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.

 

[L&L-Jan]

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.

Or I missed it, but result is as expected haha !

Thanks mate!

 

[mack341]

I must say I've never seen a simple 'close account' option at any place I play [mainly the uk bookie sites and a few others] just logged into skyvegas for example and the options I could see were 'self exclude', 'deposit limits' and 'cool off', I couldn't see a close account option. Is this perhaps part of the problem too?

 

[goatwack]

I must say I've never seen a simple 'close account' option at any place I play [mainly the uk bookie sites and a few others] just logged into skyvegas for example and the options I could see were 'self exclude', 'deposit limits' and 'cool off', I couldn't see a close account option. Is this perhaps part of the problem too?

Yep, they all do it. Not only have wildly-varying Deposit Limits (some will only allow e.g £100 per month, whilst others have the full range) but asking to have your account closed permanently is like speaking Samoan with them.

Though I'm sure this is done by design, i.e to never 'fully' close your account and move on. Not much use if one email re-activates the account..... (some bookie sites *cough* Ladbrokes *cough* even let you manually re-open the account!) Great!

So then all that's left to do is bite the bullet and SE.......which in turn insta-labels you as a problem gambler. It's all bollocks really......the state of the gambling industry in 2019

 

[colinsunderland]

Casumo and Videoslots will close the account instantly if you ask them, as do Skybet and Coral. Some refuse point blank, which I'm sure is a breach of the DPA as they should stop processing your data when you request it.

 

[mack341]

Casumo and Videoslots will close the account instantly if you ask them, as do Skybet and Coral. Some refuse point blank, which I'm sure is a breach of the DPA as they should stop processing your data when you request it.

I think there should really be an automated, self service way of doing it, contacting a casino's customer services is something I try to avoid at all times, it's getting better but there's still a good chance of misunderstandings and unwanted stress etc... Plus is it not possible they might again just use the SE option from their end?

 

[Slottery]

Though I'm sure this is done by design, i.e to never 'fully' close your account and move on. Not much use if one email re-activates the account..... (some bookie sites *cough* Ladbrokes *cough* even let you manually re-open the account!) Great!

But if you don't ever ask them to open it, would that matter then if it's closed for non RG reasons? Wouldn't it stay close until player decide to re-open it? If i understood correctly what you meant (what can be the case with my understanding ). I mean if you just want to get rid of casino because of shitty bonuses, T&C:s or what ever, why to ask them to re-open it (if you are not addicted to bad T&C:s and bonuses and they have to protect you to get back to them )

 

[Slottery]

Casumo and Videoslots will close the account instantly if you ask them, as do Skybet and Coral. Some refuse point blank, which I'm sure is a breach of the DPA as they should stop processing your data when you request it.

Must (or at least should) be against something if you are not allowed to close your account without having RG issues.... But from some operators not many things surprise anymore. As you stated, you should have right to request your data removed instead of what they have to store for certain period.

 

[goatwack]

But if you don't ever ask them to open it, would that matter then if it's closed for non RG reasons? Wouldn't it stay close until player decide to re-open it? If i understood correctly what you meant (what can be the case with my understanding ). I mean if you just want to get rid of casino because of shitty bonuses, T&C:s or what ever, why to ask them to re-open it (if you are not addicted to bad T&C:s and bonuses and they have to protect you to get back to them )

I suppose one could look at it that way, and if there's no desire to return then it might be seen as moot. But from a non-RG perspective I should reserve the right to terminate my services with them, be it dissatisfaction or just good old-fashioned spite

It's purely the fact that long-term closure is not even on the table, and that insisting on that for whatever reason puts you in the 'Problem gambler, tut tut' category

 

[Slottery]

I suppose one could look at it that way, and if there's no desire to return then it might be seen as moot. But from a non-RG perspective I should reserve the right to terminate my services with them, be it dissatisfaction or just good old-fashioned spite

It's purely the fact that long-term closure is not even on the table, and that insisting on that for whatever reason puts you in the 'Problem gambler, tut tut' category

Wouldn't really believe that can happen If clearly state that i don't want to hear from your shitty site because of your offers are terrible and site full of bugs and i do not have any gambling problem but purely will play somewhere else... shouldn't end up for self-exclusion. But as said, not many things surprise from some operators

 

[goatwack]

Wouldn't really believe that can happen If clearly state that i don't want to hear from your shitty site because of your offers are terrible and site full of bugs and i do not have any gambling problem but purely will play somewhere else... shouldn't end up for self-exclusion. But as said, not many things surprise from some operators

Was fairly recently I closed an account at a reputable casino. Well I say 'closed'....

Both during and after this process I was told that this was a temporary closure, ending with a drop-down box informing me of this!

The fact that I have no desire to return there, nor have a gambling problem, isn't deemed important enough to have a simple permanent account closure. So it's at this point I ask where casinos think they can shoehorn a player into accepting a pseudo-closure, or condemning you to being a problematic addict via Self Exclusion. Surely the only industry that forces you to retain a product (whilst no doubt still keeping your personal data) even when unhappy with it, so to speak

 

[colinsunderland]

Wouldn't really believe that can happen If clearly state that i don't want to hear from your shitty site because of your offers are terrible and site full of bugs and i do not have any gambling problem but purely will play somewhere else... shouldn't end up for self-exclusion. But as said, not many things surprise from some operators

One of the accredited casinos on here refuse point blank to close your account, insisting you self exclude

 

[Harry_BKK]

No casino will ever permanently and completely delete (close) your account for the simple reason that you could open then a new account with the same details. There is a simple "tick" box in your profile on the screen of the customer support interface which puts an account into "dormant", that's it.

Grow up people, take responsibility for your actions and stop putting the onus on casinos. You keep complaining sooooo much about the "nanny state" but you are desperately asking casinos to be exactly that!

 

[pinnit2014]

There's Harry and those eyes again - you folks are gonna give him a migraine

The only group that i notice that have the close option available on the site are many of the MTS sites.

Closing it will see some data erased obviously but a lot will still be held for the 5 years for AML /Licensing etc.

 

[Oscar Arnhem]

There's Harry and those eyes again - you folks are gonna give him a migraine

The only group that i notice that have the close option available on the site are many of the MTS sites.

Closing it will see some data erased obviously but a lot will still be held for the 5 years for AML /Licensing etc.

This is from Unibet

Account Closure


Please be aware, after you deactivate your account:

• You will not be able to log in or open a new account.
• Pending bets will be settled as normal.
• You will not be able to withdraw money.
• If you decide to come back to Unibet you need to contact customer service.

Please let us know why you're leaving. We can use your feedback to keep improving our service.

Make sure you're happy with your decision before you confirm your account closure. This action cannot be undone.

 

[mack341]

No casino will ever permanently and completely delete (close) your account for the simple reason that you could open then a new account with the same details. There is a simple "tick" box in your profile on the screen of the customer support interface which puts an account into "dormant", that's it.

Grow up people, take responsibility for your actions and stop putting the onus on casinos. You keep complaining sooooo much about the "nanny state" but you are desperately asking casinos to be exactly that!

That is a good point, it doesn't bother me if some details/data are securely kept to stop bonus abuse etc.. But not sure Harry what the bold is in relation to ?

An automated close account option would let people take responsible action quickly and cleanly; a 'nanny state' would mean interference in your options and choices by the casino? I think the UKGC, part of our government, does want to some degree a nanny state approach to gambling or at least that's the direction they're heading in.

 

[winbigger]

32red you have to fill a form. It should be instant no form.

 

[Harry_BKK]

That is a good point, it doesn't bother me if some details/data are securely kept to stop bonus abuse etc.. But not sure Harry what the bold is in relation to ?

An automated close account option would let people take responsible action quickly and cleanly; a 'nanny state' would mean interference in your options and choices by the casino? I think the UKGC, part of our government, does want to some degree a nanny state approach to gambling or at least that's the direction they're heading in.

I refer to all the SE/account closure/ etc malarkey.

Not one of the last few dozen of threads I have seen with some kind of issue relating to the above had a post where the OP or someone else doing SEs to stop gambling mention that they installed GAMSTOP or NETNANNY or the like on all their devices.

Not one single player said they handed over the control of their finances to a trusted person.

Not one single player has mentioned other avenues he/she is following to curb the addiction.

....List by far not complete. Add at your convenience.

BUT

In every thread, the onus is put on the casino for all sorts of reasons. Like they are the main responsible party for the issue in the first place. They are not, ONLY the player is. Like in this case - OP SE's at one brand, 5 minutes later he opens an account at another casino without spending 10 seconds to research whether they are connected. Then he comes here and claims the casino has "stolen", "nicked" etc his winnings. In what world are we living??

Then it starts! Casino should have done this, that and everything else but not the player! Geez, enough is enough! As I said: "Grow up, take responsibility....."

Go back to the turn of the century with Wayback and check e.g. Royal Vegas or the like....there wasn't even a "Gamble responsibly" or anything else on the site. No link to a licensing authority, no mention of gambleaware, no nothing. Setting RG controls or SE was unheard off.

Today, players have the option at EVERY casino to set-up right after registration powerful tools like deposit limits/loss limits etc to play responsibly, yet I rarely see them used BUT what I see is that casinos are getting blamed straight away when a problem arises. And then the call comes for UKGC, MGA, and god knows who else to protect the "poor" player when the player itself has done not a single "iota".

I've had it up to my gut with these stories and have no sympathy whatsoever anymore. Everyone can gamble responsibly today right from the start, there is no reason whatsoever not to use the tools on hand other than the "nanny state" mentality.

Nor is there a reason to SE willy-nilly for no appearant reason (according to the OP), you can simply set a deposit limit of GBP1 and leave the account as it is. Easy but why should the OP or other players bear some responsibility. The soon a problem arises it is off to the forums to complain like they are on the last breath and the casinos are the "bad boys" who have cheated them out of whatever they think was theirs.

 

[mack341]

I refer to all the SE/account closure/ etc malarkey.

Not one of the last few dozens of threads I have seen with some kind of issue relating to the above had a post where the OP or someone else doing SEs to stop gambling mention that they installed GAMSTOP or NETNANNY or the like on all their devices.

Not one single player said they handed over the control of their finances to a trusted person.

Not one single player has mentioned other avenues he/she is following to curb the addiction.

....List by far not complete. Add at your convenience.

BUT

In every thread, the onus is put on the casino for all sorts of reasons. Like they are the main responsible party for the issue in the first place. They are not, ONLY the player is. Like in this case - OP SE's at one brand, 5 minutes later he opens an account at another casino without spending 10 seconds to research whether they are connected. Then he comes here and claims the casino has "stolen", "nicked" etc his winnings. In what world are we living??

Then it starts! Casino should have done this, that and everything else but not the player! Geez, enough is enough! As I said: "Grow up, take responsibility....."

Go back to the turn of the century with Wayback and check e.g. Royal Vegas or the like....there wasn't even a "Gamble responsibly" or anything else on the site. No link to a licensing authority, no mention of gambleaware, no nothing. Setting RG controls or SE was unheard off.

Today, players have the option at EVERY casino to set-up right after registration powerful tools like deposit limits/loss limits etc to play responsibly, yet I rarely see them used BUT what I see is that casinos are getting blamed straight away when a problem arises. And then the call comes for UKGC, MGA, and god knows who else to protect the "poor" player when the player itself has done not a single "iota".

I've had it up to my gut with these stories and have no sympathy whatsoever anymore. Everyone can gamble responsibly today right from the start, there is no reason whatsoever not to use the tools on hand other than the "nanny state" mentality.

Nor is there a reason to SE willy-nilly for no appearant reason (according to the OP), you can simply set a deposit limit of GBP1 and leave the account as it is. Easy but why should the OP or other players bear some responsibility. The soon a problem arises it is off to the forums to complain like they are on the last breath and the casinos are the "bad boys" who have cheated them out of whatever they think was theirs.

oh right I see what you mean, I agree with a lot of that, the only thing with the deposit limits is they can be changed in 24hrs so it's a bit flimsy.

I don't think we can expect casinos to protect us from ourselves, that's ultimately our responsibility, but I see the automated close account option as a different thing though. That's just a logical choice that should be available to a customer and isn't as far as I can tell, and people by and large don't want to have to contact customer services so just use the automated SE option instead.

 

[snorky510238]

Not referring to the OP here but in the majority of these cases the post has been made by someone who thinks they are smarter than they actually are and thought they were onto something if you get what I mean.

9 times out of 10 you don’t have to be a detective to see their story is full of holes to begin with and becomes more like a sieve as it goes on and they try to backtrack.

One thing I would have thought though is that in this day and age surely there is some simple system that casinos could have in place that would flag up a SE person trying to use the same details straight away. It can’t be that difficult surely.

Also if every casino adopted the account verification before deposit approach a lot of potential problems could never materialise. Anybody using false details wouldn’t be able to verify and it would pick up self excluders. Easy way to solve a problem but it almost seems like nobody wants to solve it.

Cost can’t be an issue when you have some of the top names receiving 7 figure fines for failures in their systems because they would save that money straight away.

 

[AR1886]

I've followed this with interest, hell I've been one of those posters recently who has asked for advice regarding SE.

I do realise much of the onus is on me, but I think there's a degree of responsibility on the casino too. I've now changed over my bank to Mozno who block gambling transactions, I was already on GamStop, I'm attending GA. The issues arise from the fact that addiction is a truly horrible thing.

Accountability is all well and good, I'm trying so hard to beat this - I don't know what the best I hoped for setting up more accounts was, I didn't really care - I wanted to gamble and was able to do so despite having put preventative measures in place it wasn't enough.

I think it would be of great benefit if all checks were done prior to a deposit being possible, it would avoid a lot of these situations arising.

 

[mack341]

One thing I would have thought though is that in this day and age surely there is some simple system that casinos could have in place that would flag up a SE person trying to use the same details straight away. It can’t be that difficult surely.

That's the flip side isn't it, have companies in the past had a 'sieve' type detection system in place for new customers knowing that struggling addicts will open new accounts elsewhere, and if they lost keep the deposits and if they won and wish to withdraw, a more sophisticated and thorough detection system would then flag up the SE and the winnings are cancelled + deposits returned, that is a cynical theory by me but I wouldn't have put it past some dodgy operators.

Was just looking to see if there was ukgc guidance re deposits being returned for SE and instead came across an interesting page on the Pogg's website from 2016, where as an adr he was unable to look at a complaint that involved SE.

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

:

"Unfortunately there’s not going to be anything we can do to help in this instance. As a UKGC Accredited Alternative Dispute Resolution service we’ve have to work within their framework. While we are the appointed ADR for both SlottyVegas and BETAT, all ADR services have now been told to refer problem gambling complaints to the UKGC directly. That being the case, we're not allowed to engage with this type of complaint.

As such if you want your case reviewed further you’ll need to submit it to the UKGC at this email address [email protected].

Our current understanding is that the UKGC will review complaints in a general sense with regard to whether or not their policies need to be updated, but will not assist players in recovering funds in individual cases. To do that I believe that you will have to take the operator to court. I’m currently trying to get further details from the UKGC to assist players that wish to pursue this option."

and later in the replies...

Self-exclusion policies have been excluded from ADR intervention for 2 reasons:

1) Fraud in this specific area IS soaring. With the introduction of stronger guidance in this area many UK players are choosing to self-exclude then intentionally look for ways round their self-exclusion, allowing them to demand to be paid wins and demand that losses are returned. I'm certainly passing no judgement in this instance but I can see why the operator feels this is what you've done given that you've changed 2 core pieces of information that would have automatically prevented you from registering an account.

2) Operators can conform precisely to the terms of their license in this area but still be morally wrong. The ADR would be compelled to rule in favour of the operator in this type of situation, but the UKGC would rather they didn't. The UKGC view this as an area that need supervision directly by the regulator.

and the last post by the Pogg was:

1) Self-exclusion issues will remain reserved to the Gambling Commission. In other words, ADRs like ThePOGG.com cannot assist with this type of issue.

2) While the UKGC cannot directly force an operator to pay a player, where the commission find that an operator has not adhered to best practice it would be normal for the operator to to look to address the issue to be seen to comply with best practice. As such, if you've not already forwarded this issue to the Gambling Commission I would strongly suggest that you do so as your next step.

3) Your alternative to forwarding your issue to the Gambling Commission is to take legal action against the operator. The UKGC is considering publishing information for players on how to go about doing this, though I can give no information for the likely time frame within which this will be achieved.

I wonder if this situation has changed, it seems unfair that court action would be required, this has always been a concern of mine, the ukgc's approach to complaints, more or less 'sitting on their hands' but I don't know if that has changed by now, 3 years later. Companies have been fined for various breaches but are these just the big headline grabbing cases the ukgc cherry picks to pursue in order to set an example, and the smaller ones are left to take it to court [which for the sums involved probably won't].

 

[EkJR]

I refer to all the SE/account closure/ etc malarkey.

Not one of the last few dozens of threads I have seen with some kind of issue relating to the above had a post where the OP or someone else doing SEs to stop gambling mention that they installed GAMSTOP or NETNANNY or the like on all their devices.

Not one single player said they handed over the control of their finances to a trusted person.

Not one single player has mentioned other avenues he/she is following to curb the addiction.

....List by far not complete. Add at your convenience.

BUT

In every thread, the onus is put on the casino for all sorts of reasons. Like they are the main responsible party for the issue in the first place. They are not, ONLY the player is.

Go back to the turn of the century with Wayback and check e.g. Royal Vegas or the like....there wasn't even a "Gamble responsibly" or anything else on the site. No link to a licensing authority, no mention of gambleaware, no nothing. Setting RG controls or SE was unheard off.

Today, players have the option at EVERY casino to set-up right after registration powerful tools like deposit limits/loss limits etc to play responsibly, yet I rarely see them used BUT what I see is that casinos are getting blamed straight away when a problem arises. And then the call comes for UKGC, MGA, and god knows who else to protect the "poor" player when the player itself has done not a single "iota".

I've had it up to my gut with these stories and have no sympathy whatsoever anymore. Everyone can gamble responsibly today right from the start, there is no reason whatsoever not to use the tools on hand other than the "nanny state" mentality.

Oh the poor casinos. There are laws written to cover the gambling sector of which casinos must abide by or they are in breach of those rules. Casinos are businesses and are expected to operate in an ethical, trustworthy manner. The rules are there so that they do so.

The vast majority of casinos do follow these rules and have robust systems in place to stop SE players gambling and allow them to monitor signs of problem gambling amongst their customers.

The ones who don't have the robust systems...If they can't cover that..how trustworthy are they really? Happy to accept money from people with serious addiction problems to line their pockets.

That's the flip side isn't it, have companies in the past had a 'sieve' type detection system in place for new customers knowing that struggling addicts will open new accounts elsewhere, and if they lost keep the deposits and if they won and wish to withdraw, a more sophisticated and thorough detection system would then flag up the SE and the winnings are cancelled + deposits returned, that is a cynical theory by me but I wouldn't have put it past some dodgy operators.

Was just looking to see if there was ukgc guidance re deposits being returned for SE and instead came across an interesting page on the Pogg's website from 2016, where as an adr he was unable to look at a complaint that involved SE.

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

:

"Unfortunately there’s not going to be anything we can do to help in this instance. As a UKGC Accredited Alternative Dispute Resolution service we’ve have to work within their framework. While we are the appointed ADR for both SlottyVegas and BETAT, all ADR services have now been told to refer problem gambling complaints to the UKGC directly. That being the case, we're not allowed to engage with this type of complaint.

As such if you want your case reviewed further you’ll need to submit it to the UKGC at this email address [email protected].

Our current understanding is that the UKGC will review complaints in a general sense with regard to whether or not their policies need to be updated, but will not assist players in recovering funds in individual cases. To do that I believe that you will have to take the operator to court. I’m currently trying to get further details from the UKGC to assist players that wish to pursue this option."

and later in the replies...

Self-exclusion policies have been excluded from ADR intervention for 2 reasons:

1) Fraud in this specific area IS soaring. With the introduction of stronger guidance in this area many UK players are choosing to self-exclude then intentionally look for ways round their self-exclusion, allowing them to demand to be paid wins and demand that losses are returned. I'm certainly passing no judgement in this instance but I can see why the operator feels this is what you've done given that you've changed 2 core pieces of information that would have automatically prevented you from registering an account.

2) Operators can conform precisely to the terms of their license in this area but still be morally wrong. The ADR would be compelled to rule in favour of the operator in this type of situation, but the UKGC would rather they didn't. The UKGC view this as an area that need supervision directly by the regulator.

and the last post by the Pogg was:

1) Self-exclusion issues will remain reserved to the Gambling Commission. In other words, ADRs like ThePOGG.com cannot assist with this type of issue.

2) While the UKGC cannot directly force an operator to pay a player, where the commission find that an operator has not adhered to best practice it would be normal for the operator to to look to address the issue to be seen to comply with best practice. As such, if you've not already forwarded this issue to the Gambling Commission I would strongly suggest that you do so as your next step.

3) Your alternative to forwarding your issue to the Gambling Commission is to take legal action against the operator. The UKGC is considering publishing information for players on how to go about doing this, though I can give no information for the likely time frame within which this will be achieved.

I wonder if this situation has changed, it seems unfair that court action would be required, this has always been a concern of mine, the ukgc's approach to complaints, more or less 'sitting on their hands' but I don't know if that has changed by now, 3 years later. Companies have been fined for various breaches but are these just the big headline grabbing cases the ukgc cherry picks to pursue in order to set an example, and the smaller ones are left to take it to court [which for the sums involved probably won't].

It is still the case. If you want a refund after exhausting complaints procedures then an ADR will not resolve it if it's SE. The UKGC also state in EVERY email relating to SE that "we cannot help you get your money back". It's regulatory action. So that's it, your basically fucked unless you have stolen the money, in that case the UKGC can recover it and hit the operator with a large fine.

The system was broken. However, with the new rules after 7th of May there is some clear rules. If the casino don't follow section 17 LCCP they have to return the deposits made or face the consequences. With the new rules they should ALWAYS be able to spot an SE player before deposits are made. However, it seems that a handful of operators don't care less and still allow it. Will have to wait until there is a case on it for precedent, jury is out.

 

[mack341]

It is still the case. If you want a refund after exhausting complaints procedures then an ADR will not resolve it if it's SE. The UKGC also state in EVERY email relating to SE that "we cannot help you get your money back". It's regulatory action. So that's it, your basically fucked unless you have stolen the money, in that case the UKGC can recover it and hit the operator with a large fine.

The system was broken. However, with the new rules after 7th of May there is some clear rules. If the casino don't follow section 17 LCCP they have to return the deposits made or face the consequences. With the new rules they should ALWAYS be able to spot an SE player before deposits are made. However, it seems that a handful of operators don't care less and still allow it. Will have to wait until there is a case on it for precedent, jury is out.

That sounds like it's better but still a bit unresolved and confusing. Reading between the lines of your post and the pogg's info, it would seem likely to me that the casinos lobbied for SE issues to be excluded from ADR. Hopefully this new verification requirement pre deposit will improve things.

 

[EkJR]

That sounds like it's better but still a bit unresolved and confusing. Reading between the lines of your post and the pogg's info, it would seem likely to me that the casinos lobbied for SE issues to be excluded from ADR. Hopefully this new verification requirement pre deposit will improve things.

There will be a couple of cases on it, at least, very soon...! Speaking to the UKGC about a certain operator at the moment who think they are simply above players and laws. Sure it will come out in due course.

 

[Harry_BKK]

Oh the poor casinos. There are laws written to cover the gambling sector of which casinos must abide by or they are in breach of those rules. Casinos are businesses and are expected to operate in an ethical, trustworthy manner. The rules are there so that they do so.

The vast majority of casinos do follow these rules and have robust systems in place to stop SE players gambling and allow them to monitor signs of problem gambling amongst their customers.

The ones who don't have the robust systems...If they can't cover that..how trustworthy are they really? Happy to accept money from people with serious addiction problems to line their pockets.


It is still the case. If you want a refund after exhausting complaints procedures then an ADR will not resolve it if it's SE. The UKGC also state in EVERY email relating to SE that "we cannot help you get your money back". It's regulatory action. So that's it, your basically fucked unless you have stolen the money, in that case the UKGC can recover it and hit the operator with a large fine.

The system was broken. However, with the new rules after 7th of May there is some clear rules. If the casino don't follow section 17 LCCP they have to return the deposits made or face the consequences. With the new rules they should ALWAYS be able to spot an SE player before deposits are made. However, it seems that a handful of operators don't care less and still allow it. Will have to wait until there is a case on it for precedent, jury is out.

Sorry, still no sympathy for players who are

- not doing their due diligence
- SE'ing willy-nilly
- not reading the terms
- not using the RG controls to limit their spending within their means
- are thinking GAMSTOP is the "cure all" tool
- not doing anything else than executing an SE or GAMSTOP to curb their addiction
- ...list by far not complete.

In the past decade, so much power has shifted towards the player, especially with regards to Responsible Gambling, that there is simply no excuse not to use tools that are available.

People search, research, compare and god knows what else when they are about to buy a tech gadget, kitchen appliance and anything else in their lives where they spend their hard earned money. Yet when it comes to casinos (where they also are spending their hard earned cash) they expect everything to be served on a golden platter.

IMO, 90 - 95% or maybe more of online casinos (properly licensed brands) operate as the regulations/laws dictate it. Are 90 - 95% or more of the gamblers playing by the rules/regulations/laws? I am sure not!