New member introduction

[DLG]

Hello all!

My name is Dan and I found your forum by doing an online search about a self exclusion issue im in.

I have read over a number of your boards and there seems to be some great active members here that im hoping have some advice or experience.

About 2 years ago I self excluded with virgin after a good time and modest wins over a period of about a year. I found that the winnings I had were depleting so I decided to quit while I was ahead and I self excluded.

A few weeks back I joint heart bingo. I deposited £500 had a good time and was happy with the site. I played on nearly all game types, slots, poker, roulette, live game shows and won a total of £2200. I withdrew £2000 and received this in my account the next day.

Next day I played with the remaining £200 and and won a total of £650. I requested to withdraw £600. I decided to stick with the site and play steady and just for the daily targets, bonus offers and incentives.

I received an email saying the £600 withdrawal was rejected and to ring them.

When I called they said because I self excluded with virgin, my heart bingo account will be locked and the £600 withdrawal was declined and will just be kept by them.

I had no idea virgin and heart bingo was the same company. Im gutted more because i wanted to keep playing and was having fun. Just doesn't seem right in this situation that a online casino can take your winnings? Seems like an underhand way of not paying winnings.

Thanks for reading over guys. Any comments, opinions and advice as to what to do would be greatly appreciated!

Dan

 

[DLG]

Sorry... newbie error it says casino rep next to my title. I don't know why. Im not a rep and just a casino customer.

 

[dunover]

Sorry... newbie error it says casino rep next to my title. I don't know why. Im not a rep and just a casino customer.

Yeah, removed that. Welcome by the way!

 

[thr0b]

Hi, welcome.

Unfortunately there’s unlikely much that can be done about this issue. As they’re on the same licence, your exclusion applies to all sites on that licence. Best you can realistically hope for is your deposit back.

That they’ve paid out a large amount already is a) lucky b) a vague argument as to why they should pay out the rest on this occasion. But don’t hold your breath.

 

[thr0b]

Just to add, I’m guessing you went with that site as they usually have decent signup offers.

So you don’t get caught out when signing up, always check the link to their licence - it’s at the bottom of the site (and usually around the same place on other casinos) - there you’ll find a link to all of their brands.

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

 

[DLG]

Thanks for the reply. Seems like self suspension is a contentious issue in these instances and is a point thats been constantly reviewed and rewriten...If what Ive found by searching online is to be believed .

For me its more principle than money. The money can go. To be honest, id have put it back in here and there.

The three major issues i have are
1 - the lack of clarity on initial sign up that the sites were partnered
2- the assumption from them that i should have just know without easy access to clear information, i did sign ip with the same name, email, password, address and mother maiden name after all. Only my bank details are different. Shows that the checks are not robust - what incentive do they have to check when in these situations? they win if you lose and win if you win because they wont pay - morally currupt?
3- i asked directly what they would do with the 650+ left and if this would just go in to their profits and got no answer. In these cases, they should not be profiting from this situation. Otherwise whats the incentive to evolve? If im Wrong in court thern hands up. The money lost by me, at the very least cshould go to a gambling support charity. Not to profits of the business that is without question surely.

Sorry if it seems like a newbie is ranting. So its not lost in translation im in good humour about this and just want to challenge something thats clearly needs to change. I do intend to follow the complaint through to the fullest and document everything ready to take actual legal advice because, if i cant gamble then i need something else to amuse me and fill my time... am I right?

 

[Kroffe]

Thanks for the reply. Seems like self suspension is a contentious issue in these instances and is a point thats been constantly reviewed and rewriten...If what Ive found by searching online is to be believed .

For me its more principle than money. The money can go. To be honest, id have put it back in here and there.

The three major issues i have are
1 - the lack of clarity on initial sign up that the sites were partnered
2- the assumption from them that i should have just know without easy access to clear information, i did sign ip with the same name, email, password, address and mother maiden name after all. Only my bank details are different. Shows that the checks are not robust - what incentive do they have to check when in these situations? they win if you lose and win if you win because they wont pay - morally currupt?
3- i asked directly what they would do with the 650+ left and if this would just go in to their profits and got no answer. In these cases, they should not be profiting from this situation. Otherwise whats the incentive to evolve? If im Wrong in court thern hands up. The money lost by me, at the very least cshould go to a gambling support charity. Not to profits of the business that is without question surely.

Sorry if it seems like a newbie is ranting. So its not lost in translation im in good humour about this and just want to challenge something thats clearly needs to change. I do intend to follow the complaint through to the fullest and document everything ready to take actual legal advice because, if i cant gamble then i need something else to amuse me and fill my time... am I right?

I agree that these things really should be caught during sign-up, well before any deposits can be made.
In this case, you were actually lucky to get that first withdrawal you made.
Usually what happens is that the account gets closed, and the player gets their deposit back.

On the one hand i can agree that its a shitty system, but on the other, it took me 20 seconds to find out all virgin-brand casinos via a google search.
If it were me, i would count myself lucky and not push the issue further. I dont believe you stand any chance getting that £650 from them.
I think at the most, maybe you could get your deposit back. But one could argue you already have gotten your deposit+more back via the 2000 withdrawal.

 

[Halvor]

3- i asked directly what they would do with the 650+ left and if this would just go in to their profits and got no answer. In these cases, they should not be profiting from this situation. Otherwise whats the incentive to evolve? If im Wrong in court thern hands up. The money lost by me, at the very least cshould go to a gambling support charity. Not to profits of the business that is without question surely.

they dont, already they pay their partners from your GGR and despite certain people on this forum thinking otherwise(yes you bloatgoat), peoples misfortune does not finance our christmas partys.

 

[DLG]

Catalogue of issues with these situations. Its been an ongoing issue for quite some time by searching around online. Sad to see that the casinos and regulators are failing customers in this situation.

Tomorrow I'm putting the case to the regulators then ill see where to go from there.

 

[thr0b]

It would certainly be useful if as part of the licence, they would be obliged to state on the signup page "If you are self-excluded from any of our sister brands, you may not register with us", with a link to the Gambling Commission site.

 

[snorky510238]

Surely any casinos that are part of a group should have a central database of everyone who has a SE in place. Therefore anybody trying to sign up using the same details would be automatically blocked from doing so.

Would it be that difficult or am I missing something here?

 

[thr0b]

Should be easy.

But easy and financially worthwhile are not always the same thing.

 

[DLG]

Well i Dont think they have any incentive to be more robust. Because its a win win situation for them.

If you lose your money, they laugh and ban.

If you win money, they laugh don't pay you and ban.

 

[Kroffe]

Well i Dont think they have any incentive to be more robust. Because its a win win situation for them.

If you lose your money, they laugh and ban.

If you win money, they laugh don't pay you and ban.

Actually, in most cases they return your deposits when they find out you are SE, since you were not supposed to be able to make any deposit in the first place.
Its not a win-win, its a liability for them, that may cost them a buttload in fines if they dont handle it correctly.

 

[thr0b]

Ignore

 

[snorky510238]

Should be easy.

But easy and financially worthwhile are not always the same thing.

If these governing bodies are serious it should be law and I would of thought it would be financially beneficial if it provides a safeguard that protects casinos from being handed one of these huge fines that get issued in some cases.