I have also had unsatisfactory responses from them.
If all they are going to do is pass the book onto the courts or other legislative bodies then they really are not regulating.
What may be best is to first file a complaint about them through their complaints form so that it is a matter of official record and then go straight for the jugular and get some accountability by bypassing them and contacting their sponsor which is Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), specifically the minister overseeing them.
In each and every case the only way to get things done is to ensure people know they will be held accountable for their decisions - I couldn't tell you amount of times officialdom has laughed in my face until I have gone above them and ensured the person of responsibility knows the issue is a matter of record and will be accountable for their decisions.
Suddenly the organisation that blew me off sing a very different tune and I am suddenly not some schmuck but an important individual to be treated with respect.
It takes a lot of patience because they will test your resolve to continue the fight at every instance and hope you just go away but once they realise that you are going nowhere and such obfuscation and delay is also going to be a matter of record they will deal with it properly.
I guess it depends how important a particular issue is to you.
Well you could go for the jugular if you like but you will find that in their last consultation, well one of the last several they do so many it gets confusing, but this was the last one on self exclusion and marketing back in September there was this question
Q57. Do you consider that there are terms used by gambling operators which are inherently
unfair? Please give examples of terms within gambling contracts which you consider to be
unfair or unclear to customers? (page 74)
I responded on Reverse Withdrawal and Predatory Withdrawal Limits.
and this one
Q58. To what extent do you consider that existing or upcoming consumer rights legislation
already address possible concerns about unfair terms in gambling contracts? If you
consider that there are still gaps in relation to gambling contracts, what action do you
consider should be taken to address the possibility of unfair terms in gambling contracts?
I responded regarding the way that
The Consumer Rights (Payment Surcharges) Regulations 2012 has a list of excluded
transactions which includes:
“for gambling within the meaning of the Gambling Act 2005 (which includes gaming, betting
and participating in a lottery)”
and that this exemption should only apply to gambling not to transaction fees for using payment processors or fees for currency conversion as they are not gambling under the act so it should apply - this is the law that stops the airlimnes adding on stuff at the end and would also be relevant to this issue as the charge applied must be directly related to the costs concerned. I wanted them to clarify that the financial transactions should be treated as covered just not the wager itself (though I did not mention inactivity fees)
and this one
Q59. How should gambling operators make consumers aware of changes to terms and
conditions? Should only material changes be notified and if so, what do you consider to
be material changes? (page 74)
Where I argued it had to be at logon and via email and that the term should not change adversely without an explicit player agreement to the change.
I have submitted to three of these consultations now, I even tried to raise interest in them here. I have also had various other communications with them including a meeting at their offices with some pretty senior people.
From that meeting I can tell you that these questions in Septembers consultation were put in to inform their next consultation with some firmer proposals. They were trying to get that issued by 30th March because they are not allowed to do consultations during the general election purdah. They missed that (internal) target but as soon as the election is over and we have a new (or old) minister Helen Grant to give it the nod and we will have it.
They are actively working on tightening up on unfair conditions, actively seeking your views on them and will want those views in that very imminent consultation, still if you want to just pretend they need savaging because players have not raised this issue with them yet and they have been stuck with shed loads to do then feel free.
If you want to blame the UKGC who never issued Bet666 with a full licence, they just got a continuation licence that relied on their Alderney Licence then fine, blame them for pulling the plug on an operatio that looks dodgier by the day as they dn't pay players back then fine, personally I'd prefer to know why it was Bet666 failed the UKGC tests for a licence and why the HMRC are after them when they only became liable for UK tax on 1st Dec 2014. To me that seems like a pretty timely bit of action but hey, keep blaming them as after all because it is sub judice they can't defend themselves anyway.
now this read like I have gone a bit native, I can assure you I have not, I have loads of criticisms of the UKGC, I want them to be far more proactive but legally they can only do that after doing a complete consultation process, they are a regulator, not a benign dictatorship. Everything they do is subject to strict judicial review and those they regulate can afford to take that action against them.
.), so I'm not remotely surprised they've turned out so inadequate in this situation. And of course, to charge £500 per month for an unused account, which costs the casino exactly £0 to keep active, is an absurd abuse, as absurd as it is for the UKGC to defend the practice.
