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.
:
"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 info@gamblingcommission.gov.uk.
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].