- Joined
- Jan 12, 2018
- Location
- Uk
Just to point out the op is female.
Oh, well, that explains it then!Just to point out the op is female.
Do you not think if it were that simple then addiction would not exist.No different than saying someone can "just stop" smoking/drinking/shooting up...you have to be an addict to understand an addict.Make it simple you self exclude at one you never gamble again online. No reason to self exclude unless you have a problem and if you do then don''t ever go back!
I think what nutnut means is that if you self-exclude at one casino, it should trigger a blanket self-exclusion to any online site... but that's a bit difficult to implement due to privacy legislation; short of a Big Brother central licensing database, it would mean sharing the customer's personal details to all and sundry.Do you not think if it were that simple then addiction would not exist.No different than saying someone can "just stop" smoking/drinking/shooting up...you have to be an addict to understand an addict.
I know what you mean about the thread length, whew. Those two pages are a killer
Do they get card charges free? Do they not have to pay the gaming providers for each spin made? I'll open a casino tomorrow if you can tell me how to open one and have no running costs.
There's a clear breach of contract here, the casino haven't done anything wrong.
How would you suggest they could have protected themselves in this situation?
Customer ignored the terms and conditions, used different details to open the account and very quickly knows he might be able to get his deposits back, something I would suggest, isn't common knowledge.
Maybe the question to the op should be, why didn't you read the t&c's, if you know enough to self exclude and that you might get deposits back, surely you know to read the terms and check the license to make sure they aren't linked to a casino you can't join .
Yeah, and of course all casinos list all their co-licensees in their terms, don't they?
In this case they now do though:
20.3. Our self-exclusion facility involves a joint commitment between Paddy Power and you. We will take reasonable steps to prevent you re-opening your Account or opening a new Account but you must not attempt to re-open your Account or to try and open new Accounts. You agree that: (i) if you hold accounts with both Paddy Power and Betfair and have self-excluded from an account on either site, you will not access any account which you hold on the other site (and we reserve the right to prevent you from attempting to access such other site) and (ii) if you hold an account with either Paddy Power or Betfair and have self-excluded from either site, you will not attempt to register an account with the other site during your period of self-exclusion (and we reserve the right to prevent you from registering an account with such other site). We shall not be liable for any losses you or any third party may suffer if you circumvent our self-exclusion procedures and continue to use our Services or if you continue to gamble with any third party. You will inform us as soon as you become aware of any errors in respect your self-exclusion or of any player protection mechanisms we make available to you. If you do not inform us when you become aware of such errors, then we shall not be liable for any losses which you may suffer.
20.4. Self-excluding from Paddy Power will not affect your marketing preferences with third parties, including with advertising websites or other third party affiliates. We strongly recommend that you also contact such third parties and opt out from receiving any gambling related communications from them.
In this case the whole argument about winning or losing is irrelevant, whatever the player's intentions as the UKGC is specific in non-acceptance of bets and voiding them. Whether spotted at sign-up, during play, after play or withdrawal attempt the outcome should be just that - void. I still maintain it's a pointless exercise depositing knowing you're going to be flagged when you win or withdraw so ultimately won't gain anything, just to get deposits back. People's e-mails, phone numbers and addresses do change from time to time, different details is in no way definitively indicative of intent to defraud or play where they shouldn't be playing.
Yes in all fairness I didn't read the terms and Condituons I just wanted to play and if I did I would've maybe realised that they were connected but I have been doin loads reading about this and that's why I knew I should ask for the deposit 2 be returned I didn't no this before I played. All I'm stating is that this casino shouldve made the correct checks and not let me open the account in the 1st place because let's face it now if I did win and asked to withdraw I would r have got the winnings would I ? Somethin I obv didn't no at the time or I wouodnt have deposited at all So my question is if I won wouod they keep the winnings and return the deposit only .. I'm guessing after reading other people's posts that's what they do do I was def gonna lose either way which I think is unfair.
Yes exactly, and if they didn't list other ones on the same license then I would say they should be refunded, like the recent LeoVegas thread. But PP/BF do clearly state they are linked more than once throughout the terms, and it isn't even hidden.
As far as I know the UKGC don't actually go as far as saying a player should be refunded do they?
If you click on the 'Gambling Commission' logo at the foot of the page of any new casino you sign up with, it usually (but not always) brings up the UKGC license of that casino, which contains a list of casinos that operate under the same license. Always worth checking out if you have excluded from any sites.Yes in all fairness I didn't read the terms and Condituons I just wanted to play and if I did I would've maybe realised that they were connected but I have been doin loads reading about this and that's why I knew I should ask for the deposit 2 be returned I didn't no this before I played. All I'm stating is that this casino shouldve made the correct checks and not let me open the account in the 1st place because let's face it now if I did win and asked to withdraw I would r have got the winnings would I ? Somethin I obv didn't no at the time or I wouodnt have deposited at all So my question is if I won wouod they keep the winnings and return the deposit only .. I'm guessing after reading other people's posts that's what they do do I was def gonna lose either way which I think is unfair.
No, but they use the word 'void' which clearly infers they should be - can you think of any other industry where a 'void' transaction would not be automatically refunded, or consumer laws would not insist on it, unless it's a non-refundable down payment or booking made under specific terms?Yes exactly, and if they didn't list other ones on the same license then I would say they should be refunded, like the recent LeoVegas thread. But PP/BF do clearly state they are linked more than once throughout the terms, and it isn't even hidden.
As far as I know the UKGC don't actually go as far as saying a player should be refunded do they?
I would assume they'll just refund your deposits...