ThePOGG.com resigns as ADR

maxd

Complaints (PAB) Manager
Staff member
Joined
Jan 20, 2004
Location
Saltirelandia
Just heard about this, sad day IMO.
May 15
ThePOGG.com resigns as UKGC Alternative Dispute Resolution service
Posted by THEPOGG in
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
.

It is with a heavy heart and after long and careful consideration that ThePOGG.com has to announce that we have given notice to the UKGC that we will be resigning our position as an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) service for the UK regulatory authority. This will be effective as of the end of June 2017.

This decision has come about after many months of communication with the UKGC with regard to the management of complaint cases that relate to fraud and the operation of multiple accounts under names other than the player’s own. We strongly disagree with the policies that the UKGC are pursuing in this regard and do not feel we can enforce them in good conscience.

It is our opinion that the current expectations on ADRs is likely to result in operators being far less willing to engage in open dialogue with regard to fraud related complaints, will educate those engaged in illegal practices as to how to avoid detection in future and will ultimately result in poorer bonus terms being available to genuine consumers. ... (
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
)

Gotta say that this a pretty crap thing to have come to pass. I know Duncan had poured hundreds and hundreds of hours into working with the UKGC to make the ADR system wiser, workable and better fit for purpose. The recent problems -- falling hard on their recent Review it should be noted -- are not good news for players or operators and I for one believe that ThePogg's withdrawal from the ADR service is only the most recent in what will prove to be a very bumpy road ahead for the UKGC, the ADRs, the operators and players. No one credible gains from this and those who need the services of someone like Duncan at ThePogg will suffer most because that option will no longer be available to them.
 
Last edited:

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
If enough ADRs take a similar stance, the UKGC will be forced to reach a compromise or see its ADR system crumble before it's eyes, which will be seen as a failure of the current makeup of the UKGC, and some top jobs there will be at risk (this usually focuses the attention of those who have the power to make changes).

The problem is, if enough ADRs are happy with the UKGC approach, and with UK facing casinos forced to pick one of them, it may well lead to a steady decline in offerings for all players.
 

ThePOGG

Meister Member
webmeister
Joined
Feb 17, 2012
Location
UK
If enough ADRs take a similar stance, the UKGC will be forced to reach a compromise or see its ADR system crumble before it's eyes, which will be seen as a failure of the current makeup of the UKGC, and some top jobs there will be at risk (this usually focuses the attention of those who have the power to make changes).

The problem is, if enough ADRs are happy with the UKGC approach, and with UK facing casinos forced to pick one of them, it may well lead to a steady decline in offerings for all players.

There's two potential barriers to what you're suggesting.

1) The UKGC currently has a stated policy of looking to reduce the number of ADRs. This is detailed on pg20 section 5.48 of the report that Max linked to above. Given the stated directive to reduce or limit the number of ADR providers, unless the ADR providers that deal with high volumes of complaints take a stand the loss of smaller providers likely only feeds into the goals of other policies. In truth, our stepping down may well suit the UKGC's wider agenda.

2) Those ADR providers who are dealing with large volumes of complaints have significant financial incentive not to rock the boat. For ThePOGG the UKGC ADR accreditation never directly made us any money. It was a desirable accolade to have in our trophy cabinet but as we didn't charge either party a fee for the service it never lined our wallet. All the other ADRs directly charge operators for every complaint they manage. If they were to lose their accreditation it would have a significant impact on their ability to retain their portfolio of client and even if they manage to keep all these operators signed up to their service, UK players are still going to be getting directed away from them which means less complaints. Less complaints means less money.

TP
 

maxd

Complaints (PAB) Manager
Staff member
Joined
Jan 20, 2004
Location
Saltirelandia
"a steady decline in offerings for all players" may be exactly what the UKGC has in mind, as stated in their recent Review:

... we may consider requiring all [casino] operators to use a single ADR provider of our choice.

It's a poorly kept secret that some of the senior people within the UKGC strongly advocate "repatriating" the ADR process and handing ADR responsibilities over to a single UK-based ADR to act as Ombudsman. Industry insiders have repeatedly pointed out to us that the groundwork for such a move was all well in place in the Review. One of those insiders -- someone I hold in the highest professional regard -- put it bluntly when they said that the Review "is the beginning of the end for the ADR system." If I were a betting man I'd take that prediction to the bank.
 
Last edited:

Naok777

Experienced Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2015
Location
UK
I don't see how anyone could benefit from the route the UKGC seems committed to.:confused:

The Casinos? They face increased costs from having to pay the remaining ADRs more due to less competition and will have to pay for the losses from fraudsters getting better due to ADRs being required to help fraudsters avoid detection.

The ADRs? Casinos will lose trust in them due to that stupid rule about having to help fraudsters.

The Players? More Casinos are probably going to leave the UK market, reducing choice, plus newer players will be more likely to end up in the fangs of Rogue Clipjoint #14448.

The Government? If Casinos deem the cost of operating in the UK too expensive and leave then obviously the UK Government can't tax them any more.

So everyone loses.
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
So, it looks like the UKGC don't care about a couple of smaller ADRs are voting with their feet over the fraud issue, it suits the agenda just fine. If eventually there will only be one ADR to act as ombudsman, the current larger ones may be looking to be the one that the UKGC chooses to run the new system, and of course it will be an end to price competition.

This could have the effect of making it MORE expensive for casinos to drive a player to the ADR system than to simply pay up and ban them. This will help fraudsters who go for many small amounts rather than a few big payouts. This has to lead to one thing, casinos will stop offering decent SUB offerings to all.

This could be a good thing in the long term, because so many complaints arise from bonus disputes, with or without fraud. UK players will just have to get used to it.

Maybe the loss of bonuses suits the UKGC agenda too, because they must realise by now that most fraud is because of how casinos offer bonuses, and many of the other complaints are due to the complex terms that trip up regular players who think they can just go in and play as though it's a land casino, without realising that the free bonus comes with strings attached. Fewer complaints going through the system will allow the UKGC to say "look how well we have done cleaning up the industry for UK players".
 

ThePOGG

Meister Member
webmeister
Joined
Feb 17, 2012
Location
UK
In all fairness, I do understand why the UKGC are taking this position. I just don't agree with it.

Regardless of what industry you're functioning in a complaint process has to be both independent and fair. It has to be more than that though - it has to be SEEN to be both independent and fair.

If I was on the outside of a sector looking in and I saw a supposedly independent complaints body rule against a consumer but say 'I'm not going to tell you why' I'd view that with extreme scepticism. Add to that a system where the complaint mediator is reimbursed by the provider and not the consumer and you have all the makings of a believable conspiracy theory. And this is a reasonable starting position for the UKGC to assume - how can you claim your system is 'open' and 'fair' if ADRs can rule without providing any explanation for the ruling?

Unfortunately, Max hits the nail on the head above. There are large amounts of low level fraud within this industry. People who buy or borrow ID off of a bunch of people they know and claim bonuses they're not entitled to. Bonuses provide the incentive and the remote nature of the activity facilitates it. These people aren't monsters - they rationalise their actions with the broad brush view that demonises the gambling industry as the bad guy, a view that's shared by many regular players - but neither are they abiding by either the rules or the law and as such the system should not support, encourage or facilitate their behaviour.

The police have an understandably low uptake in investigating this sort of activity - it's difficult and time consuming to get a conviction. So the responsibility has to fall to every legitimate party within the chain prior to the police and courts to work to discourage unacceptable behaviours. And this is the crux of the issue - the conflict between maintaining the perception of fairness and ensuring that the transparency that we aspire towards in not cynically manipulated to facilitate further illegal activity. It's a very fine line to walk and so I say again, while I may not agree with the direction the UKGC have chosen to go - in fact I strongly disagree with it - I do understand the rational that has lead them to that policy and wouldn't necessarily immediately jump to the presumption that non-positive motives have driven the decision making process.

TP
 

Casinomeister

Forum Cheermeister
Staff member
Joined
Jun 30, 1998
Location
Bierland
I applaud Duncan for standing up doing the right thing - sticking by his guns. I feel that by remaining independent, both Casinomeister and thePogg can be even more effective than we are right now.

As for the UKGC is concerned, I really think they need to look at how other successful jurisdictions (Malta, Kahnawake) and handling complaints. It's in-house, effective, and fair.
 

maxd

Complaints (PAB) Manager
Staff member
Joined
Jan 20, 2004
Location
Saltirelandia
I don't see how anyone could benefit from the route the UKGC seems committed to.: ...

The Government? If Casinos deem the cost of operating in the UK too expensive and leave then obviously the UK Government can't tax them any more.

Three words: "strong and stable". I'd bet my left testicle that this is more about politics and the public perception of a job well done that it is about revenue and taxation. When the current government came in with a majority the direction of the UKGC shifted. Gone were the days of a confluence of equals for the greater good. IMO their course since then has been fairly consistent: "we know what's best and we make the rules." Read the recent Review if there are any lingering doubts about that.
 

dunover

Unofficial T&C's Editor
Staff member
webmeister
PABnonaccred
PABnononaccred
CAG
mm3
Joined
May 22, 2012
Location
the bus shelter, opposite GCHQ Benhall
I just feel the UKGC is completely out of its depth. I still find it hard to believe they have any extensive knowledge of the product they administer, whether at the user end or supplier end. Yes, the POGG applauds their efforts, and so do I much in the same way I'd applaud a boxer beating the count and getting up to be knocked down again.

We are rightly concerned with player fraud and ADR disclosure improving their knowledge, but if the fraudster wants to front it out they can get this by spending a few quid on a court case anyway - as the POGG says the Police aren't going to want to know even if their dishonesty is exposed in the case.

Do you really think the UKGC are competent enough to implement any advancement in this area when they can't even get the basics right such as making licensees responsible for player checking across all the properties under that license (aka EMSEB) at point of sale, making terms that compel the casinos to follow basic consumer trading and advertising statutes such as complete terms in bonuses, action regarding unfair deliberate and anti-RG pending periods for cash-outs?

I think the government should slash the UKGC to a simple license-granting and revenue collection body and have a subdivision of both player and casino representatives/consultants/consumer lawyers to deal with the minutiae of player-casino-player issues and with the ability to agree on rules or amend them where necessary without undue delay. This would result in a more security and enshrined, clearly-defined and FAIR parameters for both operators and players.

It's not as if I am suggesting brain surgery, but when there are at least 2 members here waiting 5 and 10 months respectively for replies to 'inconvenient' questions or complaints then clearly something is amiss.

This thread concentrates on player fraud, a tiny but annoying group of players yet there is no discourse or regulatory attempt to quickly name patently rogue casinos and collate evidence and open up dialogue with payment providers to ensure rapid denial of funds to those parasites.

A whole new strategy is required and a 3-way one too: casino licensees, players and payment providers. While any one or pair of these continue to strike out in the dark there will always be higher fraud levels, rogues and pissed-off players plus of course lots of court-talk. :(
 

syrus2

Banned User - repetitive trollish behavior
Joined
Jun 29, 2016
Location
Netherlands
In all fairness, I do understand why the UKGC are taking this position. I just don't agree with it.

Regardless of what industry you're functioning in a complaint process has to be both independent and fair. It has to be more than that though - it has to be SEEN to be both independent and fair.

If I was on the outside of a sector looking in and I saw a supposedly independent complaints body rule against a consumer but say 'I'm not going to tell you why' I'd view that with extreme scepticism. Add to that a system where the complaint mediator is reimbursed by the provider and not the consumer and you have all the makings of a believable conspiracy theory. And this is a reasonable starting position for the UKGC to assume - how can you claim your system is 'open' and 'fair' if ADRs can rule without providing any explanation for the ruling?

Unfortunately, Max hits the nail on the head above. There are large amounts of low level fraud within this industry. People who buy or borrow ID off of a bunch of people they know and claim bonuses they're not entitled to. Bonuses provide the incentive and the remote nature of the activity facilitates it. These people aren't monsters - they rationalise their actions with the broad brush view that demonises the gambling industry as the bad guy, a view that's shared by many regular players - but neither are they abiding by either the rules or the law and as such the system should not support, encourage or facilitate their behaviour.

The police have an understandably low uptake in investigating this sort of activity - it's difficult and time consuming to get a conviction. So the responsibility has to fall to every legitimate party within the chain prior to the police and courts to work to discourage unacceptable behaviours. And this is the crux of the issue - the conflict between maintaining the perception of fairness and ensuring that the transparency that we aspire towards in not cynically manipulated to facilitate further illegal activity. It's a very fine line to walk and so I say again, while I may not agree with the direction the UKGC have chosen to go - in fact I strongly disagree with it - I do understand the rational that has lead them to that policy and wouldn't necessarily immediately jump to the presumption that non-positive motives have driven the decision making process.

TP

TBH, has nothing to do with that .


Fraud has been produced or caused by deceit.
it's a form of deception which are proposed different than reality. The purpose of a fraud perpetrator is the favor of himself or others.

Scammers put their strategy in such a way that they are almost 100% certain that you as the victim eventually designated are on civil law.

In the eyes of police and dpmt of justice, this kind of jokes, can be resolved by the civil courts. ( and they are right ).


crime:
Committing offences by public law are forbidden or non-compliance with obligations imposed by public law. In both cases the perpetrator according to those laws is punishable. ( as you already knew ).


In other words ( in this case ) , you have problems with casino due to the T & C, or ................
then you are able to sort it out in civil Court.

You gonna buy a Magnum 44 , walk into the casino and shot the supervisor in his arse just bcuz you did'nt get your money?
Yes, in this case the police gonna show up to say Hello and have a chat with you.


btw, I enjoy reading your posts.
 
Top