They're giving my deposits to good causes

[Popular2019]

Hi all, I'm new here and really wanted to know what others make of this situation. I'll keep it as simple as possible.

I recently signed up to gamstop as I discovered I wasn't in control of my gambling, anyway a few months later I had the urge and thought I would try my luck at an online casino and yes I know now that it was stupid! Found a well established uk licensed casino via a quick Google search and signed up. To my surprise it allowed me to join up, using what I thought was the same details in gamstop, went through full verification, sent ID, paperwork, the lot, all fine and verified. Being the gambler that I am went on to lose a fairly hefty chunk of money. When I came to my senses a week later I excluded myself and thought I would send them an email advising them I was gamstop excluded etc and yet able to sign up and deposit. After various emails back and forward, it transpired I'd made a mistake on my date of birth by minus 1 day, and it's easily done when signing up on a mobile and you quickly spin the numbers into the box.

They said I'd deliberately tried to bypass gamstop etc. My argument with them was why was this not picked up at verification, that my ID did not match my account details? I'd spoken with their live chat on multiple occasions regarding various matters, every time providing my correct date of birth. I was never aware I'd put the wrong birthday in! Anyway, after I disputed their response, they escalated the matter and I received a few weeks later their response. The first part was accusing me of breaching their policies etc etc, then saying they would not return my deposits but they would be donating them to a charity or good causes that help people with gambling problems. Surely by doing that they are accepting they made a mistake, but somehow want to punish me for mine? The money is not that significant to me though of course would have been happy to have it returned, it's the way it's been handled that I find a bit strange.

I'm interested to hear what others think of this donation to charity on my behalf!? I'm not looking for judgement, I know what I did was wrong and I certainly won't be trying it again. I have a strong feeling had I gone to make a withdrawal they would have spotted this mistske. Sorry for the long post!

 

[slot_zombie]

Lots of people around trying to freeroll casinos by making a "mistake" and saying sorry signed up to Gamstop, give me my money back - if they lose. Not surprised that the casinos are now clamping down and refusing to return deposits.

 

[Popular2019]

Lots of people around trying to freeroll casinos by making a "mistake" and saying sorry signed up to Gamstop, give me my money back - if they lose. Not surprised that the casinos are now clamping down and refusing to return deposits.

I certainly wasn't. I'm almost certain every gambler has tried at least once trying to sign up to a casino after joining gamstop to see if it really works. Well that's what I did. I accept it was my mistake putting the wrong date in for my DOB. This was months ago now, the money is not a factor anymore, I was more angry that the casino did not pick up the mismatch of my details when signing up. Had they done their job correctly I would have been stopped a lot sooner.

 

[colinsunderland]

I would be telling them they have breached data protection by discussing your account on live chat, when you actually failed the security questions.
Considering that, I would be asking for a SAR, as I wouldn't be convinced I had put the incorrect date of birth in.
I would also be asking for proof they have paid the money to a charity.

Which casino was it?

 

[Popular2019]

I would be telling them they have breached data protection by discussing your account on live chat, when you actually failed the security questions.
Considering that, I would be asking for a SAR, as I wouldn't be convinced I had put the incorrect date of birth in.
I would also be asking for proof they have paid the money to a charity.

Which casino was it?

It was slingo who are part of the bear group. So you mean if I gave them my correct dob on live chat they should have picked up it didn't match my dob registered on my account?

 

[colinsunderland]

It was slingo who are part of the bear group. So you mean if I gave them my correct dob on live chat they should have picked up it didn't match my dob registered on my account?

Yes of course. The whole point of asking security questions before they will discuss the account with the person on live chat is to confirm they are the account holder. If you gave the wrong answers, then they should not be speaking to you. Try ringing your bank and giving the wrong answer to a security question if you want to check .
As it happened multiple times, then either they broke data protection rules by not ensuring they were talking to the customer, or you had actually gave the correct details on sign up, and they are saying you didn't to cover up their failings.

Having then went through KYC with the 'wrong' date of birth, I think this is a casino failing and you should be refunded your deposits.
As I say, I would do a SAR, to include all account data, notes made on the account, KYC information and copies of all live chat sessions and emails, then go from there. I wouldn't expand on the sar, just ask for what I've said above and don't tell them why you want it.
Once you have it you can decide which way to complain.

 

[Luckyscouser45]

A few months ago I had a complaint with a casino they let me deposit all day then blocked my account when I had a balance of £900 they then emailed me to tell me they closed it because I had a duplicate account, told me my balance was going to be given to a gambling awareness charity. Needles to say I took the complaint higher it took around a month but I was paid in the end.

 

[snorky510238]

A few months ago I had a complaint with a casino they let me deposit all day then blocked my account when I had a balance of £900 they then emailed me to tell me they closed it because I had a duplicate account, told me my balance was going to be given to a gambling awareness charity. Needles to say I took the complaint higher it took around a month but I was paid in the end.

Good for you but that begs the question how did it not flag up at registration if you entered the exact same details?

 

[Popular2019]

Thanks for both replies, who would be the next person to complain to? Bear group told me if I wasn't happy with their complaint to use IBAS but not sure how I'd go about this or if this is the correct action?

 

[colinsunderland]

Thanks for both replies, who would be the next person to complain to? Bear group told me if I wasn't happy with their complaint to use IBAS but not sure how I'd go about this or if this is the correct action?

I've already said what to do. If you don't know whats happened, then you don't know what you are actually complaining about. Go through the paperwork they supply and see what you can find out and go from there. I would also SAR gamstop and double check the details match.

 

[Popular2019]

I've already said what to do. If you don't know whats happened, then you don't know what you are actually complaining about. Go through the paperwork they supply and see what you can find out and go from there. I would also SAR gamstop and double check the details match.

The gamstop details match the details I registered, aside from the date of birth obviously. I was asked to send this initially. I will ask Bear group for an SAR. However the bit I am confused about, they told me to take my complaint to IBAS if I'm not happy with their response, yet when I go through the IBAS process it just tells me to complain to the UKGC. Bear group say they are bound by the IBAS decision and yet IBAS seem to say it's not a matter they deal with.

If it's of interest here is part of their response to me: seems odd they say they are looking into how I was verified and yet they don't accept responsibility?

The technical team are still looking into how your details came to be verified by our third party KYC suppliers but in the interests of resolving your complaint promptly we would like to make the following proposal. Whilst we do not accept that there has been any failure in our duty of care towards you, we are very serious about preventing any of our customers experiencing any gambling related harm and have therefore taken your claim to be a problem gambler at face value. As a result, the funds in question, amounting to the sum of your deposits, will be contributed to an organisation which delivers or supports research into the prevention and treatment of gambling-related harms, harm prevention approaches and treatment for those harmed by gambling.

It goes without saying that we make this offer in good faith and without prejudice and represents our final position on this matter.

 

[shadow123]

Think its high time that firm procedures be created by regulators to clarify what should happen to funds
in this type of situation,no way do casinos have the right to donate the funds to what they determine
to be a good cause, if they are at fault the funds do not belong to them.On the other side of the coin there
has to be safeguards to prevent players taking advantage of the cloudy situation that exists at the moment.
Tricky

 

[colinsunderland]

If you sent your ID in that included your date of birth, then it is their failing. If they outsource that part of their business, that is no concern of yours, or relevant to your complaint.
The fact is (and this is assuming your version of events is correct), they knew your correct date of birth, not only by your ID, but also through however many live chats you had with them. If (and if think it's a big if) you did enter it incorrectly on sign up, then they must have detected it was wrong, and then they should have corrected it on your account information immediately, or at least blocked your account until they spoke with you. Once updated it should have resulted in the flag being sent by gamstop next time you logged in and your account should have been blocked at that point. At the absolute least, I think any deposits after that point should have been refunded, but as they are supposed to age verify you before you are allowed to play, then really, all deposits should be refunded. Personally I would be happy to test that in court if it were me.

 

[colinsunderland]

Think its high time that firm procedures be created by regulators to clarify what should happen to funds
in this type of situation,no way do casinos have the right to donate the funds to what they determine
to be a good cause, if they are at fault the funds do not belong to them.On the other side of the coin there
has to be safeguards to prevent players taking advantage of the cloudy situation that exists at the moment.
Tricky

There seems to be far fewer complaints of this nature since the verification was brought in at the sign up stage. I honestly have no sympathy with any casino that gets done by players trying it on, if they haven't properly verified a customer. Do their jobs properly and it wouldn't happen

 

[mack341]

However the bit I am confused about, they told me to take my complaint to IBAS if I'm not happy with their response, yet when I go through the IBAS process it just tells me to complain to the UKGC. Bear group say they are bound by the IBAS decision and yet IBAS seem to say it's not a matter they deal with.

I think @EkJR touched on this before, any complaints relating to exclusion are dealt with by the ukgc for the time being, I could be wrong but I'm sure I read it somewhere that adr's cannot adjudicate on issues involving gamstop/exlusion

 

[EkJR]

I think @EkJR touched on this before, any complaints relating to exclusion are dealt with by the ukgc for the time being, I could be wrong but I'm sure I read it somewhere that adr's cannot adjudicate on issues involving gamstop/exlusion

Yep, this 100% now. UKGC will only look at it if the complaints procedure has been exhausted as well. Absolutely zero point using an ADR for this type of issue.

To the OP, was this company Slingo per chance? If so let me know. They donate the money to charity unless you can jump through a million hoops, I.e provide a lawyers affidavit confirming your not gambling any more and money is being paid towards rent or something else. It's absolutely nuts.

 

[mack341]

Depending on the sums of money involved and financial position of a player, plus family responsibilities to children etc.. donating their lost deposits rather than refunding them, could have far reaching negative consequences. It's not a step, to my mind, a casino should be able to take lightly, their detection system for exluded players may be weak and like a sieve, putting them in a position of being partly to blame.

 

[Popular2019]

Yep, this 100% now. UKGC will only look at it if the complaints procedure has been exhausted as well. Absolutely zero point using an ADR for this type of issue.

To the OP, was this company Slingo per chance? If so let me know. They donate the money to charity unless you can jump through a million hoops, I.e provide a lawyers affidavit confirming your not gambling any more and money is being paid towards rent or something else. It's absolutely nuts.

Yes it was slingo indeed. Sorry for my lack of knowledge but once I have their response for SAR is there anyone else I should be complaining to before going to UKGC?

Yep, this 100% now. UKGC will only look at it if the complaints procedure has been exhausted as well. Absolutely zero point using an ADR for this type of issue.

To the OP, was this company Slingo per chance? If so let me know. They donate the money to charity unless you can jump through a million hoops, I.e provide a lawyers affidavit confirming your not gambling any more and money is being paid towards rent or something else. It's absolutely nuts.

 

[colinsunderland]

No, just go straight to the UKGC, but make sure you state the ADR wouldn't look at it because it was a SE issue. You don't have to wait for the SAR, but I would as I think it will give you more evidence than you currently have. If you ask for it tonight on live chat they have to supply it by 15th Jan. Considering the time of year, I don't think the UKGC will even look at a complaint now till after the year, so you are only really adding a week or so onto the process waiting for the SAR to be processed.

 

[Popular2019]

As there are a few replies, I'll summarise by saying I've replied to their email and ask them not to close the case, and have requested an SAR and advised them I'm taking the complaint further. Will see what they say. It took them a month to send me last reply so I can't imagine this will move quickly. Also for context it was about 4k worth of deposits over a few weeks.

 

[mack341]

If changing the DOB is all somebody needs to do, I wonder if that is regarded as an adequate detection system by the ukgc, what about the other matches on the debit card, ID, electoral register/address etc... and things that can't be changed easily.

 

[colinsunderland]

As there are a few replies, I'll summarise by saying I've replied to their email and ask them not to close the case, and have requested an SAR and advised them I'm taking the complaint further. Will see what they say. It took them a month to send me last reply so I can't imagine this will move quickly. Also for context it was about 4k worth of deposits over a few weeks.

Go onto live chat and request it, they can delay the process by asking to verify you are the customer, do it on live chat and they can do it then and there.

 

[Lemmym12]

This is really interesting because I have a company that have refused to refund me despite SE three months prior because I used a different email address to register with them compared to the email address I used with gamstop. Name, DOB, address, phone number were all identical.

One more word about people like me trying to ‘free roll’.....it really isn’t like that and I hope those that think this way never suffer from this addiction. If I had been a ‘winner’ and withdrawn money from this company even though I had SE through Gamstop, it would have been given back and more over the course of my gambling with them. If I register with gamstop and then try to open accounts online, I need those companies to respect the severity of my problem and ensure I can’t open accounts. If you think that’s pathetic on my part then so be it.

 

[Lemmym12]

One point of correction, I’d also included (my real) middle name on my online registration- so they are saying adding that middle name was also a potential reason for being allowed to register.

 

[mack341]

This is really interesting because I have a company that have refused to refund me despite SE three months prior because I used a different email address to register with them compared to the email address I used with gamstop. Name, DOB, address, phone number were all identical.

One more word about people like me trying to ‘free roll’.....it really isn’t like that and I hope those that think this way never suffer from this addiction. If I had been a ‘winner’ and withdrawn money from this company even though I had SE through Gamstop, it would have been given back and more over the course of my gambling with them. If I register with gamstop and then try to open accounts online, I need those companies to respect the severity of my problem and ensure I can’t open accounts. If you think that’s pathetic on my part then so be it.

I have sympathy for people in the deep throes of gambling addiction, I'm currently TAB'd from my online accounts for a month due to things getting out of hand, so I can see how things can become terrible, doing a lot of damage to the person's life and family.

However I'm starting to feel this 'refund' system could be attracting addicts like bees to honey, so on that basis it might be necessary for casinos and the ukgc to announce in the future some ruling that the money is donated to gambling charities instead, and casinos have it written in bold on the signup page so there can be no doubt. Addicts need to face a brick wall sometimes, rather than a situation with 'possibilities'...

 

[Lemmym12]

I have sympathy for people in the deep throes of gambling addiction, I'm currently TAB'd from my online accounts for a month due to things getting out of hand, so I can see how things can become terrible, doing a lot of damage to the person's life and family.

However I'm starting to feel this 'refund' system could be attracting addicts like bees to honey, so on that basis it might be necessary for casinos and the ukgc to announce in the future some ruling that the money is donated to gambling charities instead, and casinos have it written in bold on the signup page so there can be no doubt. Addicts need to face a brick wall sometimes, rather than a situation with 'possibilities'...

I agree. The lack of clarity on this gives false hope to people that have made mistakes (where I Think I fit in) but also allow potential for people to manipulate the system.

if you enter false details that’s one thing but surely all companies should operate a some sort of robust matching to show willingness to help problem gamblers? Surely matching on email address alone is not an acceptable match?

 

[mack341]

I agree. The lack of clarity on this gives false hope to people that have made mistakes (where I Think I fit in) but also allow potential for people to manipulate the system.

if you enter false details that’s one thing but surely all companies should operate a some sort of robust matching to show willingness to help problem gamblers? Surely matching on email address alone is not an acceptable match?

Oh yes definitely, I'd prefer if the ukgc issued them with a prescribed software system that was as robust as possible. I don't see the need for each company to look for a solution individually...maybe that does happen atm in the background. I think @EkJR ran some tests and quite a few casinos passed with flying colours but obviously it depends what details the user changes.

Also the curacao loopholes need to be closed down as much as possible otherwise uk addicts will just slip onto those sites with disastrous effects.

 

[Slottery]

No, just go straight to the UKGC, but make sure you state the ADR wouldn't look at it because it was a SE issue. You don't have to wait for the SAR, but I would as I think it will give you more evidence than you currently have. If you ask for it tonight on live chat they have to supply it by 15th Jan.

They don't actually have to supply by 15th, but they have to be working on it. Some SAR:S have taken.... quite a while to reach customer.

 

[Slottery]

If changing the DOB is all somebody needs to do, I wonder if that is regarded as an adequate detection system by the ukgc, what about the other matches on the debit card, ID, electoral register/address etc... and things that can't be changed easily.

One other checked detail would need to be at least slightly different, which is don't take a lot that your address is not fully spellen same way.

DOB another hand is something what never change so that i could happily let pass any checks if that's changed. Everybody do have responsibility to enter right details.

 

[colinsunderland]

They don't actually have to supply by 15th, but they have to be working on it. Some SAR:S have taken.... quite a while to reach customer.

They have 30 days to comply. Thats set in stone.

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

You must comply with a request without undue delay and at the latest within one month of receipt of the request or (if later) within one month of receipt of:

• any information requested to confirm the requester’s identity
• a fee (only in certain circumstances)

which is why I said to ask for it via live chat, they can go through security and further ID (ie delaying tactics) shouldn't be requested

Any company who takes longer than 30 days should be reported to the relevant authorities.

 

[Slottery]

They have 30 days to comply. Thats set in stone.

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

You must comply with a request without undue delay and at the latest within one month of receipt of the request or (if later) within one month of receipt of:

• any information requested to confirm the requester’s identity
• a fee (only in certain circumstances)

which is why I said to ask for it via live chat, they can go through security and further ID (ie delaying tactics) shouldn't be requested

Any company who takes longer than 30 days should be reported to the relevant authorities.

It's been reported several times and "comply" in this mean that "we are working on it etc..." No need that it's delivered in 30 days to customer.

 

[mack341]

They have 30 days to comply. Thats set in stone.

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

You must comply with a request without undue delay and at the latest within one month of receipt of the request or (if later) within one month of receipt of:

• any information requested to confirm the requester’s identity
• a fee (only in certain circumstances)

which is why I said to ask for it via live chat, they can go through security and further ID (ie delaying tactics) shouldn't be requested

Any company who takes longer than 30 days should be reported to the relevant authorities.

Colin are SAR's free now? I had to do one once on someone's behalf, and the firm did find some way of weedling out of the 30 day time frame, I can't remember how they did it..but that was about 2011 so things have probably tightened up a bit more

 

[Gaz237]

I agree. The lack of clarity on this gives false hope to people that have made mistakes (where I Think I fit in) but also allow potential for people to manipulate the system.

if you enter false details that’s one thing but surely all companies should operate a some sort of robust matching to show willingness to help problem gamblers? Surely matching on email address alone is not an acceptable match?

Don't think you can class your situation as a mistake.

But you changed 2 out of the 4 registered details. Straight forward attempt to manipulate the system in my book.

All this addict free rolling needs nipping in the bud. A drug addict would not be given his money back after getting their fix. They would only spend it on more drugs, same way a gambler would just join a rogue casino or go down the bookies/pub/arcade to lose the money if they can't bet online. So I don't agree with the point of another poster that giving them their money back will help them.

So I agree with a point posted before, donate the money to Gambling charities. Will cut down the bogus free rollers overnight if they knew they would not get paid out, or their money back.

 

[colinsunderland]

Colin are SAR's free now? I had to do one once on someone's behalf, and the firm did find some way of weedling out of the 30 day time frame, I can't remember how they did it..but that was about 2011 so things have probably tightened up a bit more

They are in almost all cases, the exceptions being where :

1. when a request is manifestly unfounded or excessive, particularly if it is repetitive.
2. It may charge a reasonable fee for requests of further copies of the same information

I'm fairly sure there are no other exceptions to that.

It's been reported several times and "comply" in this mean that "we are working on it etc..." No need that it's delivered in 30 days to customer.

Do you have a link to anywhere about that? I only spoke with the ICO last week about this exact thing and was told then that they have to send it to you within 30 days (barring the exceptions above). They can extend the compliance window by up to 2 months, but only when the request is complex or numerous, but must inform you within a month that they are using an extension, and the reasons why. A SAR in this case wouldn't fall under the complex or numerous rules.

 

[colinsunderland]

Don't think you can class your situation as a mistake.

But you changed 2 out of the 4 registered details. Straight forward attempt to manipulate the system in my book.

All this addict free rolling needs nipping in the bud. A drug addict would not be given his money back after getting their fix. They would only spend it on more drugs, same way a gambler would just join a rogue casino or go down the bookies/pub/arcade to lose the money if they can't bet online. So I don't agree with the point of another poster that giving them their money back will help them.

So I agree with a point posted before, donate the money to Gambling charities. Will cut down the bogus free rollers overnight if they knew they would not get paid out, or their money back.

Gamstop should check more than an email address or date of birth or a middle name being added.
Postcode and surname should be enough to flag a SE flag on the customer to warrant further checks. If the house number and DOB are different and (possibly the first name) after the further checks have been carried out (ie full KYC), then they should be allowed to gamble. If they are the same, then further checks should be made on the information supplied on sign up.

No wonder the UKGC don't class it as fit for purpose when you can misspell your name by one letter or add a full stop into a gmail address, to get round the blocks they put in place.

In this case the date of birth error should have been picked up by the casino on KYC. It wasn't, their fault. Assuming whats been written is true.

 

[EkJR]

This is really interesting because I have a company that have refused to refund me despite SE three months prior because I used a different email address to register with them compared to the email address I used with gamstop. Name, DOB, address, phone number were all identical.

One more word about people like me trying to ‘free roll’.....it really isn’t like that and I hope those that think this way never suffer from this addiction. If I had been a ‘winner’ and withdrawn money from this company even though I had SE through Gamstop, it would have been given back and more over the course of my gambling with them. If I register with gamstop and then try to open accounts online, I need those companies to respect the severity of my problem and ensure I can’t open accounts. If you think that’s pathetic on my part then so be it.

If your name, DOB and postcode matched they have no excuse. Gamstop doesn't need 5 matches, it needs 3 or more. Phone number is not part of the Gamstop check, don't let any casino tell you it is.

Before you can deposit they must have 100% verified your identity, date of birth and address. If they cant do it automatically they need to prevent deposits until docs are sent in and verified. The only ones who don't abide by these same rules appear to be 888 and William Hill. There is an issue with them where they are either unwilling or unable to verify a date of birth, they only verify if someone is over 18. UKGC are well aware. Everyone else is operating fine.

Technically freerolling should be a thing of the past as long as the above checks are being performed as per LCCP section 17.1

 

[EkJR]

Don't think you can class your situation as a mistake.

But you changed 2 out of the 4 registered details. Straight forward attempt to manipulate the system in my book.

All this addict free rolling needs nipping in the bud. A drug addict would not be given his money back after getting their fix. They would only spend it on more drugs, same way a gambler would just join a rogue casino or go down the bookies/pub/arcade to lose the money if they can't bet online. So I don't agree with the point of another poster that giving them their money back will help them.

So I agree with a point posted before, donate the money to Gambling charities. Will cut down the bogus free rollers overnight if they knew they would not get paid out, or their money back.

It doesn't matter though. With LCCP and KYC needed before gambling a penny this should have been caught by the casino, it is part of them having a licence.

 

[Lemmym12]

Don't think you can class your situation as a mistake.

But you changed 2 out of the 4 registered details. Straight forward attempt to manipulate the system in my book.

All this addict free rolling needs nipping in the bud. A drug addict would not be given his money back after getting their fix. They would only spend it on more drugs, same way a gambler would just join a rogue casino or go down the bookies/pub/arcade to lose the money if they can't bet online. So I don't agree with the point of another poster that giving them their money back will help them.

So I agree with a point posted before, donate the money to Gambling charities. Will cut down the bogus free rollers overnight if they knew they would not get paid out, or their money back.

It really wasn’t- it was a gambling addict desperate to have a punt, I used all my real details but used a Different email address To what I registered at gamstop- the email address I used has been active and used for years so it wasn’t as if I even created a new address that night to manipulate the system........however, even if I had created a new email address to manipulate the system, I would have still expected to be blocked given my registration was in no way fraudulent and no false details were provided.

 

[Lemmym12]

If your name, DOB and postcode matched they have no excuse. Gamstop doesn't need 5 matches, it needs 3 or more. Phone number is not part of the Gamstop check, don't let any casino tell you it is.

Before you can deposit they must have 100% verified your identity, date of birth and address. If they cant do it automatically they need to prevent deposits until docs are sent in and verified. The only ones who don't abide by these same rules appear to be 888 and William Hill. There is an issue with them where they are either unwilling or unable to verify a date of birth, they only verify if someone is over 18. UKGC are well aware. Everyone else is operating fine.

Technically freerolling should be a thing of the past as long as the above checks are being performed as per LCCP section 17.1

to be fair, they probably did verify all my details were correct before letting me deposit and gamble (afterall, everything I provided was 100% true).....the issue was that they didn’t have (in my opinion) a robust system that blocked my registration. Any sort of name, dob or address check would have very easily confirmed I was registered with Gamstop.

the company in question are adamant their system does what it needs to do but in theory you could register 100 accounts all with identical details but of the email Address is different every time to the email address on gamstop, you’ll never get blocked.

 

[EkJR]

to be fair, they probably did verify all my details were correct before letting me deposit and gamble (afterall, everything I provided was 100% true).....the issue was that they didn’t have (in my opinion) a robust system that blocked my registration. Any sort of name, dob or address check would have very easily confirmed I was registered with Gamstop.

the company in question are adamant their system does what it needs to do but in theory you could register 100 accounts all with identical details but of the email Address is different every time to the email address on gamstop, you’ll never get blocked.

As mentioned, Gamstop should find you if your name, postcode and DOB matches. Change of email address is not enough to throw it out. However, it is Gamstop!! As I shared before, the UKGC told me directly that they cannot endorse it and make it mandatory until it becomes more robust. There are far too many issues like this coming up.

Is it Corinna at Slingo you are speaking to?

 

[Lemmym12]

As mentioned, Gamstop should find you if your name, postcode and DOB matches. Change of email address is not enough to throw it out. However, it is Gamstop!! As I shared before, the UKGC told me directly that they cannot endorse it and make it mandatory until it becomes more robust. There are far too many issues like this coming up.

Is it Corinna at Slingo you are speaking to?

No it’s not- it’s a sportsbook.

I actually withdrew money as well with the company so at one point I had to send them photo ID and proof of address. I think this goes to show how lapse they were because just like I shouldn’t have been able to register, I shouldn’t havebeen able to withdraw either.

and this brings me back to the free roll notion from some of the less sympathetic posters......it’s almost irrelevant arguing we’d take the money if we won, gambling addicts will keep going till it’s all gone so yes I was ‘up’ for a while but I was pretty quickly down again too, the winning is irrelevant. Gambling addicts need a robust system that makes a fair and decent effort to block them from accessing these sites- especially when details have not been entered fraudulently.

 

[EkJR]

If changing the DOB is all somebody needs to do, I wonder if that is regarded as an adequate detection system by the ukgc, what about the other matches on the debit card, ID, electoral register/address etc... and things that can't be changed easily.

It's not. DOB is one of the 3 key data items that must be confirmed. Name, DOB and address. They need to age verify to allow a deposit. However, you cannot play that deposit unless the 3 items above are correct. These are the 3 key fields for Gamstop as well so nobody should be able to get round anything. Unfortunately there are 1 or 2 who still aren't doing this properly as I previously mentioned.

 

[mack341]

It's not. DOB is one of the 3 key data items that must be confirmed. Name, DOB and address. They need to age verify to allow a deposit. However, you cannot play that deposit unless the 3 items above are correct. These are the 3 key fields for Gamstop as well so nobody should be able to get round anything. Unfortunately there are 1 or 2 who still aren't doing this properly as I previously mentioned.

Sounds like the overall system is finally getting there and maybe the refund threads popping up here originate from a time when the checks weren't as rigorous. Regardless of refunds etc.. the system needs to be robust to help the addicted who are trying to stop, a weak system is too much temptation.

Also the next stage is the access to unlicensed casinos [in places like curacao which shouldn't be taking uk players] and how that can be reduced. I'd like to see the uk govt make a formal complaint to the dutch govt if need be, 'sort out that island and the rogue casinos operating from there'. I don't accept the argument it's self governing and totally 100% independent from any dutch influence or control.

 

[Slottery]

They are in almost all cases, the exceptions being where :

1. when a request is manifestly unfounded or excessive, particularly if it is repetitive.
2. It may charge a reasonable fee for requests of further copies of the same information

I'm fairly sure there are no other exceptions to that.



Do you have a link to anywhere about that? I only spoke with the ICO last week about this exact thing and was told then that they have to send it to you within 30 days (barring the exceptions above). They can extend the compliance window by up to 2 months, but only when the request is complex or numerous, but must inform you within a month that they are using an extension, and the reasons why. A SAR in this case wouldn't fall under the complex or numerous rules.

Bolded is pretty standard in responses. Since current GDPR when these are dealt there in early days were discussions about SAR:s and how it can be extremely difficult under certain circumstances to provide all necessary material within 30 days, so in practice it has been enough that you are "working on it and try to complete everything fast and possible".

Of course many were questioning that 30 days timeframe as it can be hard to comply with that so therefore there is that phrase that you anytime can extended that period as long you inform about it by replying that it's work on progress and will happen when we feel. Nobody perform any investigations if some certain request is complex or not and even if would, almost nothing is easier than make something very complicated for reasons XYZ.

 

[colinsunderland]

Bolded is pretty standard in responses. Since current GDPR when these are dealt there in early days were discussions about SAR:s and how it can be extremely difficult under certain circumstances to provide all necessary material within 30 days, so in practice it has been enough that you are "working on it and try to complete everything fast and possible".

Of course many were questioning that 30 days timeframe as it can be hard to comply with that so therefore there is that phrase that you anytime can extended that period as long you inform about it by replying that it's work on progress and will happen when we feel. Nobody perform any investigations if some certain request is complex or not and even if would, almost nothing is easier than make something very complicated for reasons XYZ.

Well my experience tells a different story. I have had 2 SAR requests (possibly 3, which I will know about Wednesday) that haven't been supplied within 30 days. One the ICO on the 37th day stepped in and I got it 2 days later, the other I sent a letter before action to via email, and had it 2 days later.

I suppose it comes down to how pushy you are. I email them a follow up 3 days before the due date then on the 31st day, then, if they haven't responded, a stern email threatening legal action if they don't comply within 72 hours.

They can't just say something is complex if it is a standard request for current account information. That 'get out clause' is for say the DWP or a bank, who may have to search through 20 year old paper records to be able to provide the information you are requesting. It certainly wouldn't apply to a casino you have been a member of for a few months and should have all the information stored digitally and not archived.

 

[Slottery]

Also the next stage is the access to unlicensed casinos [in places like curacao which shouldn't be taking uk players] and how that can be reduced. I'd like to see the uk govt make a formal complaint to the dutch govt if need be, 'sort out that island and the rogue casinos operating from there'. I don't accept the argument it's self governing and totally 100% independent from any dutch influence or control.

Not sure how much power UK really have to stop somebody runnin online gambling, it's not happening in UK where license is required. Now these people from UK are playing outside of EU and pay taxes for their winnigns etc... UKGC only provide licenses to offer online gambling in UK, if people wish to play other side of the world, that's can be bit more problematic or if it wouldn't, for sure something would have happened by now.

Penalizing UK citizens who are playing in these sites could be something withing reach of laws (just create one), monitor payment and internet traffic and scare people not to play there. Not sure if that's something wanted to happen.

 

[Slottery]

Well my experience tells a different story. I have had 2 SAR requests (possibly 3, which I will know about Wednesday) that haven't been supplied within 30 days. One the ICO on the 37th day stepped in and I got it 2 days later, the other I sent a letter before action to via email, and had it 2 days later.

I suppose it comes down to how pushy you are. I email them a follow up 3 days before the due date then on the 31st day, then, if they haven't responded, a stern email threatening legal action if they don't comply within 72 hours.

They can't just say something is complex if it is a standard request for current account information. That 'get out clause' is for say the DWP or a bank, who may have to search through 20 year old paper records to be able to provide the information you are requesting. It certainly wouldn't apply to a casino you have been a member of for a few months and should have all the information stored digitally and not archived.

Sure most of times you get your SAR within day or two, but if other part is not willing to make it in day or two, postponing that is really easy task. I guess any DPO can in two minutes write excuse why certain SAR can't be sent in 30 days but need more time. As long it's worked, that 30 days really is just there as "You should try to do it in 30 days", for real or made up reason, it can be postponed very easily.

 

[mack341]

Not sure how much power UK really have to stop somebody runnin online gambling, it's not happening in UK where license is required. Now these people from UK are playing outside of EU and pay taxes for their winnigns etc... UKGC only provide licenses to offer online gambling in UK, if people wish to play other side of the world, that's can be bit more problematic or if it wouldn't, for sure something would have happened by now.

Penalizing UK citizens who are playing in these sites could be something withing reach of laws (just create one), monitor payment and internet traffic and scare people not to play there. Not sure if that's something wanted to happen.

Well that could be one way of trying to stop it, but given that nobody really sensible is going to sign up to a rogue casino only perhaps addicts excluded from everywhere else it would be a very messy way of dealing with it, far easier for the EU and powerful countries to pressurise curacao to clean up the rogues and the system that enables them...a few financial sanctions placed here and there on curacao leaders/politicians would soon stop it surely.

From my reading of the 1668 jaz casino complaint threads, it's basically legalised theft being permitted against people all over the world including uk and europe. Where's the small amount of political will required to sort this toxic situation out though

However are we going to be able to stop hidden things like terrorism groups and online criminal hackers etc, if we can't tackle something going on right under our nose in broad daylight?

 

[colinsunderland]

Sure most of times you get your SAR within day or two, but if other part is not willing to make it in day or two, postponing that is really easy task. I guess any DPO can in two minutes write excuse why certain SAR can't be sent in 30 days but need more time. As long it's worked, that 30 days really is just there as "You should try to do it in 30 days", for real or made up reason, it can be postponed very easily.

In which case people should complain, as certainly the UK ICO do take action

 

[Slottery]

Well that could be one way of trying to stop it, but given that nobody really sensible is going to sign up to a rogue casino only perhaps addicts excluded from everywhere else it would be a very messy way of dealing with it, far easier for the EU and powerful countries to pressurise curacao to clean up the rogues and the system that enables them...a few financial sanctions placed here and there on curacao leaders/politicians would soon stop it surely.

From my reading of the 1668 jaz casino complaint threads, it's basically legalised theft being permitted against people all over the world including uk and europe. Where's the small amount of political will required to sort this toxic situation out though

However are we going to be able to stop hidden things like terrorism groups and online criminal hackers etc, if we can't tackle something going on right under our nose in broad daylight?

That's the thing, there's not much done so far even some Dutch politics been promoting to do something to these Curacao licenses. Thing is that even Curacao would be be gone, there probably would be few other countries providing their licenses for these.

Most effective thing would be consumer awareness, if highlighted enough that use only services which are operating under UKGC license to avoid problems etc... That could probably stop many from signing these casinos. There wouldn't anything wrong to build bit that awareness that if you decide to play in Curacao, South-Korea or you decide to give your credit card number to Nigerian prince who will then send you million pounds, your conusmer rights are not protected at all by UK or any European laws/directives and using such services is stupid thing.

If these casinos wouldn't get any deposits from any others than problem gamblers who been self-excluded nationwide, they wouldn't stand there and operate with that money, not enough to keep so many casinos up and running. There are many who don't even realize that ow, i signed to Curacao licensed casino. Even there are some few operators who are quite fair and honest, i still would rather play in place which is not operating other side of the world and if they decide to stop being fair (even been it until to date) when i win big, there's no much i can do or not much help that they have been fair and honest in past.

Best we all can do is not deposit single euro/pound or what so ever to any operator licensed by curacao, costa rica or what ever such countries and share that awareness to other people, then hopefully these die away by time.