UK Gambling Commission question

[chayton]

Sorry if this has already been mentioned but I found this interesting, I was just looking through some of the literature (Old / Expired Link) from the UKGC and noticed this on the last page under the heading, "What we DON'T do"

Consumer Complaints: we don’t resolve consumer complaints. For example, we can’t help you get your money back from a bet placed or from a gaming machine, nor rule on a disputed National Lottery prize.

► Operators who hold a Gambling Commission licence must have procedures for handling customer complaints and arrangements for disputes to be referred to an independent third party.

It seems odd to me and I'm just trying to figure out what it means. A casino has to adhere to the LCCP until they get a license, but once they get a UKGC license, player complaints to a third party won't affect them keeping it? I'm thinking of a scenario like Purple Lounge - the UKGC gets their fees while everything is good but if things go wrong they step back with their hands in the air and say "That has nothing to do with us"...?

 

[dunover]

Sorry if this has already been mentioned but I found this interesting, I was just looking through some of the literature (Old / Expired Link) from the UKGC and noticed this on the last page under the heading, "What we DON'T do"



It seems odd to me and I'm just trying to figure out what it means. A casino has to adhere to the LCCP until they get a license, but once they get a UKGC license, player complaints to a third party won't affect them keeping it? I'm thinking of a scenario like Purple Lounge - the UKGC gets their fees while everything is good but if things go wrong they step back with their hands in the air and say "That has nothing to do with us"...?

Yes, IBAS (Independent Betting Arbitration Service) have taken over the mantle and have recently ruled in a few online cases.
https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/smart-live-casino-wont-pay.61683/?t=61683
https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/ibas.10542/?t=10542

 

[Richas]

Sorry if this has already been mentioned but I found this interesting, I was just looking through some of the literature (Old / Expired Link) from the UKGC and noticed this on the last page under the heading, "What we DON'T do"



It seems odd to me and I'm just trying to figure out what it means. A casino has to adhere to the LCCP until they get a license, but once they get a UKGC license, player complaints to a third party won't affect them keeping it? I'm thinking of a scenario like Purple Lounge - the UKGC gets their fees while everything is good but if things go wrong they step back with their hands in the air and say "That has nothing to do with us"...?

Under the UK rules the casino has to appoint an Alternative Dispute Resolution body (ADR). That body has to be approved as neutral and is checked as having requisite expertise by the UKGC before it is approved. The ADR ruling is binding on the casino but does not affect the consumer's right to go to court - but TBH it might not be a strong case if you go for more than the ADR says you should get, their ruling would be evidence in the case.

This may seem odd but it is far better than having the regulator rule...well if the regulator is like Gibraltar and gives evidence saying this

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

Additionally, it is universally the view amongst regulators that the large majority of complainants are remorseful losers seeking to recover losses, or customers who have knowingly breached terms and conditions in their efforts to obtain free bets and other bonuses. When these bets win, the win is declined as the customer has ‘cheated’. The customer then complains.

I'd rather have an ADR who is paid to be neutral than have such a cynical regulator, even if there are some complainants like that, having that mindsight at the outset is not neutral.

 

[chayton]

I'd rather have an ADR who is paid to be neutral than have such a cynical regulator, even if there are some complainants like that, having that mindsight at the outset is not neutral.

Yes, that's a very good point, thank you.

 

[vinylweatherman]

I would worry that separating the roles would keep the UKGC in the dark about a licenced operator that was intentionally ripping off players and repeatedly forcing players to go through IBAS in order to get paid. One reference is pretty damning in that SmartLive then ignored the IBAS ruling and sought to implement stalling tactics whilst they pressured IBAS into changing it's mind. What good is IBAS if the operator can still refuse to pay, yet can keep it's licence.

The UKGC should at least get involved in cases where IBAS says "pay the player", and the operator refuses to abide by the decision, forcing the player to either walk away or go to court.

 

[Richas]

I would worry that separating the roles would keep the UKGC in the dark about a licenced operator that was intentionally ripping off players and repeatedly forcing players to go through IBAS in order to get paid. One reference is pretty damning in that SmartLive then ignored the IBAS ruling and sought to implement stalling tactics whilst they pressured IBAS into changing it's mind. What good is IBAS if the operator can still refuse to pay, yet can keep it's licence.

The UKGC should at least get involved in cases where IBAS says "pay the player", and the operator refuses to abide by the decision, forcing the player to either walk away or go to court.

So would I but all cases going to the arbitrator are reported and so can be reviewed. Even a basic statistical analysis would show up concerns. Far better than having private cafe meeting in Gib and a regulator concerned about the government revenues, jobs and own fees first.

The UKGC approach is to try to avoid the dirty mess which is bad but also to try to keep the overview, which is good.

 

[vinylweatherman]

So would I but all cases going to the arbitrator are reported and so can be reviewed. Even a basic statistical analysis would show up concerns. Far better than having private cafe meeting in Gib and a regulator concerned about the government revenues, jobs and own fees first.

The UKGC approach is to try to avoid the dirty mess which is bad but also to try to keep the overview, which is good.

It doesn't look good when SmartLive can ignore an IBAS ruling seemingly without suffering any consequences. The one case alone does not get them an entry in the Meister's rogue pit either, so they must have a history of ripping off players, yet this doesn't seem to have filtered through to UKGC.

They want to avoid the mess, but another mess could be created if players lose confidence in UKGC and it starts to be seen as "another Malta" or even "another Gibraltar" putting the industry concerns ahead of fair treatment of players.

 

[Richas]

It doesn't look good when SmartLive can ignore an IBAS ruling seemingly without suffering any consequences. The one case alone does not get them an entry in the Meister's rogue pit either, so they must have a history of ripping off players, yet this doesn't seem to have filtered through to UKGC.

They want to avoid the mess, but another mess could be created if players lose confidence in UKGC and it starts to be seen as "another Malta" or even "another Gibraltar" putting the industry concerns ahead of fair treatment of players.

I don't claim such a system would be perfect but the ruling is a key event reported to the Gambling Commission by the operator, having an ADR is IMHO better as a check, especially as if the firm still trys to escape the ruling it is a keyt event. Now I can imagine a firm having one or two of these but any pattern of failure will be seen, the not paying out immediately on an IBAS ruling is bad but this is the thread. It is/was liveish or recent and the only semi official response was that they would comply.

https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/smart-live-casino-wont-pay.61683/

now they may be rogue, it may be that they are bad at customer service but it is wrong to condemn a regulator for not acting when at least in the thread it died a death.

Now refusal to abide by an IBAS ruling should mean sanctions, being unhappy at losing an seeking clarification from them not so much. Having said that the whole shebang should put them on the regulator's radar.

Please don;t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

 

[vinylweatherman]

I don't claim such a system would be perfect but the ruling is a key event reported to the Gambling Commission by the operator, having an ADR is IMHO better as a check, especially as if the firm still trys to escape the ruling it is a keyt event. Now I can imagine a firm having one or two of these but any pattern of failure will be seen, the not paying out immediately on an IBAS ruling is bad but this is the thread. It is/was liveish or recent and the only semi official response was that they would comply.

https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/smart-live-casino-wont-pay.61683/

now they may be rogue, it may be that they are bad at customer service but it is wrong to condemn a regulator for not acting when at least in the thread it died a death.

Now refusal to abide by an IBAS ruling should mean sanctions, being unhappy at losing an seeking clarification from them not so much. Having said that the whole shebang should put them on the regulator's radar.

Please don;t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

There is also the matter of their rep. Appeared for a single post designed to defend the company and "fight the fire", and then vanished without even having their credentials vetted by Bryan. This in itself is dodgy behaviour, trying to bury the issue rather than deal with it.

The rep didn't bother to come back and say what the eventual outcome was, so it was the casino as well as the player that decided to leave this loose end dangling. Whilst we don't know the outcome, we do know that the casino resisted abiding by the IBAS decision after it went against them, having first told the player to go to IBAS, presumably in the hope that it would rule in their favour and end the matter.

 

[Richas]

There is also the matter of their rep. Appeared for a single post designed to defend the company and "fight the fire", and then vanished without even having their credentials vetted by Bryan. This in itself is dodgy behaviour, trying to bury the issue rather than deal with it.

The rep didn't bother to come back and say what the eventual outcome was, so it was the casino as well as the player that decided to leave this loose end dangling. Whilst we don't know the outcome, we do know that the casino resisted abiding by the IBAS decision after it went against them, having first told the player to go to IBAS, presumably in the hope that it would rule in their favour and end the matter.

I agree. A consumer site saying rogue tells me what I need to know about my choice, the regulator role is different. Being useless, not customer focussed is not enough. Having an open market means having some bad som good, some indifferent and hopefully some excellent.

Regulatory barriers should not be extreme, capping licence numbers like Germany (Schleiswig-Holstein) or to a lesser degree Gibraltar (only big firms willing to employ loads is not protecting consumers. A proper legal framework and competition (plus information and consumer sites) delivers that. Keep out crime, have minimum standards on age, prblem gambling, even advertising and misleading bonuses etc but a licence is not about one complaint or pish poor customer service.