Self Exclusion - Major flaws

[EkJR]

I have same issue with KINDREDgroup..i permanently closed unibet account. And on 3 separate occasions, tried to reopen .but they refused. Which is fine. I then self excluded from 32red in feb 2018, for 5 years. However, in December 2019 i was allowed to register and deposit on bingo.com..despite my unibet permanent closure and 32red self exclude? How is this possible? Maybe 32red rep can explain? Live chat on 32red, unibet and bingo.com all say there is no grounds for refund of deposits, although this thread shows...had i won, you wouldn't have paid out. Scandal really.

I can explain that. If you only closed your Unibet account you could open an account with Bingo.com. 32Red sits on a different licence so the SE doesn't apply. Immoral? Unethical? Being the same group it should apply across the board but the UKGC are working from a licence based approach so each SE is determined by that I'm afraid.

 

[brizman]

So refusal to open permanent closure on unibet and self exclude 32red has no bearing on a network, when you register with exact same details? Seems certain groups pick and choose when to apply self exclude rule, mainly on the rare occasion a player wins.

 

[brizman]

Bearing in mind...unibet refused to reopen account on 3 separate occasions on responsible gaming grounds. Incredible

 

[brizman]

Also..32 red terms and conditions claim self exclude is across all kindred brands? Casino groups get away with anything

 

[EkJR]

Also..32 red terms and conditions claim self exclude is across all kindred brands? Casino groups get away with anything

Yeah they may have only very recently changed this. Leo have implemented the same now. At the start of last year and in 2018 what I have highlighted is the case.

Yep, sadly closing an account and SE are absolutely different things altogether.

The 32 red rep can comment further.

 

[brizman]

So..had i won say..10k on bingo.com, you are telling me they would have paid this? Not a chance.

 

[thr0b]

I’d say the argument that it should apply per licence makes sense. Groups can be massive, sprawling networks of interconnected entities all running under separate licences. It’s unreasonable to expect a layman to know that a company on a licence A is the same as the company they’re excluded from on licence B.

 

[brizman]

So why wouldn't bingo.com pay out to the post earlier in thread? 32red exclude shouldn't have been taken into consideration then? As i say..they use terms when it suits them. Also, with all the mergers in recent history..there isn't that many 'sprawling networks' anymore as you put it.

 

[colinsunderland]

I’d say the argument that it should apply per licence makes sense. Groups can be massive, sprawling networks of interconnected entities all running under separate licences. It’s unreasonable to expect a layman to know that a company on a licence A is the same as the company they’re excluded from on licence B.

What they should be forced to do is, on self exclusion have a list of every casino it will affect, or at least, links to the license(s) with them all listed. It should also state if they do manage to sign up to another in the group, when it is discovered, all deposits/winnings will be forfeited and donated to a gambling charity. That would have the double effect of stopping people trying to sign up elsewhere, and also the SE fraud that currently takes place, both by customers and casinos.

 

[Borgie]

It always feels that both casino and player try to avoid responsibility. Pointing finger at the other.

 

[EkJR]

What they should be forced to do is, on self exclusion have a list of every casino it will affect, or at least, links to the license(s) with them all listed. It should also state if they do manage to sign up to another in the group, when it is discovered, all deposits/winnings will be forfeited and donated to a gambling charity. That would have the double effect of stopping people trying to sign up elsewhere, and also the SE fraud that currently takes place, both by customers and casinos.

I believe that they do now have this but did not in the past.

 

[colinsunderland]

I believe that they do now have this but did not in the past.

Thats good, I've never SE'd so don't know if things have changed, but the second part isn't implemented, and I can't see how it would be a bad thing.

 

[EkJR]

So why wouldn't bingo.com pay out to the post earlier in thread? 32red exclude shouldn't have been taken into consideration then? As i say..they use terms when it suits them. Also, with all the mergers in recent history..there isn't that many 'sprawling networks' anymore as you put it.

I won on Bingo.com and Maria casino. Due to an exclusion on Unibet my winnings were revoked and I was given deposits back in 2018 before I signed up for Gamstop. I had also excluded at 32red but this was never taken into consideration.

I think if they operate from the same office and have the same owners they should have one licence. It's only because of mergers etc and the fact that nobody has forced them to merge the licences that this still occurs.

 

[EkJR]

Thats good, I've never SE'd so don't know if things have changed, but the second part isn't implemented, and I can't see how it would be a bad thing.

Yeah it lists all the casinos in the group before you hit the button now. With the verification checks, Gamstop allegedly fixed there should be no real chance of an excluded player being able to sign up now. Unfortunately, there is still a known issue on some operators third party verification checks specifically against date of birth....if that's fixed its resolved imo.

 

[brizman]

All very good points that casinos SHOULD do..but don't, all for the same reason..to make more money. You cannot tell me that kindred group,...seeing that a player is self excluded on one site, refused reopening on another site on multiple occasions..should be allowing the same player to open on a kindred platform. There privacy policy alone would show that my details were known to them. Trully baffling.

 

[EkJR]

All very good points that casinos SHOULD do..but don't, all for the same reason..to make more money. You cannot tell me that kindred group,...seeing that a player is self excluded on one site, refused reopening on another site on multiple occasions..should be allowing the same player to open on a kindred platform. There privacy policy alone would show that my details were known to them. Trully baffling.

From a legal standpoint they are, unfortunately, doing as the LCCP from the UKGC advises. As I have said before, have argued the point with the UKGC on Coral/Ladbrokes/Gala. They said that although it may seem unethical that it is the rule that SE is determined by individual licence and any SE consideration over and above is at the discretion of the group. Yeah its shit, but unfortunately is the current state of play.

 

[brizman]

So 32red and kindred apparently have cross network exclusion introduced in December 2018..but get this, doesn't apply to previous existing self excluded players??? Where is the logic in that? Introduce new responsible gambling terms, that doesn't apply to previous excluded players. Insane.

 

[Harry_BKK]

All very good points that casinos SHOULD do..but don't, all for the same reason..to make more money. You cannot tell me that kindred group,...seeing that a player is self excluded on one site, refused reopening on another site on multiple occasions..should be allowing the same player to open on a kindred platform. There privacy policy alone would show that my details were known to them. Trully baffling.

Truly baffling is that you apparently are not taking any serious steps to get your gambling addiction under control. All your posts are bashing a casino/group trying to drum up support for your case but at no point have you shown any steps you have taken. Instead, you are opening more accounts and then blame it all on the casinos/operators and shout from the top of your lungs to have deposits returned.

How about taking some responsibility yourself, you know, you are a grown-up after all?

Sorry but I have no more sympathy for people like you. Each casino is offering deposit/loss/wagering limits which you could set-up the soon you register. That would be a sign that you are taking steps to control your habit/addiction.

Now you want everyone to be on your side in getting your deposits back. Sorry, I won't buy it. A simple click on the licence seal would have shown you that bingo.com is in the same group as Unibet/32REd. You didn't do that simple due diligence, knowing that you have self-excluded at other places in the past. Any normal player would check just to make sure he/she can play without having winnings voided.

 

[brizman]

So..some groups redbet/mr green carry over exclusion when the merger happened..others..unibet/32red get away with not applying self exclude..you can see why players are frustrated. No consistency, get to do as they please.

 

[brizman]

Truly baffling is that you apparently are not taking any serious steps to get your gambling addiction under control. All your posts are bashing a casino/group trying to drum up support for your case but at no point have you shown any steps you have taken. Instead, you are opening more accounts and then blame it all on the casinos/operators and shouting to have deposits returned.

How about taking some responsibility yourself, you know, you are a grown-up after all?

Sorry but I have no more sympathy for people like you. Each casino is offering deposit/loss/wagering limits which you could set-up the soon you register. That would be a sign that you are taking steps to control your habit/addiction.

Now, you want everyone to be on your side in getting your deposits back. Sorry, I won't buy it. A simple click on the licence seal would have shown you that bingo.com is in the same group as Unibet/32REd. You didn't do that simple due diligence, knowing that you have self-excluded at other places in the past. Any normal player would check just to make sure you can play without having winnings voided.

Sorry..but you don't even know me..please pipe down. How can you tell what steps i have or have not taken? Keep plugging the casinos...

 

[thr0b]

You know enough that other groups carry over SE. But not so much that this group doesn’t/didn’t?

 

[brizman]

If its simple due diligence to check if they are all the same group..is it simple due diligence for the casino to check for player exclusion also? Can't have it both ways mate.

 

[brizman]

You know enough that other groups carry over SE. But not so much that this group doesn’t/didn’t?

I read redbet accounts that were automatically excluded if players had excluded on mr green site.

 

[Halvor]

Sorry..but you don't even know me..please pipe down. How can you tell what steps i have or have not taken? Keep plugging the casinos...

It's obviously an indication that you attempted 3 times to open an account with the group, then succeeded in the end, fully knowing you had self excluded.

In any event you had won and gotten winnings confiscated I'm sure you would have a completely different argument.

 

[thr0b]

I read redbet accounts that were automatically excluded if players had excluded on mr green site.

So wouldn’t you assume the same in this case?

To be clear - I believe SE should be by licence. But you do appear to know the risks when licensees are part of bigger groups and you decided it was an acceptable risk.

If we seem harsh, it’s because these threads appear at least weekly of late. The answers are already in the forums.