Self Exclusion Failure?

[TravellingRecluse]

Amazed the SAR took 2 days. Normally around 4 weeks.

Are they going to provide the Gamstop check details? Have you raised a case to the UKGC?

I have never requested a SAR before so I’m not sure what it should look like to be honest. It’s only one and half pages of PDF document.

If it’s meant to contain EVERYTHING they have on me should it not have play records and game results etc?

Who knows with regards to the GS details, I asked for them as soon as I realised they were not on the SAR and that was 4 working days ago including today. UKGC are aware and they want me to provide an SAR etc hence needing this info from 21. Its all a total circus

 

[EkJR]

I have never requested a SAR before so I’m not sure what it should look like to be honest. It’s only one and half pages of PDF document.

If it’s meant to contain EVERYTHING they have on me should it not have play records and game results etc?

Who knows with regards to the GS details, I asked for them as soon as I realised they were not on the SAR and that was 4 working days ago including today. UKGC are aware and they want me to provide an SAR etc hence needing this info from 21. Its all a total circus

The SAR should contain the below:

1. All personal details signed up with and any changes
2. A record of gaming transactions including deposits
3. Any interaction with a third party such as verification

 

[TravellingRecluse]

T

The SAR should contain the below:

1. All personal details signed up with and any changes
2. A record of gaming transactions including deposits
3. Any interaction with a third party such as verification

The only thing that I can see that might relate to verification is a ID3Global status ? This says accepted.

Other than that I see nothing on there with regards to verification.

 

[TravellingRecluse]

ok, so now you know what information was sent to gamstop, and 4 of the 5 fields match, so I would be getting onto gamstop to find out why they sent a negative response to 21.co.uk.
Its a joke that you have to run round like this. I would be pissed off by now and just have done a chargeback.

Standard generic bullshit response from GamStop again, nothing of value as to be expected. The usual, don’t try and circumvent, we don’t be held liable blah blah.

21 aren’t giving me the records of GamStop responses so I can’t provide the UKGC with what they are asking for.

It’s all a pointless process it seems, the big company wins, the supposed governing bodies don’t seemingly care and the prevention measures are broken.

I can’t believe after the recent news articles about the flaws in the system that there was not an instant response with updating it to make it work.

Imagine if your bank, phone company, aircraft or ship maker took that stance, ah don’t worry about flaws, a few people will get hurt but overall well still get rich and a bit of collateral damage is to be expected.

 

[TravellingRecluse]

I forgot to previously mention that in the response from the UKGC they stated the following

“We can confirm that under the terms of their licence with us an operator is under no obligation to pay out deposits or winnings in the circumstances that you have described. This is because there would be an incentive to gamble if those successfully breaching a self-exclusion agreement could expect to be paid out winnings. If the operator confirms that they will not be issuing a refund the next course of action would be to proceed through the courts”

To me this basically says the player will always lose, the deposit and lose then they lose, they deposit and win they won’t gst paid so they lose.

The casino wins because the keep Self Excluded players deposits either way and should the UKGC decide that they were naughty they will fine them which goes into their pocket. How is any of this about protecting problem gamblers when like before they were excluded they will only ever lose overall.

 

[Slottery]

It really can be that they might not have to (or allowed to based on GDPR to only store certain necessary information about you) store every single login/registration attempt in files to be able to show responses from GS. It's a quite huge amount of logins/registrations and storing these logins and top of that GS said Yes/No and what matched or not would pile up quite a huge amount of data as have to be done on every single login for all players from UK.

It unfortunately can be that you are not getting more information from your logins GS responses. It seems that chargeback look like last resort you start to have left if all your details were matching (i'm not sure about UK banks and chargebacks from casinos if you don't claim that there was fraudulent use of card) as you stated. If that's raised, they at least would need to give their side to your card provider to defense their statement not to return your deposits (i don't encourage anybody use this but the very last resort and i maybe wouldn't do it myself in this occasion as after all, even having problem, being self active to cause harm, i would blame myself and tried to learn lesson).

Hope you find some way to get information and result you are looking to based on right judgement from casinos side (which seems not to be happening).

 

[TravellingRecluse]

It really can be that they might not have to (or allowed to based on GDPR to only store certain necessary information about you) store every single login/registration attempt in files to be able to show responses from GS. It's a quite huge amount of logins/registrations and storing these logins and top of that GS said Yes/No and what matched or not would pile up quite a huge amount of data as have to be done on every single login for all players from UK.

It unfortunately can be that you are not getting more information from your logins GS responses. It seems that chargeback look like last resort you start to have left if all your details were matching (i'm not sure about UK banks and chargebacks from casinos if you don't claim that there was fraudulent use of card) as you stated. If that's raised, they at least would need to give their side to your card provider to defense their statement not to return your deposits (i don't encourage anybody use this but the very last resort and i maybe wouldn't do it myself in this occasion as after all, even having problem, being self active to cause harm, i would blame myself and tried to learn lesson).

Hope you find some way to get information and result you are looking to based on right judgement from casinos side (which seems not to be happening).

I shall see what Natwest say, I’m not holding my breath to be honest as I don’t think they will entertain it. This GDPR that you talk of, is it that restrictive?

If companies are so restricted with what information they can hold on you now surely that means going forward companies can just say “we don’t have that information because we aren’t allowed to hold it” that is an easy way of the untoward companies covering their tracks?

 

[Slottery]

I shall see what Natwest say, I’m not holding my breath to be honest as I don’t think they will entertain it. This GDPR that you talk of, is it that restrictive?

If companies are so restricted with what information they can hold on you now surely that means going forward companies can just say “we don’t have that information because we aren’t allowed to hold it” that is an easy way of the untoward companies covering their tracks?

Here are some more educated forum members about GDPR, but what i understood from one other topic, it has kind of ruling that companies only can and have to store some information about you and if there is something "single used" information or something what don't need to be stored, make sure that they don't make lifetime files from you. I think @colinsunderland is quite an expert in this area and might be able to shed some light what have to stored and what companies are not allowed to store. That was just my quite worthless two cents.

100% agree that if these kind of systems are built, they should be 99% bulletproof and if there is one flaw in 100, they should be able to refund it. Thing is that there are so many people who try to abuse these self exclusions that operators have come more skeptic with these claims, but providing you full details what you could compare to GS details to see if there are differences really would be reasonable.

 

[pinnit2014]

Here are some more educated forum members about GDPR, but what i understood from one other topic, it has kind of ruling that companies only can and have to store some information about you and if there is something "single used" information or something what don't need to be stored, make sure that they don't make lifetime files from you. I think @colinsunderland is quite an expert in this area and might be able to shed some light what have to stored and what companies are not allowed to store. That was just my quite worthless two cents.

100% agree that if these kind of systems are built, they should be 99% bulletproof and if there is one flaw in 100, they should be able to refund it. Thing is that there are so many people who try to abuse these self exclusions that operators have come more skeptic with these claims, but providing you full details what you could compare to GS details to see if there are differences really would be reasonable.

Knowledge of it's a tad patchy but the Regulation had a core element of data minimisation at it's heart. In layman's terms - stop holding stuff that you don't need to.

One of the things to check is the privacy policy? That should outline what information and why they hold it (the lawful basis of processing etc)

 

[TravellingRecluse]

Here are some more educated forum members about GDPR, but what i understood from one other topic, it has kind of ruling that companies only can and have to store some information about you and if there is something "single used" information or something what don't need to be stored, make sure that they don't make lifetime files from you. I think @colinsunderland is quite an expert in this area and might be able to shed some light what have to stored and what companies are not allowed to store. That was just my quite worthless two cents.

100% agree that if these kind of systems are built, they should be 99% bulletproof and if there is one flaw in 100, they should be able to refund it. Thing is that there are so many people who try to abuse these self exclusions that operators have come more skeptic with these claims, but providing you full details what you could compare to GS details to see if there are differences really would be reasonable.

The bit I don’t understand is though, why is it that people think that players are trying to scam the system of sorts when the casino won’t pay out winnings anyways?

The player cannot possibly come out “up” if this is the case so what exactly are they trying to scam/pull off?

In my opinion this is not the case, it’s a compulsion to gamble that forces players to do it and the fact they have registered with GS in the first place is a big enough flag that says, “I need help” without shady casinos companies piling on the misery by taking excluded players money and standing behind some crappy terms that says, you’ve tried to cincumvent the system blah blah, but we will keep the money anyways.

I mean the term that they can keep a deposit even if you have won but are noticed as a problem gambler has to be bordering crooked surely?

The way I see it currently is that the whole system is one big umberella of collusion between an industry that allows Wild West business practices to carry on until one day the sheriff must be seen to do something about it and make a bust.

 

[TravellingRecluse]

Knowledge of it's a tad patchy but the Regulation had a core element of data minimisation at it's heart. In layman's terms - stop holding stuff that you don't need to.

One of the things to check is the privacy policy? That should outline what information and why they hold it (the lawful basis of processing etc)

I would have thought holding something as important as determining whether someone should be allowed to conduct a transaction or not is important for current and future referemce, if not how do they justify their actions when confronted?

 

[pinnit2014]

I would have thought holding something as important as determining whether someone should be allowed to conduct a transaction or not is important for current and future referemce, if not how do they justify their actions when confronted?

This is where it's be interesting to see their retention policy - that would show exactly what information they hold and for how long: other than that, i can only guess that keeping a record, or at least having access to data, showing 'player login 12.54pm, blocked 12.54' would be available? Don't know if you could argue that they should be holding that information to show that they are meeting their RG licensing requirements ie. not letting SE players login? Sorry, Colin's probably more versed on it that moi.

After my spat with the LV group i was able to get details of my login going back 12 months for example.

 

[TravellingRecluse]

This is where it's be interesting to see their retention policy - that would show exactly what information they hold and for how long: other than that, i can only guess that keeping a record, or at least having access to data, showing 'player login 12.54pm, blocked 12.54' would be available? Don't know if you could argue that they should be holding that information to show that they are meeting their RG licensing requirements ie. not letting SE players login? Sorry, Colin's probably more versed on it that moi.

After my spat with the LV group i was able to get details of my login going back 12 months for example.

I’ll see what if anything they come back with today then. Did your LV issue relate to SE also?

 

[pinnit2014]

I’ll see what if anything they come back with today then. Did your LV issue relate to SE also?

Yeah it did - basically they said I SE with one of their sites, say the 4th of April 18. Eh? That’s bollocks - what site? Told me... so I contacted, I think it was 21.co.uk, and asked them. Knew that I hadn’t even played there in about a year or so I got them to confirm that the last time I logged in was something like Nov 17 - so obviously they keep logs of when you logged in or at least tried to...

 

[TravellingRecluse]

Yeah it did - basically they said I SE with one of their sites, say the 4th of April 18. Eh? That’s bollocks - what site? Told me... so I contacted, I think it was 21.co.uk, and asked them. Knew that I hadn’t even played there in about a year or so I got them to confirm that the last time I logged in was something like Nov 17 - so obviously they keep logs of when you logged in or at least tried to...

Yeah well this is day 5 of me waiting for a reply with GS responses, nothing to suggest so far that they don’t have them or they would have said that straight away.

If I’ve had a reply from the fraud and risk manager as a final response is it worth going to the actual casino manager?

Baring in mind I spoke with pink casino live chat yesterday asking when I closed they account, they said the only record is on 1/3/19 which is when 21 must have told them about SE.

That however is bullshit as I have an email from them in April 2015 offering a free bonus if I reopened my account.

 

[Slottery]

I still would guess that there are no separate logs from GS replies, but only that your login/registration is blocked because of self-exclusion but not more details where that "no" for your login request is coming from. So simply you are self-excluded or not and that's an only relevant piece of information they need to check from their and GS database and let or block your login based on reply to request.

Really not sure how is this correct what happens, but would think that this could be how they work. Knowing for sure that at least some casinos only store your successful logins and game sessions but if you are self-excluded, blocked, giving incorrect password or any other reason are not able to login, it's not stored as for them only really relevant information is what you do when you are logged in.

 

[TravellingRecluse]

Su

I still would guess that there are no separate logs from GS replies, but only that your login/registration is blocked because of self-exclusion but not more details where that "no" for your login request is coming from. So simply you are self-excluded or not and that's an only relevant piece of information they need to check from their and GS database and let or block your login based on reply to request.

Really not sure how is this correct what happens, but would think that this could be how they work. Knowing for sure that at least some casinos only store your successful logins and game sessions but if you are self-excluded, blocked, giving incorrect password or any other reason are not able to login, it's not stored as for them only really relevant information is what you do when you are logged in.

Possibly what you say is correct I don’t know. I would have thought they would have to keep the initial reply at registration though?

Plus can anyone answer if the ID3Global thing is a record of verification on the SAR they have sent me as there’s no header titled verification etc

 

[EkJR]

The thing I fail to understand about this is the fact that it can be shown that the following applied.

First Name
Surname
DOB
Email Address

All matched with what you signed up with on 21.co.uk. They know the fields that they look for on sign up. You have your Gamstop cert showing dates and times things were added. If you signed up after this time then it's clear that Gamstop has not kicked in as it should have and the casino have to look at that. Have you exhausted their complaints process as well? For me, you need to be emailing the Leo complaints team as well as the parent company. Sense should prevail here.

 

[EkJR]

Su



Possibly what you say is correct I don’t know. I would have thought they would have to keep the initial reply at registration though?

Plus can anyone answer if the ID3Global thing is a record of verification on the SAR they have sent me as there’s no header titled verification etc

Yes, that's the soft check. It's nothing to do with Gamstop.

 

[TravellingRecluse]

The thing I fail to understand about this is the fact that it can be shown that the following applied.

First Name
Surname
DOB
Email Address

All matched with what you signed up with on 21.co.uk. They know the fields that they look for on sign up. You have your Gamstop cert showing dates and times things were added. If you signed up after this time then it's clear that Gamstop has not kicked in as it should have and the casino have to look at that. Have you exhausted their complaints process as well? For me, you need to be emailing the Leo complaints team as well as the parent company. Sense should prevail here.

I have had a final response from the Fraud and Risk Manager at 21, she said take it to ADR, probably knowing full well they won’t/can’t do anything as it’s a SE issue (I did check with the one that 21 suggested to contact)

Does anyone have the leovegas complaints email address handy please? I don’t want to use the wrong one and just sent it to the general accounts one as they won’t have anything to do with 21 accounts I’m sure