The messy world of Self Exclusions

[Keith Addy]

Probably a good day to talk about it of the back of this

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

. investigation into online casinos company paying out money.

Today i have stopped gambling probably a good thing.
I have experienced some strange rules recently regarding Self -excluded accounts i hope for one day someone can explain the wonderful world of exclusion.
Some i harshly have to accept some i don't but i hope that someone can gain from my experiences.

Everymatrix (at least a new site each week pops up).
I won 2000 pound to casino called Dragonara turned out to be an Everymatrix site which i was self excluded from.
I joined the site after i got a promotion email I got from them.
Points users to a web site with different terms and conditions without a mention about its affiliation to everymatrix
One day later i received my deposit back and they confiscated my winnings.
I have read so many people do that on casinomeister that i am part of the club.
Sent off a complaint to ecogra but they appear not to be busting a gut on this.
Still to this day i receive promotional emails from them.

Paddy power
i played with them recently although it looked like set up a new account i was able to play.
After playing for a while i was losing heavily but actually started to get some money back .
I then received an in house email saying they are now affiliated to Betfair.
I was self excluded from betfair so i asked customer services right away seeing i have had sister site SE. if it was ok to play.
She instantly closed my account and said i cannot play anymore.
After a series of heated discussions with them it turns out that betfair and paddy power are unrelated licensee are concerned but they can closed your account under duty of care!
a new one on me.
So i asked for my deposits back and they said no and and continued to process my winnings as the fastest payout without verification i have ever saw.
they said
""As I confirmed as a responsible company we have a duty of care to our customer to ensure they are using our site for fun and not spending beyond their means. If a customer confirmed they had excluded from a competitor site we would follow similar steps. As confirmed we do not offer cross exclusions and therefore no refund would be due on this account.""

Imperium sites or Caddell or White Hat Gaming.
Some new games i have been chasing like bloopers,Poltava and Zoom Robin Hood Prince of Tweets.
I seem to do well at these so i googled for who supplied them.
Huge Slots Casino
Istanbul Casino
Jackpot luck casino
21 Casino
Amsterdams Casino
slots cafe casino
Diamond 7
CyberClub Casino
Hello Casino
spincasino
Reel Island Casino
Grand ivy casino.
support@21prive.com
I didnt know they were all related.
I did play these sites i even had read somewhere i think it was ask gamblers that they dont care about multiple accounts.
I played on each one for 8 weeks.
Until it was discovered i was self excluded account in 2014 from one of them(i was not aware i had account),then they systematically shut down each account on each site.
Again i felt i was entitled to get my deposits back after 8 weeks of gambling but they say no and a week prior i cashed out twice(not as much as i lost). with verification checks.
Maybe it suited them until i started to win .
They will not pay my deposits back again which i think they should .


So i am hoping someone will benefit from my bad decisions and treat self exclusions seriously
As i think you can lose more if you're not carefull.
Its safer to limit your deposits to 5 pound that self exclude.

I know people self exclude not for the reasons it's there for but in any case treat it seriously.
Someone said this in another thread and it very true.

"The big problem with the position of Casino is that they expect their players to understand corporate law, as who is related to whom
is anything but clear in layman's terms. The average player see an internet filled with different casinos, all run by different people.
The way licensing works is different everywhere, and is often obfuscation by design in order to hide the true owners behind a web of shell companies.
It is STILL unclear who owns what in this case, as the position of casinos is ambiguous"

I recommend you download dashlane record who you have accounts with .
Its the only way to monitor properly.
For me though time out scissors out and finish.

 

[Boris85]

Probably a good day to talk about it of the back of this

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

. investigation into online casinos company paying out money.

Today i have stopped gambling probably a good thing.
I have experienced some strange rules recently regarding Self -excluded accounts i hope for one day someone can explain the wonderful world of exclusion.
Some i harshly have to accept some i don't but i hope that someone can gain from my experiences.

Everymatrix (at least a new site each week pops up).
I won 2000 pound to casino called Dragonara turned out to be an Everymatrix site which i was self excluded from.
I joined the site after i got a promotion email I got from them.
Points users to a web site with different terms and conditions without a mention about its affiliation to everymatrix
One day later i received my deposit back and they confiscated my winnings.
I have read so many people do that on casinomeister that i am part of the club.
Sent off a complaint to ecogra but they appear not to be busting a gut on this.
Still to this day i receive promotional emails from them.

Paddy power
i played with them recently although it looked like set up a new account i was able to play.
After playing for a while i was losing heavily but actually started to get some money back .
I then received an in house email saying they are now affiliated to Betfair.
I was self excluded from betfair so i asked customer services right away seeing i have had sister site SE. if it was ok to play.
She instantly closed my account and said i cannot play anymore.
After a series of heated discussions with them it turns out that betfair and paddy power are unrelated licensee are concerned but they can closed your account under duty of care!
a new one on me.
So i asked for my deposits back and they said no and and continued to process my winnings as the fastest payout without verification i have ever saw.
they said
""As I confirmed as a responsible company we have a duty of care to our customer to ensure they are using our site for fun and not spending beyond their means. If a customer confirmed they had excluded from a competitor site we would follow similar steps. As confirmed we do not offer cross exclusions and therefore no refund would be due on this account.""

Imperium sites or Caddell or White Hat Gaming.
Some new games i have been chasing like bloopers,Poltava and Zoom Robin Hood Prince of Tweets.
I seem to do well at these so i googled for who supplied them.
Huge Slots Casino
Istanbul Casino
Jackpot luck casino
21 Casino
Amsterdams Casino
slots cafe casino
Diamond 7
CyberClub Casino
Hello Casino
spincasino
Reel Island Casino
Grand ivy casino.
support@21prive.com
I didnt know they were all related.
I did play these sites i even had read somewhere i think it was ask gamblers that they dont care about multiple accounts.
I played on each one for 8 weeks.
Until it was discovered i was self excluded account in 2014 from one of them(i was not aware i had account),then they systematically shut down each account on each site.
Again i felt i was entitled to get my deposits back after 8 weeks of gambling but they say no and a week prior i cashed out twice(not as much as i lost). with verification checks.
Maybe it suited them until i started to win .
They will not pay my deposits back again which i think they should .


So i am hoping someone will benefit from my bad decisions and treat self exclusions seriously
As i think you can lose more if you're not carefull.
Its safer to limit your deposits to 5 pound that self exclude.

I know people self exclude not for the reasons it's there for but in any case treat it seriously.
Someone said this in another thread and it very true.

"The big problem with the position of Casino is that they expect their players to understand corporate law, as who is related to whom
is anything but clear in layman's terms. The average player see an internet filled with different casinos, all run by different people.
The way licensing works is different everywhere, and is often obfuscation by design in order to hide the true owners behind a web of shell companies.
It is STILL unclear who owns what in this case, as the position of casinos is ambiguous"

I recommend you download dashlane record who you have accounts with .
Its the only way to monitor properly.
For me though time out scissors out and finish.

Well described! You're absolutely right about how messy the responsible gambling policy has been applied by lots of casinos these days. I've had exactly the same situation with both Every matrix and Caddell group. They don't seem to know what The word "responsible" means as they have a tricky point in their terms and conditions (can't be bothered to look for it now) which in their opinion "overrules" the UKGC regulations! I've asked for a refund too and was refused! I've recently reported the Caddell group to the UKGC as they allowed me to sign up at 6 different accounts within the group after already been self excluded from one of their sites! Even tried to lie to me that I have been on cooling off period for 6 months !! of course I've had evidence but theiy still refused to refund me !
I'll be more than happy to help if you decide to go ahead with a complain against either one of the groups !

 

[vinylweatherman]

Once they have identified a self excluded player, they are REQUIRED to void all bets and refund the deposits, irrespective of whether or not they have a "policy" of doing it. This is part of the RG requirements laid down by the UKGC. As soon as they closed the account on the basis of a self exclusion elsewhere, they dropped themselves right in it and the relevant RG regulations apply to the account closure as it's still been done under the umbrella of SE.

The UKGC intend to REQUIRE not only a cross platform, but a cross industry, self exclusion system. The aim is to protect players, not to protect casinos from having to refund deposits because they were not quick enough to stop the bets being made.

 

[Keith Addy]

Once they have identified a self excluded player, they are REQUIRED to void all bets and refund the deposits, irrespective of whether or not they have a "policy" of doing it. This is part of the RG requirements laid down by the UKGC. As soon as they closed the account on the basis of a self exclusion elsewhere, they dropped themselves right in it and the relevant RG regulations apply to the account closure as it's still been done under the umbrella of SE.

The UKGC intend to REQUIRE not only a cross platform, but a cross industry, self exclusion system. The aim is to protect players, not to protect casinos from having to refund deposits because they were not quick enough to stop the bets being made.

Can you explain what rule and what section that is under .I did call BGC twice which has really confused me as one discussion was positive in my favour and my last one was not .So i do know were i stand Maybe i need someone to look at my cases more closer.
the final response i got from Imperuim/whitehatgaming/caddell was

Dear Keith,

Within our terms and conditions, which you agreed to upon registration, there is guidance on our responsible gambling policies. There is also a section that clearly states if “you circumvent your agreement by, for example, continuing to gamble, opening and operating new accounts, and/or our automated checks and/or IT or software programmes fail to recognise any attempt by you to circumvent your self-exclusion, we are under no obligation to return any deposits, winnings, or other funds in respect of such activity online”.

Further, the UK Gambling Commission has published information about self-exclusion in their FAQ section of the website. They specifically state that ‘The success of self-exclusion relies to a very large degree on the extent to which a problem gambler is committed to managing his or her behaviour. There would be a perverse incentive to gamble if those successfully breaching a self-exclusion agreement could expect to be refunded stakes they have lost. This principle of the primary responsibility lying with the gambler, and not the operator, has been tested in successive court cases.”

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

As indicated in my original response, I have carried out a full evaluation of your account history and communications, and my conclusions are final. This response is full and final from myself and Management.

Should you be dissatisfied with my response, you may contact eCOGRA, the internationally accredited player protection and standards organisation, and submit a Dispute Form.

Regards,

so i do not know were i stand.Help?

 

[Boris85]

Can you explain what rule and what section that is under .I did call BGC twice which has really confused me as one discussion was positive in my favour and my last one was not .So i do know were i stand Maybe i need someone to look at my cases more closer.
the final response i got from Imperuim/whitehatgaming/caddell was

Dear Keith,

Within our terms and conditions, which you agreed to upon registration, there is guidance on our responsible gambling policies. There is also a section that clearly states if “you circumvent your agreement by, for example, continuing to gamble, opening and operating new accounts, and/or our automated checks and/or IT or software programmes fail to recognise any attempt by you to circumvent your self-exclusion, we are under no obligation to return any deposits, winnings, or other funds in respect of such activity online”.

Further, the UK Gambling Commission has published information about self-exclusion in their FAQ section of the website. They specifically state that ‘The success of self-exclusion relies to a very large degree on the extent to which a problem gambler is committed to managing his or her behaviour. There would be a perverse incentive to gamble if those successfully breaching a self-exclusion agreement could expect to be refunded stakes they have lost. This principle of the primary responsibility lying with the gambler, and not the operator, has been tested in successive court cases.”

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

As indicated in my original response, I have carried out a full evaluation of your account history and communications, and my conclusions are final. This response is full and final from myself and Management.

Should you be dissatisfied with my response, you may contact eCOGRA, the internationally accredited player protection and standards organisation, and submit a Dispute Form.

Regards,

so i do not know were i stand.Help?

I have got exactly the same answer! thats the point when their terms and conditions seem to 'overrule' the once set by the UKGC ! you accepted it and basically all the responsibility falls on your shoulders. They are clean even they didnt take any action to prevent you from signing up!
I would not advice you to contact eCogra! I had bad experience with them, and not only me ...

best regards

 

[Harry_BKK]

Can you explain what rule and what section that is under .I did call BGC twice which has really confused me as one discussion was positive in my favour and my last one was not .So i do know were i stand Maybe i need someone to look at my cases more closer.
the final response i got from Imperuim/whitehatgaming/caddell was

Dear Keith,

Within our terms and conditions, which you agreed to upon registration, there is guidance on our responsible gambling policies. There is also a section that clearly states if “you circumvent your agreement by, for example, continuing to gamble, opening and operating new accounts, and/or our automated checks and/or IT or software programmes fail to recognise any attempt by you to circumvent your self-exclusion, we are under no obligation to return any deposits, winnings, or other funds in respect of such activity online”.

Further, the UK Gambling Commission has published information about self-exclusion in their FAQ section of the website. They specifically state that ‘The success of self-exclusion relies to a very large degree on the extent to which a problem gambler is committed to managing his or her behaviour. There would be a perverse incentive to gamble if those successfully breaching a self-exclusion agreement could expect to be refunded stakes they have lost. This principle of the primary responsibility lying with the gambler, and not the operator, has been tested in successive court cases.”

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

As indicated in my original response, I have carried out a full evaluation of your account history and communications, and my conclusions are final. This response is full and final from myself and Management.

Should you be dissatisfied with my response, you may contact eCOGRA, the internationally accredited player protection and standards organisation, and submit a Dispute Form.

Regards,

so i do not know were i stand.Help?

I have got exactly the same answer! thats the point when their terms and conditions seem to 'overrule' the once set by the UKGC ! you accepted it and basically all the responsibility falls on your shoulders. They are clean even they didnt take any action to prevent you from signing up!
I would not advice you to contact eCogra! I had bad experience with them, and not only me ...

best regards

There is no clear sentence, nor paragraph in the UKGC regulations that forces casinos to return deposit/pay winnings to an SE'ed player.

The only things they state clear is:

- a licensee has to put procedures in place to detect SE'ed players and prevent them from placing bets
- a licensee has to void all bets/winnings from an SE'ed player and return the account to the state it was before the first bet/spin was made

It is been deducted from the latter that by reinstating the account to its original state that it would mean to be the deposited balance. Since the player can no further access his/her account to re-withdraw the deposit it has become customary for the casinos to return it to the payment method used for the deposit.

This is the crux of the rather unclear regulations. The UKGC also does not state an exact time frame for a licensee to detect a previously SE'ed player, making it even less stringent.

 

[vinylweatherman]

There is no clear sentence, nor paragraph in the UKGC regulations that forces casinos to return deposit/pay winnings to an SE'ed player.

The only things they state clear is:

- a licensee has to put procedures in place to detect SE'ed players and prevent them from placing bets
- a licensee has to void all bets/winnings from an SE'ed player and return the account to the state it was before the first bet/spin was made

It is been deducted from the latter that by reinstating the account to its original state that it would mean to be the deposited balance. Since the player can no further access his/her account to re-withdraw the deposit it has become customary for the casinos to return it to the payment method used for the deposit.

This is the crux of the rather unclear regulations. The UKGC also does not state an exact time frame for a licensee to detect a previously SE'ed player, making it even less stringent.

It is effectively the same thing as returning the deposit, because this procedure rewinds the account back to the point before the first bet, where it contains the player's deposit. Since the player cannot be permitted to place bets with this deposit, and the casino cannot keep it, the only viable option is to return it.

Their terms also rely on the player having made a deliberate attempt to circumvent their systems, but if this hasn't happened, then it's the operator's failure to run a simple automated check that has allowed the betting to take place, not the problem gamblers deliberate attempt to circumvent the system.

There is no real risk of a "free ride" provided the operator does RG properly, rather than cherry picking some of the measures that are easiest and cheapest, because even where a self excluded player has managed to win, the SE rules that require the rewind of all bets also means that the player doesn't collect. If players DO manage to collect, it's because the operator has not been operating SE correctly, and has failed to run all the checks they should have.

The only "free ride" here is that SE players will always have their bets rewound when they try to withdraw winnings because this is when the proper checks tend to be made, and the SE discovered, but losing players do not have these checks run on their account, so problem gamblers are able to play and lose until they go broke, and they may well move on with the casino keeping this money.

Had this been a win for the OP, the SE would have been picked up during the audit, and the bets all voided, but because the player lost and then only won some back, the casino is saying the bets should stand and the withdrawal paid.

In the current state of affairs, the player would now have to proceed with court action to ensure that the SE procedure is carried out as per regulation (bets rewound to starting state), and then that this balance be returned to the player as part of the end process of closing the account, as there is no alternative option other than it sitting there for 5 years, the extent of a full SE under the regulations.

An alternative might be to change the regulations such that the casino has to remit any deposits received from players later identified as SE under the regulations to, say, the UKGC, who will decide what becomes of them. This will prevent casinos profiting from the losses of problem gamblers, but will also put a brake on the abuse of the SE system by players who try again as soon as they recover their deposits. The UKGC, as an example, could hold the deposits in trust for the problem gambler for the length of their period of SE, and if the player wants them back, they would have to apply to the UKGC or via the courts, where perhaps a court order might be used to prohibit them from continuing to try their luck at circumventing the procedures.

 

[maxd]

As many of you already know the whole SE (self-exclusion) thing is in a state of flux. The UKGC is more-or-less leading the pack in terms of setting policy but they are struggling with the issue as much as anyone else. Over the last 18 months or so they've modified their rules substantially, attempted to lay down a clear path forward for their ADRs and (from what I've heard) been snowed under by SE cases for their efforts. I've heard that they've seen thousands of SE cases over the past couple years and so far it doesn't seem that they -- or anyone else for that matter -- is any closer to a real solution.

Part of the problem here is that a substantial percentage of SE cases are players trying take advantage of the fluid situation to gain an advantage over the casino. Fraud by any other name. In my own work on the PABs I'd say that at least half of the SE cases I see are bogus. If the UKGC is facing the same level of player trickery then they've got a real problem on their hands.

Worse yet, casinos are obviously facing the same situation and -- I dare say in response to the troubled and "clear as mud" state of affairs -- many have taken the opportunity to skew things strongly against the SE player. From their point of view they've got the most to lose so I suppose their actions shouldn't be much of a surprise.

The end result is, frankly, chaos: there are no real "rules" here and at this point it's pretty much every man for himself. That said the UKGC is doing its best and some casinos are dealing with SE issues in a fair and straightforward way and should be respected for it. Unfortunately players are the least empowered party in the SE game and if recent history is any indication they can expect to suffer because of it.

 

[dunover]

As many of you already know the whole SE (self-exclusion) thing is in a state of flux. The UKGC is more-or-less leading the pack in terms of setting policy but they are struggling with the issue as much as anyone else. Over the last 18 months or so they've modified their rules substantially, attempted to lay down a clear path forward for their ADRs and (from what I've heard) been snowed under by SE cases for their efforts. I've heard that they've seen thousands of SE cases over the past couple years and so far it doesn't seem that they -- or anyone else for that matter -- is any closer to a real solution.

Part of the problem here is that a substantial percentage of SE cases are players trying take advantage of the fluid situation to gain an advantage over the casino. Fraud by any other name. In my own work on the PABs I'd say that at least half of the SE cases I see are bogus. If the UKGC is facing the same level of player trickery then they've got a real problem on their hands.

Worse yet, casinos are obviously facing the same situation and -- I dare say in response to the troubled and "clear as mud" state of affairs -- many have taken the opportunity to skew things strongly against the SE player. From their point of view they've got the most to lose so I suppose their actions shouldn't be much of a surprise.

The end result is, frankly, chaos: there are no real "rules" here and at this point it's pretty much every man for himself. That said the UKGC is doing its best and some casinos are dealing with SE issues in a fair and straightforward way and should be respected for it. Unfortunately players are the least empowered party in the SE game and if recent history is any indication they can expect to suffer because of it.

A good summary of the situation as it stands.

The problem would be worse if not for the fact that may bigger operations, especially the bookmakers, exercise due diligence at sign-up. Any detail(s) flagged at registration will result in 'account locked please contact customer services'. You'll find that most cases involve licensees that don't do this.

I don't really buy the fact that any knowledgeable player would deliberately try and gain advantage, although Max says they do, as they can really expect deposits back at best. If they win they shouldn't be paid, and if they lose they end up square with a refund of deposits (in most cases!) so have wasted their time. That's fair enough and if people are doing this then raising PABs then one does wonder about their motive, pressurizing a casino to pay while breaching UKGC rules.

This 'flux' situation is definitely not helped by the lack of disclosure by licensees - they are responsible for a significant part of the issue and seem happy to continue being so while taking no-lose deposits, treating the odd court summons or complaint/ADR case as an absorbable expense.

It is clear that the eCogra and the UKGC are a waste of time on this issue, and luckily the player can resort to court action to retrieve monies and if the casinos' terms fail to supply relevant information in their terms (other licensees) then like it or not the casino is in the wrong and WILL lose their case because while UKGC regs are a grey area, UK consumer law is not. The player cannot be reasonably expected to find a license number, go to a third-party resource and check sister casinos before depositing. Something that important which affects the integrity of the customer's purchase of casino chips and can render them effectively 'play money' MUST be made clear in the casino terms at the point of purchase and not elsewhere. That is the bottom line, that is how the majority of this issue will be resolved and whether the casinos like it or not common-sense and eventually the UKGC will be forced to enact this as the logical solution and be compliant with UK Consumer Laws.

The court cases referred to by Keith are mainly ones referring to land-based betting shops and casinos where the losing excluded players barred themselves and supplied photos etc. in order for staff to refuse bets. Obviously busy staff cannot be expected to effectively enforce this all the time by checking the bettors for each transaction and the bettor can alter their appearance etc. so quite reasonably the Courts decided the layer must take responsibility. Remote betting is a different scenario as automated checking is far easier to enable and unlike land-based operations the player cannot disguise easily their address or other details; checks are far more stringent than giving a players a brief glance to see how old they are before taking bets.

 

[maxd]

It is clear that the eCogra and the UKGC are a waste of time on this issue ....

As I understand it all the UKGC's ADRs have been told to pass SE cases on to UKGC central command, hence the massive number of cases they've "stockpiled" over the last year or so. Last I read -- admittedly a while ago -- the UKGC line to SE complainants was "take it to court". The point being that eCOGRA, or any other UKGC-accredited ADR, is "useless" in SE cases because the UKGC has told them "hands off": they are supposed to simply pass the SE case on to the UKGC and be done with it. In other words their hands are tied.

 

[vinylweatherman]

As I understand it all the UKGC's ADRs have been told to pass SE cases on to UKGC central command, hence the massive number of cases they've "stockpiled" over the last year or so. Last I read -- admittedly a while ago -- the UKGC line to SE complainants was "take it to court". The point being that eCOGRA, or any other UKGC-accredited ADR, is "useless" in SE cases because the UKGC has told them "hands off": they are supposed to simply pass the SE case on to the UKGC and be done with it. In other words their hands are tied.

This stance not only makes life hard for the innocent player, it also makes life hard for the casinos because the ONLY way a UK player can contest any SE related dispute is through the courts. This could mean that if casinos get it wrong, they risk ending up with a long list of CCJs against their company name. However, if they want to avoid this, they would probably have to pay up under pressure, which might only serve to encourage the scammers to exploit the situation further.

What has REALLY made life tough for casinos though is their own addiction to deceit. It has long been standard industry practice to disguise interrelationships, even to the extent of lying to players about being "independent" when asked if they are part of a group. Another factor that has been cropping up is that players are not being allowed to simply close their account, they are being forced down the SE route in order to achieve both account closure and removal from mailing lists and lead sharing with third parties. This leads to players genuinely intending to just close an account at a specific casino where they feel they are not valued as a customer ending up put on the SE list, but since they were not intending to SE, merely seek a better deal elsewhere, they end up in the "SE mess" when they win at a different casino and then get told they are on the SE database and are not getting paid.

Even a shared licence is no help because whether or not sharing a licence should be interpreted as all those using it being sister sites or independent operations seems to depend upon which interpretation suits the casino.

Remember the Slotobank fiasco, where they were sharing a licence with other operators, who were all keen to claim that nothing should be read into this, they were not related in any way to Slotobank despite the shared license. Then, along comes a SE case, and all of a sudden it's a complete U turn, the player is told they should have checked, and known that because the casino they SE'd from shared a licence with the one that generated the complaint, it meant the SE was valid "across the group", not just at the other casino.

Cassava have this off to a fine art, independent, until the player wins that is, then the winnings are confiscated for also taking the SUB at a sister site. Here, the license listing is very useful because it has forced Cassava at last to list all the UK facing "independent" sites that suddenly become "related" if one is to win too much with a bonus.

Hopefully, the implementation of an industry wide central SE database should bring some clarity, if you SE, it means you SE from ALL UK facing casinos, not just that one, or just that group.

 

[Keith Addy]

I spent a long time with the UKGC on the phone this afternoon.
It seems casinos can withhold deposits if it is stated in their terms.
I argued the case with the details provided but UKGC say they have no power over Casinos
So i am more confused .

 

[dunover]

I spent a long time with the UKGC on the phone this afternoon.
It seems casinos can withhold deposits if it is stated in their terms.
I argued the case with the details provided but UKGC say they have no power over Casinos
So i am more confused .

The courts do though.

Small Claim against the licensee for not providing full and complete terms when you signed up, resulting in a void purchase as the purpose of the purchase was to gamble and you could not have been paid had you won.

Simple open-and-shut case. Licensee has breached UK consumer regulations.

 

[Harry_BKK]

Are we seeing light at the end of the tunnel?

Looks so easy, why are not all casinos doing the same?

 

[Valhalla]

Are we seeing light at the end of the tunnel?

Looks so easy, why are not all casinos doing the same?

View attachment 76045

Surely that would be far too sensible a move. Casinos like to make things difficult for themselves and us

 

[harmont]

white hat gaming

Well described! You're absolutely right about how messy the responsible gambling policy has been applied by lots of casinos these days. I've had exactly the same situation with both Every matrix and Caddell group. They don't seem to know what The word "responsible" means as they have a tricky point in their terms and conditions (can't be bothered to look for it now) which in their opinion "overrules" the UKGC regulations! I've asked for a refund too and was refused! I've recently reported the Caddell group to the UKGC as they allowed me to sign up at 6 different accounts within the group after already been self excluded from one of their sites! Even tried to lie to me that I have been on cooling off period for 6 months !! of course I've had evidence but theiy still refused to refund me !
I'll be more than happy to help if you decide to go ahead with a complain against either one of the groups !

I have just come across this thread whilst searching the forum. I too have had the same issue. I self excluded from a sister site 18months ago. I have opened and continued to play on various sites since then. Their own responsible gaming terms state "Once a self exclusion is in place you will be blocked across the network." I have submitted a complaint and a refund request to all sites I joined and played on in the 18 months since the self exclusion. I am finding it hard to deal with them and get updates. Has anyone managed to find a contact for these sites

 

[The Blue Anchor]

imagine if the planned UK wide database is retrospective - so anyone who has ever SE'd from any casino will be barred from playing.

Hopefully they will see sense and start it from scratch.

 

[pinnit2014]

imagine if the planned UK wide database is retrospective - so anyone who has ever SE'd from any casino will be barred from playing.

Hopefully they will see sense and start it from scratch.

Not sure if correct but i thought i read something that people would be given two options - exclude globally or from the sole casino in question (would seem to undermine?)

Retrospective would probably hit some revenues too much

 

[trancemonkey]

As many of you already know the whole SE (self-exclusion) thing is in a state of flux. The UKGC is more-or-less leading the pack in terms of setting policy but they are struggling with the issue as much as anyone else. Over the last 18 months or so they've modified their rules substantially, attempted to lay down a clear path forward for their ADRs and (from what I've heard) been snowed under by SE cases for their efforts. I've heard that they've seen thousands of SE cases over the past couple years and so far it doesn't seem that they -- or anyone else for that matter -- is any closer to a real solution.

Part of the problem here is that a substantial percentage of SE cases are players trying take advantage of the fluid situation to gain an advantage over the casino. Fraud by any other name. In my own work on the PABs I'd say that at least half of the SE cases I see are bogus. If the UKGC is facing the same level of player trickery then they've got a real problem on their hands.

Worse yet, casinos are obviously facing the same situation and -- I dare say in response to the troubled and "clear as mud" state of affairs -- many have taken the opportunity to skew things strongly against the SE player. From their point of view they've got the most to lose so I suppose their actions shouldn't be much of a surprise.

The end result is, frankly, chaos: there are no real "rules" here and at this point it's pretty much every man for himself. That said the UKGC is doing its best and some casinos are dealing with SE issues in a fair and straightforward way and should be respected for it. Unfortunately players are the least empowered party in the SE game and if recent history is any indication they can expect to suffer because of it.

The faster a "global self-exclusion system" is instated, the better. With Kahnawake casinos, you can globally self-exclude. All the casinos have to do is check your name & details against a database. The technology exists, it's just the UKGC for some reason won't implement it yet.

I've been at stages in my life where i wish i could have self-excluded from every casino for say 6 months (or more)...

There are so many casinos, that if someone wants to gamble, they can... without a system for all casinos operating in the UK, there will never be a good way to do it...

 

[Arch Stanton]

I'm currently in the process of taking a major online operator to court to get a judgement on a failed self exclusion cross brand situation. I was self excluded for problem gambling reasons 4 years ago from one of their brands yet was able to open a new account with their other brand late last year using exactly the same information even down to the security question and answer. They didn't raise any concerns about a 5 figure sum being deposited and lost in a few weeks spread across many deposits with near 16 hour daily sessions and only spotted the cross brand self exclusion once I phoned them to close the account having lost everything. They're response was to finally implement the self exclusion on both accounts, but they point blank refused to refund the deposits citing their cross platform policy only came into effect 4 days after I opened my most recent account.

I'm fairly confident of defeating their arguments in court and whilst it has cost me another 4 figures to get to this stage I am glad I have taken this route, because I cannot be the only self excluded customer to have fallen foul of this major companie's failure to collate databases across their two huge brands. They know that any ruling in court could create a snowball effect of similar action from those same customers yet they seem determined to get into that court room where there will be no hiding place in regards to evidence and their internal processes.

I did have a default judgement (& a writ of control) but they finally responded to court proceedings and have applied for a set aside for which a hearing takes place in the near future (awaiting date).

I will keep the forum posted on how this develops.

 

[dunover]

I'm currently in the process of taking a major online operator to court to get a judgement on a failed self exclusion cross brand situation. I was self excluded for problem gambling reasons 4 years ago from one of their brands yet was able to open a new account with their other brand late last year using exactly the same information even down to the security question and answer. They didn't raise any concerns about a 5 figure sum being deposited and lost in a few weeks spread across many deposits with near 16 hour daily sessions and only spotted the cross brand self exclusion once I phoned them to close the account having lost everything. They're response was to finally implement the self exclusion on both accounts, but they point blank refused to refund the deposits citing their cross platform policy only came into effect 4 days after I opened my most recent account.

I'm fairly confident of defeating their arguments in court and whilst it has cost me another 4 figures to get to this stage I am glad I have taken this route, because I cannot be the only self excluded customer to have fallen foul of this major companie's failure to collate databases across their two huge brands. They know that any ruling in court could create a snowball effect of similar action from those same customers yet they seem determined to get into that court room where there will be no hiding place in regards to evidence and their internal processes.

I did have a default judgement (& a writ of control) but they finally responded to court proceedings and have applied for a set aside for which a hearing takes place in the near future (awaiting date).

I will keep the forum posted on how this develops.

Well done! I wouldn't worry too much about set-aside as if the business failed to turn up and contest the original hearing it looks very bad on them, will take a good lawyer to wriggle out of it. The cross platform policy is irrelevant as it's theirs and not done to the timescale of the UKGC which has always told sites to void bets if from SE player and not only that, if their terms DIDN'T explain the co-licensees when you signed up they were therefore incomplete, detrimental and thus unfair.

 

[Arch Stanton]

Well done! I wouldn't worry too much about set-aside as if the business failed to turn up and contest the original hearing it looks very bad on them, will take a good lawyer to wriggle out of it. The cross platform policy is irrelevant as it's theirs and not done to the timescale of the UKGC which has always told sites to void bets if from SE player and not only that, if their terms DIDN'T explain the co-licensees when you signed up they were therefore incomplete, detrimental and thus unfair.

Thanks, Dunover. Appreciate the input.

It was the initial claim they failed to respond to (they say it got lost in the post) so they've had to pay to apply for a set aside hearing which has been granted for listing and they will need to attend (as will I). The judge will decide as to if to allow the set aside or let judgement stand. If the former it will go to a full hearing.

As you say their T&Cs are unfair especially as they seem to change without any notice to the customer. If my bank or Paypal or Amazon change their T&Cs then they email those changes to you stating that to continue using their service is an acceptance of them. Online bookmakers don't seem to bother and just change them at will and expect their customers to abide.

In this case, I think any reasonable person will agree that if you buy another company you are responsible for that customer base as well as your other brands. And as an online bookmaker with a GC license you can't wait almost a year to cross collateralise your self exclusion database and then only include customers going forward.

I think and have been advised my case is strong, it's just daft for them to take it all the way when they know a victory could prove far more costly to them in both bad publicity and further claims.

 

[dunover]

Thanks, Dunover. Appreciate the input.

It was the initial claim they failed to respond to (they say it got lost in the post) so they've had to pay to apply for a set aside hearing which has been granted for listing and they will need to attend (as will I). The judge will decide as to if to allow the set aside or let judgement stand. If the former it will go to a full hearing.

As you say their T&Cs are unfair especially as they seem to change without any notice to the customer. If my bank or Paypal or Amazon change their T&Cs then they email those changes to you stating that to continue using their service is an acceptance of them. Online bookmakers don't seem to bother and just change them at will and expect their customers to abide.

In this case, I think any reasonable person will agree that if you buy another company you are responsible for that customer base as well as your other brands. And as an online bookmaker with a GC license you can't wait almost a year to cross collateralise your self exclusion database and then only include customers going forward.

I think and have been advised my case is strong, it's just daft for them to take it all the way when they know a victory could prove far more costly to them in both bad publicity and further claims.

Exactly. Not the customer's look-out.

You have a strong case, but there are two reasons they are terrified of losing; firstly it can become a reference case for a floodgate of others, secondly it could lead to confirmation of negligence which will then likely have the UKGC doing an '888' on them. So they potentially have a lot to lose by not defending it. You've only need to argue that they weren't following the UKGC rules, the terms were incomplete for not mentioning sister sites and thus unfair and negligence in failing to communicate with the customer and being compliant in a timely fashion.

 

[Arch Stanton]

Exactly. Not the customer's look-out.

You have a strong case, but there are two reasons they are terrified of losing; firstly it can become a reference case for a floodgate of others, secondly it could lead to confirmation of negligence which will then likely have the UKGC doing an '888' on them. So they potentially have a lot to lose by not defending it. You've only need to argue that they weren't following the UKGC rules, the terms were incomplete for not mentioning sister sites and thus unfair and negligence in failing to communicate with the customer and being compliant in a timely fashion.

I fully agree with you there. Which begs the question, given the very possible outcome, why did they let it go this far after months of back & forth with even the CEO cc'd in? Letting it go to a court for judgement sets up the scenarios you detailed. Settlement outside of the court process would have been the end of it.

 

[dunover]

I fully agree with you there. Which begs the question, given the very possible outcome, why did they let it go this far after months of back & forth with even the CEO cc'd in? Letting it go to a court for judgement sets up the scenarios you detailed. Settlement outside of the court process would have been the end of it.

They play brinkmanship to see who blinks first. It wouldn't surprise me if they didn't turn up to the next case, or did turn up and concede it immediately. The thing is this is what the players need, a case won on its merits rather than by default (as happened with the chap who took EveryMatrix to court).