Videoslots / Gamstop - False Promises and Deposits Witheld

[RichyJ75]

Would he have been paid if he'd hit big and requested a withdrawal? I think not, it doesn't sit right with me that an accredited casino handle themselves in this way, no flaming the rep as he's the messenger here.

So back to the main question, had he requested a withdrawal, would it have been paid out? Realistically.

A reply concerning this question was received early May following my query. It read:

Regarding your queries when the GamStop exclusion hits your account, you will, of course, be entitled to the balance that you have when the exclusion is set. However, this is something that we practice at Videoslots, we are unable to comment on the actions of others.

But the question is, when exactly is the Gamstop exclusion set? I registered 26th April, but due to technicalities it couldn't be set until some time in May at VS and that was only when I asked a question about it. So in theory, there is no specific date as to when the exclusion could have been set if VS were not in a position to implement it.

 

[zap987]

If he had hit big and it had been paid out, would he have paid it back?

 

[RichyJ75]

I am sure this thread shouldn't be about roasting VS, but given these questions and scenarios, hopefully this is the correct environment for them to be addressed. I believe this forum is here to assist casinos and players, so constructive feedback is necessary from all parties.

I think we all appreciate GamStop is a new facility on the market which has clearly had teething issues, but when rectified should be a very good tool. Hopefully now these issues have been raised and quite early in the implementation, it should help casinos fine tune their processes.

I think things should be a lot clearer when UKGC insist all casinos participate to GamStop later in the year. That way there can be no confusion on what is expected.

 

[Dan.Videoslots]

Hi,

We started to support Gamstop 4th May. Anyone using Gamstop before that wouldnt be excluded from us until 4th May and on their first login. Before that, any bets or winnings would be valid.
When a user login to their account, we do a check with Gamstop. If the user is self-excluded the account will be blocked and the user will be removed from our newsletter lists.
The license requirement is for operators to support Gamstop by the end of the year. Gamstop is not a free service for the operators, they charge a substantial amount for their services. However, its free for the players.

Br,
Daniel.

 

[nikantw]

Hi,

We started to support Gamstop 4th May. Anyone using Gamstop before that wouldnt be excluded from us until 4th May and on their first login. Before that, any bets or winnings would be valid.
When a user login to their account, we do a check with Gamstop. If the user is self-excluded the account will be blocked and the user will be removed from our newsletter lists.
The license requirement is for operators to support Gamstop by the end of the year. Gamstop is not a free service for the operators, they charge a substantial amount for their services. However, its free for the players.

Br,
Daniel.

Can I ask about the payment of winnings/refund of deposits policy you have and any regulations about it from MGA, UKGC or others, in any case scenario (RG, SOW/suspected ML, SE, TAB)?

I find non payment or delay of payment of winnings to be the source of many problems. I think winnings should always be paid ASAP.
In case of RG, SOW, TAB, there is no excuse to even delay a payment.
In SE, I think the winnings should be kept safe untill the SE period expires and then get paid. That way there is no reason to refund deposits.
In any confirmed criminal activity, authorities should take notice (and the money).
In simple terms and bonus rules, those should only be applied from the casino software during play, so all bets allowed should be paid.
Only case of no pay and void bets is when the software gets hacked, but not in simple cases that a larger bet was placed (like in a recent thread).

 

[nutnut]

I'm with videoslots on this one and Dan is 100% correct.

Gamstop made mistake of thinking videoslots was with them. The player had never self excludes from VS so why woukd casino refund him the money.

The fault is all with gamstop. Why did thread starter try and login on these sites knowing he wasn't allowed.....

 

[colinsunderland]

I'm with videoslots on this one and Dan is 100% correct.

Gamstop made mistake of thinking videoslots was with them. The player had never self excludes from VS so why woukd casino refund him the money.

The fault is all with gamstop. Why did thread starter try and login on these sites knowing he wasn't allowed.....

So just ignore the fact Videoslots told him they would refund him and seemingly didn't know they weren't using gamstop? How is a customer supposed to know that when videoslots didn't?

 

[nutnut]

So just ignore the fact Videoslots told him they would refund him and seemingly didn't know they weren't using gamstop? How is a customer supposed to know that when videoslots didn't?

The player signed up to gamstop which is suppose to stop you from gambling. Not a normal case of excluding from one and not realising it's connect to another casino under same brand. Gamstop is to stop you playing anywhere. So when he logged in which he clearly tried to do elsewhere he was looking for a work around to gamble. Knowing he wasn't suppose too. How about adults take responsibility for their own action?

Anyway that's side tracking from the issue that gamstop wrongly listed vs. Not vs at fault here.

My only issue is why they said he would refund then not do so. That is totally wrong and unacceptable.

But problem gamblers are a problem to us all as they will get online gambling restricted for us all in he end.

 

[AndyP24]

The player signed up to gamstop which is suppose to stop you from gambling. Not a normal case of excluding from one and not realising it's connect to another casino under same brand. Gamstop is to stop you playing anywhere. So when he logged in which he clearly tried to do elsewhere he was looking for a work around to gamble. Knowing he wasn't suppose too. How about adults take responsibility for their own action?

Anyway that's side tracking from the issue that gamstop wrongly listed vs. Not vs at fault here.

My only issue is why they said he would refund then not do so. That is totally wrong and unacceptable.

But problem gamblers are a problem to us all as they will get online gambling restricted for us all in he end.

Sorry but 'adults taking responsibility for their actions' is a completely stupid thing to say, people who are addicted to gambling will try to find ANY way to gamble, I've never been in that position but if it were me I'd try to log in to find out if I was self excluded or not yet, and then when you find it's the only account open he can play on he did what someone with a gambling problem would do and spunked all his money. It's not about taking adult responsibility as you would say, gambling addiction isn't controllable to most hence why he needed the controls in place.

I agree reading on balance this seems more like GamStops fault, but then VS had already agreed to refund the deposits until they apparently spoke to GamStop who blocked the refund, I find it slightly odd that they would discuss the case with gamstop having already confirmed in writing a refund will be given.

Personally as an accredited casino, I believe they should honour the statement they made, regardless of who is in the wrong.

 

[interlog]

Hi,

We started to support Gamstop 4th May. Anyone using Gamstop before that wouldnt be excluded from us until 4th May and on their first login. Before that, any bets or winnings would be valid.
When a user login to their account, we do a check with Gamstop. If the user is self-excluded the account will be blocked and the user will be removed from our newsletter lists.
The license requirement is for operators to support Gamstop by the end of the year. Gamstop is not a free service for the operators, they charge a substantial amount for their services. However, its free for the players.

Br,
Daniel.

Surely there is something not right that self exclusion is only checked on log in? I would expect my account to be imnediately locked once gone through Gamstop? That way there will never be newsletters, promotions and the like.

 

[nutnut]

Why are casinos FORCED to join Gamstop when according to Dan it costs a lot of money to do so?

Seems like another way to charge the casino money.

 

[nutnut]

Sorry but 'adults taking responsibility for their actions' is a completely stupid thing to say, people who are addicted to gambling will try to find ANY way to gamble, I've never been in that position but if it were me I'd try to log in to find out if I was self excluded or not yet, and then when you find it's the only account open he can play on he did what someone with a gambling problem would do and spunked all his money. It's not about taking adult responsibility as you would say, gambling addiction isn't controllable to most hence why he needed the controls in place.

I agree reading on balance this seems more like GamStops fault, but then VS had already agreed to refund the deposits until they apparently spoke to GamStop who blocked the refund, I find it slightly odd that they would discuss the case with gamstop having already confirmed in writing a refund will be given.

Personally as an accredited casino, I believe they should honour the statement they made, regardless of who is in the wrong.

That is my point you can ALWAYS find a way round to gamble at some point the casino has to stop taking the financial loss because of addicts. So many threads on here are people complaining about not getting deposits back, but so many know to risk playing as they can demand the deposits back and if they win chance a withdrawal. Not all addicts are cunning and snide but sure as hell can guarantee a lot do try it on and as a casino operator they must sometimes think to themselves grow up and take response ability and seek help.

 

[AndyP24]

Why are casinos FORCED to join Gamstop when according to Dan it costs a lot of money to do so?

Seems like another way to charge the casino money.

Realistically it's a complete drop in the ocean to these online casinos isn't it? GamStop once it's had the obvious flaws ironed out will be positive for gambling addicts, and won't be good for the casinos as it will stop the problem gambler. Does anyone really buy that the casinos care unless they are forced into it? I dont.

I also don't buy that had this guy won say £5k they would have let him withdraw, they'd probably have seen the time he tried to set the self exclusion with GamStop and said anything after this date isn't valid, but that's just my opinion it's easy for them to say in hindsight they would have paid up

 

[goatwack]

I thought the point of Gamstop is to prevent the player even depositing, seems not to be the case as it's more of a useless database to blame players and withhold winnings - based on being registered with Gamstop

So this is being foisted upon casinos at great cost, well the only winners I see coming out of this is Gamstop themselves. So they've rolled out an incomplete product and absolve themselves of any responsibility?

Surely I could be registered at 50 casinos, Gamstop is supposed to nip any urges the player has in the bud, whether they try to deposit or not.

And what good is it if some casinos don't have Gamstop? What's the point of it all? Why am I talking to myself?

 

[bebo67]

Why are casinos FORCED to join Gamstop when according to Dan it costs a lot of money to do so?

Seems like another way to charge the casino money.

I thought the point of Gamstop is to prevent the player even depositing, seems not to be the case as it's more of a useless database to blame players and withhold winnings - based on being registered with Gamstop

So this is being foisted upon casinos at great cost, well the only winners I see coming out of this is Gamstop themselves. So they've rolled out an incomplete product and absolve themselves of any responsibility?

Surely I could be registered at 50 casinos, Gamstop is supposed to nip any urges the player has in the bud, whether they try to deposit or not.

And what good is it if some casinos don't have Gamstop? What's the point of it all? Why am I talking to myself?

 

[slotter999]

I almost always come down on the side of the player, however, I feel that the issue is really two fold in this case. The first issue is gamstop jumping the gun and stati

That is my point you can ALWAYS find a way round to gamble at some point the casino has to stop taking the financial loss because of addicts. So many threads on here are people complaining about not getting deposits back, but so many know to risk playing as they can demand the deposits back and if they win chance a withdrawal. Not all addicts are cunning and snide but sure as hell can guarantee a lot do try it on and as a casino operator they must sometimes think to themselves grow up and take response ability and seek help.

It cuts both ways though. Those players NEVER stood a chance of winning as long as they were not committing fraud i.e. supplying false information. The financial loss amounts to the cost of processing the withdrawal which is minimal.

I think in this case gamstop were at fault as well as the player. What is more surprising, or perhaps not, is videoslots would take money from a problem gambler who had clearly demonstrated a desire to self exclude. If I were them I'd give it back and just draw a line under the matter. Instead they get caught up in an argument like this one all for the sake of £1800 or whatever the amount is. Seems daft.

And yeah very surprising casinos have to pay for gamstop. And seeing as they have a monopoly on a centralised self exclusion system....the price is the price and there isn't anything they can do about it. Will be interesting to see what that figure is once it's made public.

 

[dkh09]

Just to update everyone on the outcome of the PAB - the same response was received; Videoslots were not live with GAMSTOP until 3rd May (although my account was SE via GAMSTOP on 29/04...). No explanation on the fact that they had to look into it for a month, query it with GAMSTOP and advise me that I was going to be refunded, though.

Huge thanks to Max none the less.

 

[GoldenGhoul]

Oh boy, so is gamstop yet another thing that is supposed to help and yet are already starting to cause more harm than good to the players? I get that it's some sort of miscommunication between them and the casino but where problem gambing is concerned, these things really should be precise and as flawless as they can be.