Gamstop, operators refusing to re-open accounts when self-exclusion ends

[EkJR]

I'm able to log in and deposit at 32Red and William Hill now and my gamstop status has changed to 'previously active'.

Here's the strange thing...rather than trying to faff around reopening other accounts manually, I thought I'd give Unibet a whirl (as they have Play n Go) and sign up fresh. Pretty sure they're in same group as 32Red...however as soon as I created the account, I got 'account suspended' email saying they would have to do some checks and couldn't give me a reason as to why at this time.

As I understood it, casinos get a yes or no response from gamstop upon log in so I'm not too sure what Unibet are seeing here, maybe Mark might be able to shed some light?

I've tried logging in to Grosvenor, Betat, Videoslots and had no luck. So yes, coming off a Gamstop exclusion seems a ball ache.

The UKGC call it "not yet fit for purpose", says it all. That's the reason they are not making it mandatory yet.

 

[Slottery]

Yup, quite far from perfect like we all but also quite far for fitting purposes still. Haven't follow how they are developing and what enhncements are done or planned but seems to be quite slow process...

Not sure how it's going and how it's going to be with expired exclusion and what all information casinos are getting from Gamstop at current. Could be that self-exclusion history from Gamstop is sent to casinos when they check player, one argument for that can be that previous self-exclusions are one thing what you referring to gambling problem and what casinos always check from player when making risk assessments and therefore they can say that if they are not entitled to have all self-exclusion history, they are not able to protect problem gamblers as well they would be if they would have that information and some are concerning all self-exclusions as permanent (like stated here that all are not welcoming players back after time is passed) to stay safe and avoid all possible RG issues.

Interesting to see which one is completed first, final Brexit decision or Gamstop functioning well enought to be made mandatory for all operators.

 

[Mr_Slot5]

just a heads up ladbrokes and coral have a few play n go now. [not sure if gala do but they're in the same group]

Tried a log in at Ladbrokes and all worked fine

Play n Go was hot, took out £700 from a £20 deposit, already back in my bank account via PayPal so thanks for the heads up

 

[Gerontion]

Yup it's a ballache getting off gamstop.

I asked to be removed from gamstop over three weeks ago now, my min exclusion period of six months lapsed in 2018, went through the process, but I'm still listed as active my gamstop profile. Chased it up, was told it would be looked into - nothing.

Haven't even tried to reopen any online account yet.

I'm not too fussed in the grand scheme of things (but the fact I'm here whining suggests I am a bit fussed), I play poker regularly in offline casinos and now am perfectly capable of staying in control. I mostly just want my pokerstars account back.

But then if I didn't want to be nannied I shouldn't have signed up for gamstop in the first place.

 

[Mr_Slot5]

Yup it's a ballache getting off gamstop.

I asked to be removed from gamstop over three weeks ago now, my min exclusion period of six months lapsed in 2018, went through the process, but I'm still listed as active my gamstop profile. Chased it up, was told it would be looked into - nothing.

Haven't even tried to reopen any online account yet.

I'm not too fussed in the grand scheme of things (but the fact I'm here whining suggests I am a bit fussed), I play poker regularly in offline casinos and now am perfectly capable of staying in control. I mostly just want my pokerstars account back.

But then if I didn't want to be nannied I shouldn't have signed up for gamstop in the first place.

Yep, complete and utter ballache.

What makes it worse is you wait ages for GAMSTOP to sort their shit out then once you're finally off that register, you have to complete another cool off with some casinos. Quite unnecessary when you just had to have a cool off with GAMSTOP itself.

What I think is wrong is some casinos are actively checking GAMSTOP registrations without the player even logging in to their casino account. Some aren't though and these casinos you can just log in as normal once you get the all clear from GAMSTOP- as it should be IMO for those just wanting a short break (6 months).

Grosvenor were a complete pain in the arse for me. Took about 2 weeks to get that account reopened. I went to live chat who told me they don't automatically reopen accounts. So I asked the agent why my account was locked in the first place as I hadn't logged in and I had not excluded through them. Couldn't give me an answer. They told me I had to send email for proof I was off GAMSTOP register so my reply was 'well if you managed to find out I was on it, it shouldn't be too hard to find out I'm off it'

Sent the GAMSTOP emails to their RG team and took a few days to get back to me, then they asked me a questionnaire. I said it's fine if you don't want to reopen my account I'll go play elsewhere.

Next thing I know, I get an email saying account will be reactivated in 24 hours but they've put limits on my account their side.

If you just want a short break from gambling, don't use GAMSTOP IMO. It would be perfect for someone wanting to try and give up forever though.

 

[goatwack]

Can't say I've ever been enamoured with the prospect of using Gamstop after the barrage of cock-ups I'm still reading about.

Whilst not the 'be-all and end-all' to RG I always assumed it'd serve as a useful aid for those wanting to create a blanket ban on all their casino-related activities simultaneously, after which one could 'pick up' from whence they left off.

But it just appears to be a major balls-up almost used to deter people from SEing if anything, as short-term slotting exoduses are apparently frowned upon by the industry.

A major, major disappointment and wasted resource if ever I saw one

 

[Mr_Slot5]

But it just appears to be a major balls-up almost used to deter people from SEing if anything, as short-term slotting exoduses are apparently frowned upon by the industry.

A major, major disappointment and wasted resource if ever I saw one

That's the point I made some months back. The issues with it are more of a deterrent to people using it than anything.

 

[Mr_Slot5]

I think a lot of the issues, once the minimum exclusion length has elapsed, are caused by casinos taking it upon themselves to actively check the register rather than waiting until customer login.

If the exclusion was left with GAMSTOP as a 'need to know' situation I.e if a customer attempts to log in to their account, then there wouldn't be a lot of these issues upon a player returning to playing.

I didn't agree to casinos actively searching the register (it was intimated it would only trigger casino side if I attempted to log in), and if I'd known this would happen, I wouldn't have agreed to GAMSTOP registration.

I'd say it took about 1 month for everything to be back to normal again across all casino accounts. So in reality, a 6 month exclusion is effectively 7.

 

[Slottery]

Quite many operators do actively check self-exclusions to national databases where applicable (UK, Sweden etc...) and then make their own RG checks when player wish to return (some don't accept players back after Gamstop SE is over) and many ask email from Gamstop to proof SE is over.

All self-exclusion and time-out histories are useful for operators as they indicate gambling problems and they are expected to use all possible information to recognize them so that's where this has gone.

Regulations and some fishy players can be thanked for that, amount of refund requests (especially from UK players) is not really small and one point used often is "you should have recognized my problem etc..." and it's bit waste of time to argue with these peeps.

 

[goatwack]

It's just a hot mess. Whilst still the sole responsibility of the gambler to control their impulses, why does Gamstop even offer e.g 6 month options if the player ends up being tarnished regardless, upon expiry of SE?

It shouldn't be this difficult for players to have a tool that universally blocks gambling access for a few months, and then allow the player a hassle-free return. Only purpose Gamstop seems to serve is for people who like to quit permanently, and even then it's fraught with loopholes.

Why not introduce a scheme that TABs players for example, instead of this Shamstop hoodoo

 

[Slottery]

It's business decision for some operators not accept players back at all as they count problem gamblers to be more risk than reward, others do complete these own cool offs and checks to save their back and have it filed that RG issues are discussed with player or what ever they do when player wishing to return.

Not really best user experience but it's also that if you have so bad gambling problem that you need 6 months total break, it would be another hand really irresponsible to totally ignore that if you have way to use that information. It's not easiest thing to operator try to guess real reason why certain player have took that action to be banned from gambling.

 

[Mr_Slot5]

I'm of the opinion that ultimately be down to the player to declare they have an issue.

Upon a GAMSTOP expiry, all that should be expected of the operator is to ask the question 'Do you consider yourself to have a gambling issue' and that should be that. The player then accepts that this is a declaration on their behalf and is valid until/if they ever need to take exclusion action again.

I agree with @goatwack that GAMSTOP was lauded as a one stop solution and to a lot of people it came across as a very helpful tool for people who wanted an extended break from gambling. It hasn't turned out that way though has it?!

There is far too little responsibility on the player for their actions and too much red tape for casinos.

 

[irish-ranger]

My exclusion ended on the 4th of last year and it took me until 10mins ago to get my paddy power account up and running again no thanks to Gamstop for simply refusing to CC PP in an email..

 

[Slottery]

I'm of the opinion that ultimately be down to the player to declare they have an issue.

That would be logical solution. Then there are people (like we read from this forum at least every week) who are not able to control their gambling which then throws some more responsibilities to operators.

All here are more or less active or at least well familiar with online gambling, if you make a questionnaire for whole population, answers and opinions would be very different.

Some random person you meet in the pub can think that somebody who can't just easily be without gambling and need some blocking tools to stay rid of it is a seriously ill addict. Whole player base is not very homogenous, some are meister members here and been with slots long as they have been existing, other one see banner on facebook and start playing without any idea what it actually is.

Impossible to find "one fit all" solution but just try to find some average way, these are never best for anybody but not worse either

 

[Gerontion]

Me again,

Got to say my opinion on gamstop has changed. While they took their sweet time unblocking me they did eventually. Shout out to poker stars for excellent customer service - took a bit longer as I had to explain why I was safe to gamble again. But honestly that's just good social responsibility and I'm fine with that. They gave me the option to ban myself from casino games which I took. (Just want to play poker no need to be led into temptation). I now have my account back - woo. 5/5 for pokerstars.

Many operators have similar processes asking, often by phone, why I'm safe to gamble again. This is as it should be. I'm actually less impressed with operators that just allowed me to log in again - coming off gamstop should be a big process imo. It's not designed to be like a cool off its for problem gamblers and it should rightly be hassle to come off it. I was just worried I wouldn't get my pokerstars account back but I'm happy now haha

 

[Slottery]

Hopefully they still keep improving whole system to be bit more secure and not that easy to circumvent. In Sweden similar exclusion system work way better when all are recognized by their personal bank id instead of bit old "4/6 details need to provide exact match".

Seem they constantly are doing small things there and to whole concept it at least keep people blocked who are not playing with incorrect details and also knowledge operator if person have previously been excluded in their database.

 

[Sillybilly82]

My exclusion ended on the 4th of last year and it took me until 10mins ago to get my paddy power account up and running again no thanks to Gamstop for simply refusing to CC PP in an email..

I applied to Gamstop just so I could have a break. It turns out that although it is classed as temporary on my account, Betfair/Paddy Power view this as permanent. Did you have this issue previously?

 

[EkJR]

Hopefully they still keep improving whole system to be bit more secure and not that easy to circumvent. In Sweden similar exclusion system work way better when all are recognized by their personal bank id instead of bit old "4/6 details need to provide exact match".

Seem they constantly are doing small things there and to whole concept it at least keep people blocked who are not playing with incorrect details and also knowledge operator if person have previously been excluded in their database.

I have managed to circumvent Gamstop over 50 times so its certainly not the answer in it's current state. It needs to have full name, DOB as the primary indicators. The others are all changeable tbh

 

[cncas2123]

I have managed to circumvent Gamstop over 50 times so its certainly not the answer in it's current state. It needs to have full name, DOB as the primary indicators. The others are all changeable tbh

To circumvent the system are you changing details? Pretty pointless in using Gamstop if you are going to continually change details on sign up.

 

[Slottery]

I have managed to circumvent Gamstop over 50 times so its certainly not the answer in it's current state. It needs to have full name, DOB as the primary indicators. The others are all changeable tbh

It's very easy for all who wish to circumvent as it's only works if people want to use same details which registered with GS.

Name and DOB would decrease these, still long as people want to use nick names shortened from official one it's again no match (seem to be quite common in UK).

At the moment it works if people want it work, if there is will to circumvent it, for sure most can do it. That's one reason why these days one letter spelling mistakes in names can't be just corrected in live chat without little review of account. As you mentioned, some of these details are things which are something that many people change or have many in use so if all not provided to GS or willing to circumvent that with purpose, not really need much of thinking how to do it.

 

[EkJR]

To circumvent the system are you changing details? Pretty pointless in using Gamstop if you are going to continually change details on sign up.

It was to prove a point that the system did not work. It's well documented on here

 

[EkJR]

It's very easy for all who wish to circumvent as it's only works if people want to use same details which registered with GS.

Name and DOB would decrease these, still long as people want to use nick names shortened from official one it's again no match (seem to be quite common in UK).

At the moment it works if people want it work, if there is will to circumvent it, for sure most can do it. That's one reason why these days one letter spelling mistakes in names can't be just corrected in live chat without little review of account. As you mentioned, some of these details are things which are something that many people change or have many in use so if all not provided to GS or willing to circumvent that with purpose, not really need much of thinking how to do it.

Yes I agree but there are also advanced identity checks so anyone still able to circumvent it is going so against the LCCP. Its straightforward for me, the operators need to be detecting issues on sign ups. Tbh most do

 

[cncas2123]

It was to prove a point that the system did not work. It's well documented on here

But if you tried to sign-up using the details you had on Gamstop you would have failed, therefore the system does work, or am I missing something? If people who use Gamstop try to get round their exclusions by changing their details, how does this show that it doesnt work?
There's roughly 700,000 people born in the uk each year, roughly 350,000 of each sex. Thats averaging nearly 2,000 each day. How can a casino be expected to know that someone trying to cheat the Gamcare system by using an incorrect detail like a middle name etc when it is not inconceivable that 2 John Smiths are born on 1st April 2000 within a few miles of each other?
If you sign up to Gamcare, you should be at least honest with yourself and not try and cheat the system.

 

[Slottery]

Yes I agree but there are also advanced identity checks so anyone still able to circumvent it is going so against the LCCP. Its straightforward for me, the operators need to be detecting issues on sign ups. Tbh most do

Like said earlier another thread, there's no need for exact match in electronic age verification, you can pass them if you shorten your name from Peter to Pete and what so ever, player pass electronic check but first name not get detected in GS database.

There's no need to verify players identity in registration, just to pass that age is accurately enough over 18 years.

 

[colinsunderland]

But if you tried to sign-up using the details you had on Gamstop you would have failed, therefore the system does work, or am I missing something? If people who use Gamstop try to get round their exclusions by changing their details, how does this show that it doesnt work?
There's roughly 700,000 people born in the uk each year, roughly 350,000 of each sex. Thats averaging nearly 2,000 each day. How can a casino be expected to know that someone trying to cheat the Gamcare system by using an incorrect detail like a middle name etc when it is not inconceivable that 2 John Smiths are born on 1st April 2000 within a few miles of each other?
If you sign up to Gamcare, you should be at least honest with yourself and not try and cheat the system.

It's quite easy to detect. Postcode and surname checks alongside age verification would cut out 95% of SE customers getting round blocks.