Hyper Casino refusing to pay out £1150

[JayBe]

When you saw the owned by L&L europe part did you not think to having a quick search of them before giving them your money?

With so many rogue places about research is key and when i say research i mean a quick 30 second google search that would have avoided this scenario.

Id say this group is quickly becoming or possibly has already become the most respected group of casinos on here and they did the right thing here 100%.

Learn from it and move on.

So, you think that this casino is so reputable that you need to google search on it because of it's lack of transparency? Well, that makes sense!

Anyway, I politely asked people not to write on here as L&L Jan has asked me to do this in public, but people are doing anyway. I'll respond to posts when I get time

 

[JayBe]

if you arent an addict and pay within limits, dont use the self exclude if ther isnt a poblem
simply dont deposit and play or close your acct
or use the TAB

Read my previous posts FFS

 

[dionysus]

Read my previous posts FFS

i quoted it
ergo, i read it

 

[irish-ranger]

Again,they havent nicked anything, the winnings were never legitimately yours

Ack come on mate he dosnt want us responding to the thread even tho the clue is in the name (forum)

 

[dionysus]

Ack come on mate he dosnt want us responding to the thread even tho the clue is in the name (forum)

yanno?
the op started the post
he directed it to cm members
you'd kind of think members would respond

 

[irish-ranger]

yanno?
the op started the post
he directed it to cm members
you'd kind of think memb
ers would respond

Correct but things ain't really going the way her expected them to go.

 

[mack341]

I'd politely ask people not to respond unless really necessary in this thread - I started to try and respond to all the posts, but there's now 40+ responses and this is the only significant amount of time off for most of the next week and L&L Jan would prefer to do this in public (or go to their complaints..and I frankly, I don't trust them)

But as you're not being polite to L&L and Jan is their representative here, people are going to feel the need to give a view. By the sounds of it you've been gambling for a while and know the lay of the land regarding SE, so would understand that it applies across groups, I'm afraid as a neutral observer the coincidences after you self excluded, point more towards an attempt at risk free gambling by exploiting SE. [and I am very critical towards casinos and any underhand business practices]

However if you feel you have genuine grounds of complaint, chiefly because of that term above, you ought to take the complaint to the ADR instead of getting into a slanging match here.

Secondly, thank you for your faux patronising concern. No I'm not an addict - I binge, but I play within limits when I do. I've had plenty of times when I've lost a fair amount but I'm fine with that as that's legitimately losing. This is not though.

It wasn't faux patronising concern towards yourself, I was differentiating my viewpoint from other posters who take a tougher stance, this issue of SE refunds and winnings is persistently recurring and some who try to exploit SE have terrible addiction problems that are causing this behaviour, therefore I have sympathy for them. That's all.

 

[pinnit2014]

What’s not transparent? Scroll down to the bottom and it’s L and L on both; not as if ones obfuscating their ownership by stating they are M n M.

 

[colinsunderland]

Secondly, thank you for your faux patronising concern. No I'm not an addict - I binge, but I play within limits when I do. I've had plenty of times when I've lost a fair amount but I'm fine with that as that's legitimately losing. This is not though.

If you don't have a problem, why are you using self exclusion?

When you self excluded you were presented with

Self-exclusion must be applied in the event of problem gambling only!

so you knew fine well not to use it as, according to you, you have no gambling problem.

Why didn't you contact Fun Casino when you were blocked from depositing to find out why you couldn't do so? I would imagine in 99% of cases, the customer would do that.

You keep saying the only place L&L is mentioned is a tiny link at the bottom of one page, what about the massive in your face pop up when you try to deposit, which you have to click yes on, before you can deposit, did you miss that too? I mean its only mentioned three times in the pop up.

 

[dionysus]

for a player arguing the reasons one shouldn't reasearch casinos, they've managed to successfully illustrate why players should research casinos and do due diligence

 

[mack341]

Weird, you insult me, then agree with me about the lack of transparency. Well yeah, I agree, they should make it more bloody obvious.

I did not intend to insult you, I gain nothing from that, you've seen it as an insult because I haven't agreed with your complaint...if gamblers can't straight talk on a forum then there's not much point in posting, you haven't exactly been on best behaviour but people make some allowance because they understand you're unhappy.

The t&c adjustment I mentioned would be both to assist the genuine newbie or inexperienced, and to stop the ignorance plea from the exploiters; I wouldn't personally need such a term because although I have never used SE I understand casinos often own more than one brand/site and SE of one covers all, so I would check to see the owners of any new casino I was joining...it's not rocket science or a particular difficult or daunting task.

 

[sueyh]

The best thing you can do is moving on, and please never ever use self-exclusion and from now on you really need to check if you ever self excluded yourself from any sister casino when you register on a new casino.
You can close an account easily on many casinos, and if you don't want spam email...simple solution for you.
Create gmail account, use it to register on a casino, when you close the account on the casino, close the email address same time, and open a new gamil account for a new casino you will register on.

Self-exclusion is for the problem gambler, and if you used it even though you are not a problem gambler just because you didn't want spam email, you should take consequences self-exclusion might bring to you, especially when you put the wrong DOB as your mistake.

There is nothing you can do here.
You should feel lucky you got your deposit back, many casino even don't refund deposit back when you use wrong information.

 

[trancemonkey]

I'd politely ask people not to respond unless really necessary in this thread - I started to try and respond to all the posts, but there's now 40+ responses and this is the only significant amount of time off for most of the next week and L&L Jan would prefer to do this in public (or go to their complaints..and I frankly, I don't trust them)

I have no idea what happened with Fun casino - your support told me that I'd put in the wrong date of birth - of someone aged 18 as I said to you via PM, it would be difficult for me to pass as an 18 year old as much as I would like to. If things don't work then I just move on.

Obviously I'm not going to dox myself, but you can confirm that (a) my name is pretty unique, (b) my address is unique, (c) my email is unique and (d) my telephone number is unique. Whether or not I messed up on date of birth, you systems couldn't pick up that I was the same person..and were reliant on something that is shared by 1/365 of the population? That makes no sense at all.

This is also pretty much irrelevant - I'm not denying that I registered at Fun Casino (I've registered at many tens over the years and keep a few..well two now..that I feel treat their punters well) and I'm not denying that I self-excluded (as I said in the first post) - I've closed accounts / self-excluded at lots of casinos without a problem - honestly if casino managers could make it easier just to close an account and not be spammed then it would make things easier.

The issues are as follows:

When I joined Hypercasino there is next to no indication that the casino is in a group - the only bit that does give you a clue is:



at the bottom of a very long page i.e.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Apparently, I am supposed to go and research this name and see that you are in fact a group and not a single casino. Seriously? As your support said:



Really? I have no idea about the legality of such things, but is this how you should operate your casino? The whole issue is that you didn't make it clear and I didn't have the first clue because you're more hidden about the fact than bloody Casino Rewards and they're awful.

Secondly, here is what I think is the relevant bit in T&Cs for Hyper Casino:



Again, even if I had read this condition and I knew that it was relevant to me (the 'our services' obviously should say 'our other casinos' or 'our group of casinos') then I wouldn't even be sure that it applies given that I'm not trying to bypass a self-exclusion at hyper casino.

Am I missing another condition here?

Of course, if the situation was reversed and I had played and lost my deposit, there would be no way in hell that you would be going "oh you self-excluded from another casino" and returning my deposit

Honestly, I was binging when I played at your casinos - I do that sometimes when life is hideous - I'll set myself an amount that I can lose and I will play and play and play, then I will stop - I will look at recommended / accredited / etc casinos - I'll grab a bonus and if it plays shit or there's problems with the casino, I'll just move on. I've had really annoying verification processes, I've had casinos delaying payouts, I've had insaaaane bonus requirements etc etc, but Hyper Casino take the cake - expecting the player to research and know about an esoteric condition hidden pages within a pages and pages of T&Cs.

This has probably been said numerous times, but while you are clearly annoyed (and i understand the frustration), the onus is entirely on you to do your research first.
If you choose not to read the Terms and Conditions, that is entirely up to you - but ignorance is no defence in law, and you would never have a hope of winning if you tried to use it.
The casino has done everything right here - they have spotted the issue, refunded you your money, and closed the account - this is a requirement under their UKGC licence, and they have fulfilled it.
No system is fool-proof, but as long as the casino does the right thing, then it is hard to argue.

Is it annoying that you won, and couldn't get it - yes. But you also failed to do your due diligence.
We all know that no one EVER reads the T's and C's on anything, but that is no excuse. That's a personal choice.
But what if you had blown 150 and then they had given it you back - would you have complained then? I somehow doubt this thread would exist.

 

[EkJR]

This has probably been said numerous times, but while you are clearly annoyed (and i understand the frustration), the onus is entirely on you to do your research first.
If you choose not to read the Terms and Conditions, that is entirely up to you - but ignorance is no defence in law, and you would never have a hope of winning if you tried to use it.
The casino has done everything right here - they have spotted the issue, refunded you your money, and closed the account - this is a requirement under their UKGC licence, and they have fulfilled it.
No system is fool-proof, but as long as the casino does the right thing, then it is hard to argue.

Is it annoying that you won, and couldn't get it - yes. But you also failed to do your due diligence.
We all know that no one EVER reads the T's and C's on anything, but that is no excuse. That's a personal choice.
But what if you had blown 150 and then they had given it you back - would you have complained then? I somehow doubt this thread would exist.

Would they have given it back though? That would be my only concern there. Nothing in the T&Cs about that, only about winnings being confiscated and deposits returned. We all know what should happen and it does in the most part but some simply don't play the game.

 

[Brian Wylie]

A warning when you SE stating this will affect the following other sites is not hard for the casinos to do. One of the last few questionable things most casino do not do.
It has got a lot better but that is mostly to do the regulator forcing the casino's arm.
Don't get me wrong I have a lot of respect for L&L
one of the best out there especially as they have refunded the deposits.

 

[Glassheart]

So, you think that this casino is so reputable that you need to google search on it because of it's lack of transparency? Well, that makes sense!

Anyway, I politely asked people not to write on here as L&L Jan has asked me to do this in public, but people are doing anyway. I'll respond to posts when I get time

I no who L&L are so i wouldnt need to research them because i already no enough about them to give them my money.

But going by your post you didnt so a quick search would have helped you see the group of casinos and educated you not to sign up to anymore of them after your SE.

You made your bed but now you want Jan to buy you new cotton sheets. Move on

 

[dunover]

Read my previous posts FFS

We have and you have treated by the book. The UKGC rules have been applied to the letter in your case so maybe it's time to move on. As to whether you'd have been refunded or not if you had lost, you cannot prove a negative so we could go round in circles forever speculating. Agreed, the system isn't perfect nor is the amount of information required at present by the UKGC for casinos to place. It is what it is though, and please do not get tetchy with people responding in the thread - that's what the forum is for. Thanks.

 

[Slottery]

Not playing under UKGC regulations and not sure how much casinos are pointing out that self-exclusion should only be used in case of gambling problems and will be always considered very serious action from player who can't self control his/hers gambling and want be protected by operators as he/she is vulnerable person.

Therefore even in this case, if OP have self-excluded him/herself from one site, in long run all casinos who decline this person to lose any money for gambling is making a favor. Even if one time session like in this topic ended up to be winning one, would it be right that when operator find out that this vulnerable person want to be protected from gambling, would allow account to be open, pay winnings and keep accepting deposits as quite known fact is that very few players are winning in long run and self-exclusion clearly states that player have problem and got addicted by spending too much money or time in gambling. So OP should be happy that operator stopped this happening once found it out and not caused more problems for player who can't control his/hers gambling.

Self-exclusion used not to receive marketing contacts (spam as described earlier) is not right way to do. You can choose from your setting which consent you allow casino to send you (email, mail, SMS, etc...) where you can just untick them all and you will not receive spam mails.

Self-exclusion as a tool should IMO be used across all operators in regulated country (like Gamstop, which still have it weaknesses as known but assume they are working on it) that once you self-exclude yourself from one site, it would affect to all under UKGC (or what ever license provider applies in country in question). That together with very clearly pointing out for what self-exclusion should only be used would benefit all parties.

Understand that OP is upset because didn't get paid, but operator would have violated regulator rules by doing that and took only right action by closing account and refunded all deposits so there was no financial loss for player. As OP wonder about comments from community here, there are so many topics about similar issues what can be found and after casino rep spent voluntarily time to clearly explain to OP what happened and they took correct action, it's not strange that you get loads of opinions as you wanted to bring this to public forum by making original post. I would instead try to solve it first with casino in question (like usually if you have something to complain against any company who customer you are), if they stick in their decision and still think it's not right, would raise complaint with relevant 3rd party to get it reviewed and get judgment, that would be more efficient way if you do have ground for your claim. Public forums are places where people post their views and opinions when somebody start thread here, this forum also provide free of charge ADR service where you get very experienced help to find out if you have been treated unfairly.

 

[EkJR]

Not playing under UKGC regulations and not sure how much casinos are pointing out that self-exclusion should only be used in case of gambling problems and will be always considered very serious action from player who can't self control his/hers gambling and want be protected by operators as he/she is vulnerable person.

Therefore even in this case, if OP have self-excluded him/herself from one site, in long run all casinos who decline this person to lose any money for gambling is making a favor. Even if one time session like in this topic ended up to be winning one, would it be right that when operator find out that this vulnerable person want to be protected from gambling, would allow account to be open, pay winnings and keep accepting deposits as quite known fact is that very few players are winning in long run and self-exclusion clearly states that player have problem and got addicted by spending too much money or time in gambling. So OP should be happy that operator stopped this happening once found it out and not caused more problems for player who can't control his/hers gambling.

Self-exclusion used not to receive marketing contacts (spam as described earlier) is not right way to do. You can choose from your setting which consent you allow casino to send you (email, mail, SMS, etc...) where you can just untick them all and you will not receive spam mails.

Self-exclusion as a tool should IMO be used across all operators in regulated country (like Gamstop, which still have it weaknesses as known but assume they are working on it) that once you self-exclude yourself from one site, it would affect to all under UKGC (or what ever license provider applies in country in question). That together with very clearly pointing out for what self-exclusion should only be used would benefit all parties.

Understand that OP is upset because didn't get paid, but operator would have violated regulator rules by doing that and took only right action by closing account and refunded all deposits so there was no financial loss for player. As OP wonder about comments from community here, there are so many topics about similar issues what can be found and after casino rep spent voluntarily time to clearly explain to OP what happened and they took correct action, it's not strange that you get loads of opinions as you wanted to bring this to public forum by making original post. I would instead try to solve it first with casino in question (like usually if you have something to complain against any company who customer you are), if they stick in their decision and still think it's not right, would raise complaint with relevant 3rd party to get it reviewed and get judgment, that would be more efficient way if you do have ground for your claim. Public forums are places where people post their views and opinions when somebody start thread here, this forum also provide free of charge ADR service where you get very experienced help to find out if you have been treated unfairly.

I agree with what your saying here 100%. The one continued issue is that a handful of operators do not have a robust SE system in place and simple changes like changing an email address or moving home can lead to new accounts being opened which aren't detected on sign up. Suddenly when there is a withdrawal the further KYC links the accounts and deposits are returned. Casinos should not be in that position and it should all be checked on sign up, 95% of good operators do this so why can't it be all?

 

[colinsunderland]

This isn't a criticism of L&L, rather the whole casino industry regarding this one point. I've said it before, but surely a lot of SE issues could be solved by having a line of text during the SE process (that you have to click 'ok' to indicate it has been read) saying

'You understand by proceeding with a self exclusion, you are stating you have a gambling problem, and as such you will no longer be able to play at any casinos operated by us or covered under our license. A full list of all our casinos are listed here <insert link to license page or pages if they have more than one - eg LeoVegas>. Please be aware, if you manage to circumvent any blocks we put in place at any of these casinos, winnings will not be paid and your deposits returned to you'

That would pretty much stop any SE fraud taking place as the casino can rightly say the customer knew full well they couldn't play here, and in cases like this, there is no way the customer can say they didn't know the casinos were related.

 

[ESCJAMIE]

 

[ESCJAMIE]

Love this forum

 

[nikantw]

I would prefer a "....you will no longer be able to gamble anywhere, both online and offline."
But I understand we are very far away from something like that.

 

[L&L-Jan]

Jan, happy to say that L&L passed numerous account opening attempts by me recently as part of the stuff I posted on here. So the system seems to be working perfectly!

remind me: was that the chart with registration and SE / gamstop breaches? Was that you who published it? Tried to search for it, but couldnt find it quickly.

I remember that chart and I was wondering why our casinos, or at least one, wasnt tested.

Kr.

 

[EkJR]

remind me: was that the chart with registration and SE / gamstop breaches? Was that you who published it? Tried to search for it, but couldnt find it quickly.

I remember that chart and I was wondering why our casinos, or at least one, wasnt tested.

Kr.

I will need to dig it out but I know I tested All British and Fun Casino both before and after 7th of May and all instances were identified, so apologies if I didn't have you on there.