum first off. But what I am about to write won't probably go down too well, but nevertheless I am going to say the following:

Why did you open up a Virgin Games account some years after self excluding from JackpotJoy, without asking the casino for your self exclusion to be lifted?

Surely you must have known that they would likely find out should you hit a win and go to withdraw? So why do it, knowing full well, that you basically have no chance of cashing out anything?

Yeah, the casino should not have allowed you to open up an account, but sometimes these things fall through the cracks. Which brings me back to my point above. Knowing full well that you would have slim to no chance of ever making a successful withdrawal, being self excluded from the group, what possessed you to do this?

Yet here you are, asking if you can get your deposits back.

Sorry but you do need to take some accountability for your actions. I suggest visiting betblocker.org and downloading and installing their app on all your devices.

Hi, thank you for detailed reply.

Sorry if I wasn’t clear, my Virgin account had been open since before the exclusion, since 2017.

I just hadn’t used it from 2020 until May 2021.

 

[Webzcas]

Hi, thank you for detailed reply.

Sorry if I wasn’t clear, my Virgin account had been open since before the exclusion, since 2017.

I just hadn’t used it from 2020 until May 2021.

Ah ok, yes rereading what you wrote, you did indicate this was the case, which I missed. So the advice from @conker is very appropriate.

However, if you do still have an issue gambling, use BetBlocker.org. Seriously, it will help massively when you have weak moments.

Best of luck

 

[conker]

But use it after you have spoken to Virgin, otherwise it might prevent you speaking to them. That is how effective it is!

 

[essuk]

Normally we’d be happy to accept a PAB on this if for no other reason than the player would learn what the law of the land is in such situations. Here though the prospects are dire: Virgin is 100% “talk to the hand” on player complaints from 3rd parties like us so the chances of us being able to help the player are infinitesimal.

That said, Webzcas’ statement is maybe not what the player wanted to hear but true and fair nonetheless. The player says "I wasn’t using any alternative personal details” but that assumes they know what the casino system uses to determine such things. If they do then congratulations to them because I’ve been working in player complaints for 18 years and I would not make that assumption. In other words, player’s assumptions aside the "it is your responsibility to notify us” clause is valid and applicable, IMHO. And the player well knew it.

Bottom line: by all means give the “return deposits please” thing a go but be well aware that your chances are slim and the problem is in good part of your own making. Don’t be surprised if you come up short.

As to “you need to take responsibility” being harsh, well so are lots of things in life but that doesn’t make them any less true or real. Trying to help problem gamblers is good thing, giving everyone a free pass to claim they are a victim at every turn is not. Somewhere the line has to be drawn and the casinos — for instance — cannot and should not be responsible for being everyone’s nanny.

- Max

Unless im misreading this @maxd you seem to be negating the whole concept of gamstop.

 

[bluebird10]

I would think youre due a refund. Make a formal complaint to virgin games. Send them a copy of the email and ask for a refund of your net deposits over the period.

Thank you. I’ve put in a subject access request, and will proceed with a formal complaint once I’ve received and reviewed that.

 

[SYPlayer95]

If there is no chance of recovery through the channels currently available.
Is the OP not entitled to take them through the small claims court?

It sounds like an easy win, and they would have to reply to the claim letter received from the courts, otherwise they would grant in favour of the claimant.

Unfortunately, im not a solicitor, so cannot provide legal advice.

But for the sake of up to £200, surely its worth a punt?

 

[maxd]

Unless im misreading this @maxd you seem to be negating the whole concept of gamstop.

I’m afraid I don’t understand what you mean. I’m curious though, please explain.

- Max

 

[essuk]

I’m afraid I don’t understand what you mean. I’m curious though, please explain.

- Max

@maxd well you seem to be putting the blame on the OP saying he should take responsibility for his actions but the whole point of self exclusion/gamstop is for people who indeed cant control their actions hence the posting seems to fly against the whole concept. Unless you meant that is what the casino will say.

I feel the OP from what he/she says has been unfairly treated. He come here for help and advice and has been met with harshness and blame.

The law/regulatory regime places the onus on the casinos to look after players re problem gambling so thats who we should be looking at first.

 

[Webzcas]

I think this was more my message rather than Max's. However, as I am someone that is Gamstopped and therefore excluded from all UK casinos as a result since 2018, my point still stands. It would be pure folly to play at a casino knowing full well I am actually self excluded. As we know, when it comes to withdrawals, the casino will 9 times out of 10 find out.

That said, I missed where the original poster clearly stated he already had a Virgin Games account with the group, prior to self excluding. The onus yes, should be on the group to have ensured his account was closed there as well. I have said sorry as a result.

FWIW, yes I think the OP is entitled to having his deposits returned. That said, once that has happened he needs to download and install BetBlocker on all his devices.

 

[maxd]

@maxd well you seem to be putting the blame on the OP saying he should take responsibility for his actions but the whole point of self exclusion/gamstop is for people who indeed cant control their actions hence the posting seems to fly against the whole concept. Unless you meant that is what the casino will say.

I feel the OP from what he/she says has been unfairly treated. He come here for help and advice and has been met with harshness and blame.

The law/regulatory regime places the onus on the casinos to look after players re problem gambling so thats who we should be looking at first.

Well we’ll have to agree to disagree on several points here:

• I did not blame the player, I said "the problem is in good part of your own making” which is exactly what it is because they knew the situation, made assumptions about what the casino did or did not know, and went ahead and did it anyway. If that doesn’t demonstrate some responsibility then I don’t know what does.
• The OP has not been unfairly treated here. They asked our opinion and we gave it. Please recall that I said “give it a go” since the casino may be feeling benevolent. And I said normally we would be "happy to help" but in this particular case that would likely not help the player much because of the casino’s habit of responding to 3rd party arbitration by saying “talk to the hand”. We have been pragmatic and forthright. If that is not what the player wanted to hear then them’s the breaks because we would have been irresponsible to have done otherwise.
• The laws put safeguards into place to help protect players, the responsibility for implementing those falls to the casino. That does not make the casino responsible for the player’s self-destructive behaviour, nor does it absolve the player of any responsibility for their own actions. To think the state can legislate the casinos into being solely responsible for a player's well-being is impractical and doomed to fail.

I am speaking here from almost two decades on the front line of player complaints. Without a doubt there are important initiatives from the regulatory services for protecting players and, as I’ve said, that’s a good thing.

However, I also know from much bitter experience that for every new player protection put into place a new crop of players emerges to game the system. It is inevitable: they see a possible advantage and those who would exploit such things soon emerge to do so.

Before anyone makes misguided claims against me, no, I am not saying that all players who claim gambling addiction are gaming the system, many are quite genuine and we’ve learned to spot that pretty quickly. But I am saying that the fakers and the chancers are there too, queueing up to take advantage of every opportunity. No doubt that is an unpleasant thing for people to hear but you best believe it is the truth and it is the reality of player protections whether we like it or not.

- Max

 

[maxd]

@essuk , although you didn’t respond to my question regarding your suggestion that I was "negating the whole concept of gamstop” I should say a few words on that topic. Over the years I’ve written more than a few times about how great a concept Gamstop is and how they needed to up their game to better serve players. Years ago I think it was safe to say they were petrified of false positives — flagging a player when in fact the player wasn’t Gamstopped — and had set the bar too high for their own good. So no, I don’t think I’ve ever “negated” Gamstop. I think Gamstop is a good service to the player and fills an important niche.

Do I think that Gamstop and casinos alone are responsible for eliminating the pitfalls for player’s with gambling problems? No I do not. A combined effort from __PLAYERS__ + Gamstop + responsible gaming practices at casinos is a more realistic and workable approach.

I’m well aware that even the suggestion that players shoulder some of the responsibility for their problems is an unpopular one these days but I can’t and won’t deny what I see as a basic reality: addicts who will not help themselves are exceedingly poor candidates for recovery and rehabilitation.

- Max

 

[bluebird10]

@essuk , although you didn’t respond to my question regarding your suggestion that I was "negating the whole concept of gamstop” I should say a few words on that topic. Over the years I’ve written more than a few times about how great a concept Gamstop is and how they needed to up their game to better serve players. Years ago I think it was safe to say they were petrified of false positives — flagging a player when in fact the player wasn’t Gamstopped — and had set the bar too high for their own good. So no, I don’t think I’ve ever “negated” Gamstop. I think Gamstop is a good service to the player and fills an important niche.

Do I think that Gamstop and casinos alone are responsible for eliminating the pitfalls for player’s with gambling problems? No I do not. A combined effort from __PLAYERS__ + Gamstop + responsible gaming practices at casinos is a more realistic and workable approach.

I’m well aware that even the suggestion that players shoulder some of the responsibility for their problems is an unpopular one these days but I can’t and won’t deny what I see as a basic reality: addicts who will not help themselves are exceedingly poor candidates for recovery and rehabilitation.

- Max

I appreciate you taking the time to respond, but I think your replies overlook something really important. I didn’t self-exclude because I was in control of my gambling. I self-excluded because I wasn’t. That’s the entire purpose of these tools. The way you’ve framed this, it feels like you’re minimising what self-exclusion is actually for. I didn’t open a new account. The Virgin Games account was already active and had all the same personal details. Gamesys’s own confirmation said exclusions would apply across all brands unless different personal information was used, which it wasn’t. I’m not trying to avoid responsibility. I followed the process that was supposed to protect me, and it failed. Suggesting that I did not do enough to help myself ignores the very real obligations that operators have under regulation, especially when someone has already admitted they’re struggling.

 

[maxd]

From what I have seen so far in this a lot of assumptions are being made about what the casino could or should have done with the information on hand. Those are and only can be assumptions because we don’t know the facts, specifically what information the casinos had on each account. Without that information the rest of this is just speculation IMO and not particularly productive.

I’ve said it three times already and I’ll say it again: by all means take your case as far as you can with whatever services are available to you. The casino may well be sensitive to your situation and resolve matters with you. But, again as I’ve said before, don’t be surprised if they don’t.

Also, as previously mentioned, I do not believe you are without responsibility here. You specifically said at the outset that you were aware that you were supposed to keep the casinos informed about your accounts. You made a judgement call and did not do so. That was your decision, not the casino’s or anyone else’s. You make the call, you own the consequences.

Add to that the fact that it seems this went on for years — May ’21 to October ’24 — and I have to say that whatever decision comes down to you on this you don’t have a lot of room to complain about it, IMO. Obviously some will disagree and that’s fine, the grand mosaic of our shared humanity blossoms with the flowers of our unique differences.

- Max

 

[bluebird10]

From what I have seen so far in this a lot of assumptions are being made about what the casino could or should have done with the information on hand. Those are and only can be assumptions because we don’t know the facts, specifically what information the casinos had on each account. Without that information the rest of this is just speculation IMO and not particularly productive.

I’ve said it three times already and I’ll say it again: by all means take your case as far as you can with whatever services are available to you. The casino may well be sensitive to your situation and resolve matters with you. But, again as I’ve said before, don’t be surprised if they don’t.

Also, I do not believe you are without responsibility here. You specifically said at the outset that you were aware that you were supposed to keep the casinos informed about your accounts. You made a judgement call and did not do so. That was your decision, not the casino’s or anyone else’s. You make the call, you own the consequences.

Add to that the fact that it seems this went on for years — May ’21 to October ’24 — and I have to say that whatever decision comes down to you on this you don’t have a lot of room to complain about it.

- Max

I haven’t asked anyone to assume what the operator might have known. I’ve only pointed to what they confirmed themselves: that self-exclusion would apply across all Gamesys brands unless different personal details were used. They weren’t. Same name, same email, same date of birth, same phone number, same bank card. Gamesys should not have confirmed a company-wide exclusion if they couldn’t enforce it. That’s not my failure.

I’ve never claimed I was without responsibility. I know I’m responsible for my choices, but that doesn’t remove the casino’s obligations. I took responsibility when I self-excluded. If someone takes that step and the system still allows them to gamble for years without any intervention, that isn’t something to throw back at them. That is the issue.

If using an account that should have been blocked makes the excluded person the one at fault, then it raises a serious question about what these protections are even for.

 

[maxd]

"I haven’t asked anyone to assume what the operator might have known. ... self-exclusion would apply across all Gamesys brands unless different personal details were used. They weren’t. ..."

You can’t say that without knowing what exactly the casino had on file for each account. I wouldn’t and you shouldn’t. Therein lies your assumption and the assumption you are encouraging the rest of us to make on your behalf. I decline, and would want to see documentation from the casinos themselves before making any further statements on the subject. As I’ve become fond of saying, proof keeps everything friendly.

- Max

 

[essuk]

@maxd I hear what you're saying that people game the system...if they win they try to withdraw and if they lose they ask for refund. I get that players contributed to the issue but at the end of the day the protections need to be there for players who cant control their actions. Thats why the system exists.
In terms of gaming the system to me it should be simple...if the player was clearly identifiable as the excluded player then if the casino pays them out then its down to the casino's negligence and if they werent identifiable ( ie details changed ) then surely they arent liable to refund deposits. So if the casinos do their job properly in theory people can try to game the system but it wont work....unless youre going to tell me people who change their details are still entitled to a refund.

 

[SYPlayer95]

People who change their details would be trying to circumvent the gamstop block and therefore would be entitled to nothing.

 

[maxd]

I think we’re all agreed that anyone trying to game the system isn’t entitled to the benefit of the doubt. And that brings us back, again, to what the OP had originally said and later repeated: "I wasn’t using any alternative personal details”. In fact their whole argument was based on this: "exclusions would apply across all brands unless different personal information was used, which it wasn’t."

Now, knowing how these things work is one thing, assuming you know is quite another. For example, imagine two registrations:

1. First name: Jacob ; Last name: de West ; 123 Sandy Hill Road, West Chester, Wisconsin ; 53215 ; 414-898-7932 ; DOB: 24 May 1998 ; jacob@bigmailbox.com .

2. First name: Jake ; Last name: de West ; 123 Sandy Hill Road, Apt 72, West Chester, WI ; 53215 ; 414-990-7386 ; DOB: 24 May 1998 ; jake@differentmailbox.com .

Now, speaking from memory, this person may very well claim that their registration details were the same and true and unchanged. They could swear on a stack of bibles that nothing had changed — maybe “my phone number changed but I had no choice” — and many of us would be sympathetic to those claims.

However, in the past at least, those two registrations absolutely WOULD NOT have been flagged by Gamstop as being the same person because too many details were different. I know this because I’ve seen it, many times. The differences? First name, Address, phone number and email and that — at least in the past — was/is a guaranteed fail at Gamstop.

So, is the player in my example guilty or are they a dolphin caught in the net? My position is that it doesn’t really matter: the fact is that under those circumstances Gamstop would fail — or would have in the past if they’ve now improved their detection algorithms — and the player’s contention that nothing had changed would for all intents and purposes be false.

The bottom line is that assuming you know that registration 1 and registration 2 are the same, especially if they occurred over the space of a few years, is a very dangerous game because so much rests on that being true AND little details can easily change but matter so much to the outcome. Anyone making those assumptions is unwise to do so because they aren’t Gamstop and don’t know what Gamstop’s decision would be.

In the example above the player may well say “oh, sorry, I didn’t know” but ignorance is no defence. Innocent or not they were wrong and their claim, based on the assumption that they were not at fault and should receive compensation, would and should fail.

ALL OF THE ABOVE ASSUMES THAT GAMSTOP HASN’T IMPROVED THEIR DETECTION METHODS IN RECENT YEARS WHICH I HOPE I’VE MADE CLEAR IS NOT AN ASSUMPTION I’M MAKING. IN TRUTH IT’S BEEN A FEW YEARS SINCE I'VE LOOKED AT GAMSTOP IN ANY DETAIL AND AM NOT IN A POSITION TO SAY WHETHER THE EXAMPLE ABOVE REFLECTS IN ANY WAY WHAT GAMSTOP IS OR IS NOT CAPABLE OF TODAY.

- Max