RoxyPalace / 32Red Self Exclusion Issue

casinoplaya

Registered
Joined
May 12, 2017
Location
UK
Hi there,

I have an issue fairly similar to the one posted in this thread: https://www.casinomeister.com/forum...under-32red-refused-to-self-exclude-me.78434/

I signed up on 32red.com on the 17th March - I deposited an initial £10 and went on to lose a further £340.

I then noticed they were the same company as RoxyPalace, which left me wondering how I was able to signup. I asked the live chat and was told that despite me emailing RoxyPalace in 2015 with an email subject of 'Self Exclusion' and a message of 'Hi - can you close my account permannetly' along with my account information and date of birth - I was not entered into a self exclusion but instead a 'standard closure' because I did not reply to an email apparently (I do not have this email in my inbox) offering me an option of an option of a deposit limit, a cool off, a 6 month exclusion or an indefinite exclusion.

I have never had this issue at another casino - if I email or ask for a permanent self exclusion, it has always been granted, and because of this I have lost an amount of £350 which is quite a lot for me.

I really can only echo the thoughts of the other thread with a similar issue - how was I allowed to signup? How does an email requesting permanent self exclusion end up as a standard closure and allow me to open up an account on a sister site?

I can provide the chat transcript with 32red and forward my original email to RoxyPalace requesting permanent self exclusion to anyone who is able to help.

Thanks
 

Jasminebed

Game old gal
Joined
Mar 13, 2008
Location
Ontario
I suggest you private message the rep Mark for 32Red.

I'm not sure 32Red owned Roxy Palace in 2015, it's a relatively recent purchase I think. And not being UK, unsure just when the new regulations came into effect regarding responsible gambling. Might depend on just what month you requested closure.
 

Jasminebed

Game old gal
Joined
Mar 13, 2008
Location
Ontario
Looks like they sent players email in Dec 2015 about the acquisition. I don't know what impact that may have in your case.

I assume you are not being denied a withdrawal.
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
The problem here is that there should be a "fail safe" in favour of protecting a problem gambler, and to achieve this the non reply to a subsequent email should cause the closure to be classed as "self exclusion" until informed otherwise by reply to the email.

If this took place before 32Red bought Roxy Palace, it is likely that 32Red would only have seen this as a "standard closure" on the inherited Roxy Palace player database, thus their systems would have no way of knowing this was originally a self exclude.

The UKGC have recognised these issues with self exclusions, and would not be happy with this old way of doing things because in essence it involves sending an email in reply to a clear self exclusion request designed to convince the gambler to opt for a deposit limit instead, but still carry on gambling.

The UKGC is also looking at introducing an industry wide self exclusion system for all UK licenced casinos, such that a self exclude at any one will mean a self exclude at all.

Players will need to realise that a formal self exclude request should NOT be used lightly, such as when they are simply unhappy with poor promotions, rude CS staff, flaky software, etc. This is because it isn't supposed to be reversible if the player changes their mind the following month. This will be an edict laid down by the UKGC, and casinos will not have the power to reverse a properly requested self exclude.

This may of course explain why some casinos are so reluctant to process a self exclusion request, it means they have lost that player for at least 5 years, and there is nothing they (or the player) can do about it.
 

casinoplaya

Registered
Joined
May 12, 2017
Location
UK
The problem here is that there should be a "fail safe" in favour of protecting a problem gambler, and to achieve this the non reply to a subsequent email should cause the closure to be classed as "self exclusion" until informed otherwise by reply to the email.

I've been communicating with Mark via PM - and this was the point I have made. The precaution to lock my account instead of a self exclusion has not protected me and problem gambling as I've been able to deposit on 32red.

I am not sure where to go from here, as Mark says they're holding firm on their original position. Ultimately whilst I understand that at the time of my requested exclusion RoxyPalace were not owned by 32red, they are now, do they not take on any responsibility RoxyPalace had to ensure my self exclusion was processed? I don't know.

I would be interested to hear what everyone else thinks.
 

maxd

Complaints (PAB) Manager
Staff member
Joined
Jan 20, 2004
Location
Saltirelandia
The UKGC is also looking at introducing an industry wide self exclusion system for all UK licenced casinos, such that a self exclude at any one will mean a self exclude at all.

Welcome back VWM, nice to see your posts again.

Please provide references for your statement re the UKGC looking to implement UKGC-wide self-exclusion.
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
Welcome back VWM, nice to see your posts again.

Please provide references for your statement re the UKGC looking to implement UKGC-wide self-exclusion.


It was buried in something last year as a proposal to tighten up protection for problem gamblers. I will have a look on the UKGC site to see what their current plans are.

If I remember, it was to do with having an external database of players who have excluded due to reporting a gambling problem, so that there would be a central database that all casinos could use to check whether or not a new player should be blocked or allowed to play.

It's probably not going to be infallible, and it will only be able to cover UK licenced casinos for UK players unless some kind of international scheme can be agreed.


Here's the latest on this:-

Online multi-operator self-exclusion scheme

The gambling industry aims to have an online multi-operator self-exclusion scheme in place by 2018. We are very pleased that the RGA is taking this work forward on behalf of the online sector and we will continue to liaise closely with them throughout the process.
........

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

petro

Dormant account, per user request
PABaccred
PABnoaccred2
Joined
Nov 28, 2010
Location
Narnia
Hi,

"'Hi - can you close my account permannetly"
I have asked casinos that question myself. Not because of a gambling problem but because they failed to honour a promotion.

I can't agree that you gave the casino fair indication of your gambling problem.
About being able to open an account at a sister site. When I asked for my account to be closed permanently, I assumed that it would not effect my membership at sister casinos and I think that was a logical assumption.

For the record; fair indication of a gambling problem is when you tell the casino you have a gambling problem. There may be other types of "fair indication" but I've never come across any others.
 
Top