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

 

[Slottery]

I'm unfortunately pretty sure that if they have given their final word, contacting them again will be a waste of time. If that final word came from Risk and Fraud manager, your possible complaint will most probably be addressed back to the same person who is dealing with responsible gaming and related issues.

As you have contacted pretty much all authorities and operator, it's hard to believe that they will change their mind if you do it again. Only way i could think would be a legal route but that has no guarantee of success but much more risk to lose more money in that because of these GS terms where they are referring and if it's investigated by Risk and Fraud manager, i personally wouldn't go that route.

 

[TravellingRecluse]

I'm unfortunately pretty sure that if they have given their final word, contacting them again will be a waste of time. If that final word came from Risk and Fraud manager, your possible complaint will most probably be addressed back to the same person who is dealing with responsible gaming and related issues.

As you have contacted pretty much all authorities and operator, it's hard to believe that they will change their mind if you do it again. Only way i could think would be a legal route but that has no guarantee of success but much more risk to lose more money in that because of these GS terms where they are referring and if it's investigated by Risk and Fraud manager, i personally wouldn't go that route.

I’ve asked them if they are considering I tried to commit fraud and that got blanked, no reply. I have sent them a copy of my passport and will happily send proof of address etc if they asked for it. I don’t see how they can suggest I’ve attempted fraud anyways as they wouldn’t pay out if I’d won so that wouldn’t be very good fraud would it.

 

[TravellingRecluse]

I’ve asked them if they are considering I tried to commit fraud and that got blanked, no reply. I have sent them a copy of my passport and will happily send proof of address etc if they asked for it. I don’t see how they can suggest I’ve attempted fraud anyways as they wouldn’t pay out if I’d won so that wouldn’t be very good fraud would it.

Plus if have nothing to hide then why are they not responding to my requests for GamStop responses at registration and log in?

Can any other casino reps who may be reading in comment in general terms if it is normal to hold this information in case of an investigation?

 

[EkJR]

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

Just the main one I think but put the header as "complaint"

 

[TravellingRecluse]

Just the main one I think but put the header as "complaint"

I see that resolver by Martin Lewis offer a service to contact LV. Worth looking into that or go direct?

 

[EkJR]

I see that resolver by Martin Lewis offer a service to contact LV. Worth looking into that or go direct?

You can do. I raised one last year against Intercasino, nothing ever happened other than delaying going to an ADR by 12 weeks

 

[Slottery]

I’ve asked them if they are considering I tried to commit fraud and that got blanked, no reply. I have sent them a copy of my passport and will happily send proof of address etc if they asked for it. I don’t see how they can suggest I’ve attempted fraud anyways as they wouldn’t pay out if I’d won so that wouldn’t be very good fraud would it.

Didn't by any mean meant that you they are suspecting you as fraudster. It's just Risk and Fraud team is many times responsible about RG/SE related issues and would assume that if you got reply from their manager, he/she is person who is handling these complaints.

If i understood right, there is no any fraudulent accusations from casino either but only this self-exclusion issue where you both have a different opinion. I just see it really hard to make them to change theirs after getting final word from management level. Just how i see your issue is at the moment based on information available, they have given their final word and told you to claim official complaint for some authorities, based on what you have already done, legal action seems more and more only way to get further.

Also seeing it quite hard that any 3rd party would change their opinion, they pretty much seems to have decided that this is fully dealt already and without any authorities demanding them to provide more details they probably do not.

Would be interesting to know everything happened between casinos/GS but it unfortunately seems that it will not going to be happening if they don't want to cooperate more.

edit: here is link to Resolver service what always can try, not sure if that is any help but it's free of charge at least:

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

 

[TravellingRecluse]

Didn't by any mean meant that you they are suspecting you as fraudster. It's just Risk and Fraud team is many times responsible about RG/SE related issues and would assume that if you got reply from their manager, he/she is person who is handling these complaints.

If i understood right, there is no any fraudulent accusations from casino either but only this self-exclusion issue where you both have a different opinion. I just see it really hard to make them to change theirs after getting final word from management level. Just how i see your issue is at the moment based on information available, they have given their final word and told you to claim official complaint for some authorities, based on what you have already done, legal action seems more and more only way to get further.

Also seeing it quite hard that any 3rd party would change their opinion, they pretty much seems to have decided that this is fully dealt already and without any authorities demanding them to provide more details they probably do not.

Would be interesting to know everything happened between casinos/GS but it unfortunately seems that it will not going to be happening if they don't want to cooperate more.

Well hopefully the UKGC deem that they are obliged to provide this information as they could just make it up as they see fit

 

[EkJR]

Well hopefully the UKGC deem that they are obliged to provide this information as they could just make it up as they see fit

Fraudster gets banded about by these casinos a lot. 9 times out of 10 is someone with serious addiction problems fulfilling the need to gamble. It's always vulnerable people who these operators seem to not give a fuck about.

From my own experience, William Hill have allowed me to open 4 accounts in 6 months last year before/and after Gamstop. The only changed details were either phone number or email address yet they allowed the exclusions each time and still allowed account creation. Now I'm not saying Leo are as bad but it's this "we don't give a shit about RG, do you know who we are" attitude employed particularly amongst the biggest operators that is a worry. Every single case and time it happens it has to go to the UKGC and pushed and pushed as far as it can go. Fuck, even go to the media if needs be. They get away with destroying the lives of the vulnerable by, for me, deliberately having loose checking systems.

 

[colinsunderland]

As annoying as it is, if you requested the gamstop responses as part of your SAR and they have said they need more time to supply it, then you have to wait. Without that information it will be hard to go any further. Again though, if the responses were negative then 21.co.uk have done no wrong. If they get told you aren't SE'd then they will allow you to play.

 

[TravellingRecluse]

4 a

Fraudster gets banded about by these casinos a lot. 9 times out of 10 is someone with serious addiction problems fulfilling the need to gamble. It's always vulnerable people who these operators seem to not give a fuck about.

From my own experience, William Hill have allowed me to open 4 accounts in 6 months last year before/and after Gamstop. The only changed details were either phone number or email address yet they allowed the exclusions each time and still allowed account creation. Now I'm not saying Leo are as bad but it's this "we don't give a shit about RG, do you know who we are" attitude employed particularly amongst the biggest operators that is a worry. Every single case and time it happens it has to go to the UKGC and pushed and pushed as far as it can go. Fuck, even go to the media if needs be. They get away with destroying the lives of the vulnerable by, for me, deliberately having loose checking systems.

Wow, 4 accounts, I’m guessing you never got a pay out from any of them?

 

[TravellingRecluse]

As annoying as it is, if you requested the gamstop responses as part of your SAR and they have said they need more time to supply it, then you have to wait. Without that information it will be hard to go any further. Again though, if the responses were negative then 21.co.uk have done no wrong. If they get told you aren't SE'd then they will allow you to play.

This is very true yes they could be totally free of liability. Just seems a little on they can compile an SAR in 48 hours yet a few simple yes or no’s and nothing in nearly 5 days.

If they don’t supply it then I’ll just tell the UKGC that as they want copies of all correspondence too as well as the marketing email I was sent

 

[EkJR]

4 a



Wow, 4 accounts, I’m guessing you never got a pay out from any of them?

Nope but I have taken other measures. Not caring about the money anymore like any of these SE things. The gambling itself was the problem for me. What I won't do is let these companies away with flagrant breaches and an attitude of we can just keep your money when they have broken the terms and spirit of their LCCP. "We believe in responsible gaming"...empty words when they can allow you to open account after account and take your money without any refund ever or admission that they have done something wrong. If this case turns out the same I'm happy to include it in the report I have compiled.

 

[EkJR]

This is very true yes they could be totally free of liability. Just seems a little on they can compile an SAR in 48 hours yet a few simple yes or no’s and nothing in nearly 5 days.

If they don’t supply it then I’ll just tell the UKGC that as they want copies of all correspondence too as well as the marketing email I was sent

This is the new response from the UKGC now. Get a SAR, waste another 30 days, send the SAR on and they do very little unless there have been another 100 complaints of the same nature. The whole thing is designed to ultimately protect the operators in individual cases.

 

[TravellingRecluse]

This is the new response from the UKGC now. Get a SAR, waste another 30 days, send the SAR on and they do very little unless there have been another 100 complaints of the same nature. The whole thing is designed to ultimately protect the operators in individual cases.

The old too big to fail. I watched a good documentary the other day, Netflix I think it was but may have been amazon prime about HSBC, mostly the scandal involving the known laundering of Mexican cartel money. Obviously it went to the very top of the US legal system but ultimately they got away with a slap on the wrist (fine, which was pittance in comparison to turnover and profit)

I hear a lot of chat about people saying that there will be fewer and fewer choices with all of these new UKGC proposals/implementations, I don’t agree really, for the following reasons:

Gambling is meant to be random/luck so it should not matter where or when you play as to whether you win or lose.

The companies that survive and prosper will be the ones that can be relied to do things properly in terms of RG, Payouts and quality and honest support systems.

As long as the ones that prosper offer the game categories that people will want to play then where is the issue.

I watched Dunovers latest bonanza video on YouTube on my flight home this morning and he talked about it, saying that will he left with the likes of the high street bookmakers.

If that’s the case, based on my experience with the likes of Ladbrokes, betfred, paddy power, I think that’s a good thing, they were all very good and straight.

Others that always impressed me were sky bet, virgin games, bet 365, casino and video slots. There are probably others oh yeah bet Victor.

I’m sure they are not all perfect but that’s my position, the cowboys, then could close tomorrow for all I cared, I only people I would feel for are those that are employed there and do care but a bent business and ethics model dictates otherwise.

 

[TravellingRecluse]

Still no update from 21 about my GamStop replies.

Even the most cynical have to admit this is taking the piss now.

 

[TravellingRecluse]

So I’ve finally had a reply regarding GamStop response logs.

They don’t keep them! I’m flabbergasted that for something that could be so crucial in the prevention of problem gambling and how successful the system is, they don’t have to be kept.

OK maybe every log in is a little excessive but surely at least at registration.

The support person did say they would send the details of my issue to senior management after I requested that, not expecting anything but it will give them some more to do.

I guess after that I am all out of options, the house wins. It’s possible that it will have some legs with the UKGC as part of a bigger picture but I’ll see nothing of it

 

[EkJR]

So I’ve finally had a reply regarding GamStop response logs.

They don’t keep them! I’m flabbergasted that for something that could be so crucial in the prevention of problem gambling and how successful the system is, they don’t have to be kept.

OK maybe every log in is a little excessive but surely at least at registration.

The support person did say they would send the details of my issue to senior management after I requested that, not expecting anything but it will give them some more to do.

I guess after that I am all out of options, the house wins. It’s possible that it will have some legs with the UKGC as part of a bigger picture but I’ll see nothing of it

Hope this gets sorted out. Let me know how you get on.

 

[Sasukdcf]

Only read some of the thread but it does appear to be somewhat pointless to have Gamstop in place if it can be so easily circumnavigated and no responsibility is taken.

The person in question probably thought they could get their fix and then get the money refunded it wasn’t about the winning it was just about playing.

Hence why playing when he knew he couldn’t withdraw.

As for the industry being too big, I do think eventually there will be a PPI type moment when people get an opportunity to claim refunds back from the casinos...

Not for a while yet but eventually the GC will catch up with what century we are in and some truths will come out as to just how the industry works and hopefully a lot of them will get hit hard or closed down!

 

[TravellingRecluse]

Only read some of the thread but it does appear to be somewhat pointless to have Gamstop in place if it can be so easily circumnavigated and no responsibility is taken.

The person in question probably thought they could get their fix and then get the money refunded it wasn’t about the winning it was just about playing.

Hence why playing when he knew he couldn’t withdraw.

As for the industry being too big, I do think eventually there will be a PPI type moment when people get an opportunity to claim refunds back from the casinos...

Not for a while yet but eventually the GC will catch up with what century we are in and some truths will come out as to just how the industry works and hopefully a lot of them will get hit hard or closed down!

I didn’t know I wouldn’t get paid until they told me.

Even the most stupid addicts wouldn’t generally gamble if there’s no chance of winning but if they would not pay me if I won then there’s no justice in the world.

 

[TravellingRecluse]

Hope this gets sorted out. Let me know how you get on.

It’s now been escalated to Head of Ooerations at 21. He said he’ll reply by Monday, not holding my breath but I’ll keep plugging away.

No reply from UKGC yet regarding them not being able to provide evidence of GS reporting I was OK to play

 

[Sasukdcf]

So if you did win would they have just refunded your deposits?

 

[TravellingRecluse]

So if you did win would they have just refunded your deposits?

They said in the event of a win I’d get nothing, no winnings or deposit returned. Not sure how they can get away with that but in this lawless land the big boys will prevail and screw the peasants

 

[EkJR]

So if you did win would they have just refunded your deposits?

Some operators do, some don't give anything and say your in breach of their T&Cs. However, where is the exclusion policy? If it had worked in the first place deposits would never be made. That's why it should be paid back. In May they won't get away with it.

 

[TravellingRecluse]

Some operators do, some don't give anything and say your in breach of their T&Cs. However, where is the exclusion policy? If it had worked in the first place deposits would never be made. That's why it should be paid back. In May they won't get away with it.

Too little too late for me I’m sure but I’ve said it before, the legit and honest will thrive and the not so will vanish.

 

[TravellingRecluse]

Well I’m speechless.

21 have decided to refund all of my deposits as a gesture of goodwill, I am not only grateful for this but also surprised, I really did think I was at a dead end.

Moral of my story, keep your GamStop details up to date and accurate and try as hard as possible to not want to gamble at all, that’s the only way I will succeed.

 

[EkJR]

Well I’m speechless.

21 have decided to refund all of my deposits as a gesture of goodwill, I am not only grateful for this but also surprised, I really did think I was at a dead end.

Moral of my story, keep your GamStop details up to date and accurate and try as hard as possible to not want to gamble at all, that’s the only way I will succeed.

Well done mate, great perseverance. Shouldn't have been allowed to deposit at all and the system failed you, but things put right.

 

[Playford7]

Well done mate, great perseverance. Shouldn't have been allowed to deposit at all and the system failed you, but things put right.

Did this guy off his own back knowingly deposit even though he’s a gambling addict?.
Even after so called being apparently blocked from doing so?..

 

[EkJR]

Did this guy off his own back knowingly deposit even though he’s a gambling addict?.
Even after so called being apparently blocked from doing so?..

Yep but rules are rules and casinos need to be held accountable for their failures as well. Addicts of anything will try and find ways to feed it so I can't criticise the OP, just hope he gets the right help to beat it.

 

[Playford7]

Yep but rules are rules and casinos need to be held accountable for their failures as well. Addicts of anything will try and find ways to feed it so I can't criticise the OP, just hope he gets the right help to beat it.

So no personal accountability?..
and doing what he did then coming on here to get his money back is hardly smacking of a person who wants help...
He chose to deposit.. again
I’m so far removed from a casino fanboy it’s crazy, but I’ve seen so many of these threads with ‘newbies’ we never see again it’s laughable. It’s always someone else’s fault..
I’d not of paid him a penny, he chose to go against all he wanted to, deal with it.
This nanny state where everything is someone else’s fault all of the time is toxic.
I guarantee you we won’t hear from the OP ever again.