Were do i stand?

[SpinUk]

You can condense this argument into Colins words below. The moral side of it is a completely differant argument, but there is clear legal guidelines on refunding player deposits in the UKGC handbook afaik.

“Most casinos don't do that though, the ONLY reason they would keep allowing attempted fraud, is because they are making more money from the SE'd customers who, when caught, don't get their money back. Further than that, there is clear precedent from the UKGC that in cases like this, deposits should be refunded, yet, again, most casinos refuse, again, because they are fully aware that 99% of cases won't get to the UKGC and therefore they will never be forced to refund.”

Only differance is that when push comes to shove the Casinos will and do refund under UKGC guidelines. Its not a pleasant aspect of the industry but its certainly present and happening...

 

[Tirilej]

I used to work for an addiction service and it opened my eyes, it's not the same for everyone, but people drank/took drugs to self medicate to blot out memories of rape/violence/losing their child, a multitude of reasons and yes they were all there to seek help with their addiction but if it taught me anything it was to look at the person and not the addiction as do any of us know what has gone on in their lives?

You sound very naiv greylady. It can explain their actions, not justify them.
Help them, not pitty them.

 

[dpp00]

can i just take a small amount of offense to being lumped together as some hopeless addict with no will of my own because i smoke and drink,

as it happens i love smoking and drinking shock horror , however i do feel very sorry for people that continue to eat red meat and im not even vegetarian.

 

[greylady]

You sound very naiv greylady. It can explain their actions, not justify them.
Help them, not pitty them.

It's not naivety, nor pity, it's about being tolerant and non judgmental, addicts spend their lives being judged and it's the last thing they need when they seek help

 

[Playford7]

It's not naivety, nor pity, it's about being tolerant and non judgmental, addicts spend their lives being judged and it's the last thing they need when they seek help

Totally agree.
Never judge a person until you walked a mile in their shoes.

 

[Harry_BKK]

You can condense this argument into Colins words below. The moral side of it is a completely differant argument, but there is clear legal guidelines on refunding player deposits in the UKGC handbook afaik.

“Most casinos don't do that though, the ONLY reason they would keep allowing attempted fraud, is because they are making more money from the SE'd customers who, when caught, don't get their money back. Further than that, there is clear precedent from the UKGC that in cases like this, deposits should be refunded, yet, again, most casinos refuse, again, because they are fully aware that 99% of cases won't get to the UKGC and therefore they will never be forced to refund.”

Only differance is that when push comes to shove the Casinos will and do refund under UKGC guidelines. Its not a pleasant aspect of the industry but its certainly present and happening...

FYI, there is not clear sentence in the UKGC LCCP that directs casinos to refund SE'ed players. It only says bets should be voided and the account returned to its original state.

The refund is something that somehow got established as the "modus operandi" and most casinos do, but there is no legal or regulatory obligation.

 

[colinsunderland]

FYI, there is not clear sentence in the UKGC LCCP that directs casinos to refund SE'ed players. It only says bets should be voided and the account returned to its original state.

The refund is something that somehow got established as the "modus operandi" and most casinos do, but there is no legal or regulatory obligation.

If bets are voided and account returned to its original state, then that would mean refunding deposits. I'm not sure how that could be interpreted any other way?
Regardless of that, is the clear precedent in cases where the UKGC have stepped in and issued penalties for RG failings, they have always ordered that affected customers are refunded.

 

[Harry_BKK]

I used to work for an addiction service and it opened my eyes, it's not the same for everyone, but people drank/took drugs to self medicate to blot out memories of rape/violence/losing their child, a multitude of reasons and yes they were all there to seek help with their addiction but if it taught me anything it was to look at the person and not the addiction as do any of us know what has gone on in their lives?

I did too greylady, and it opened my eyes as well. But I am also well aware that an addict will cheat in any way he/she can to get their fix. I did it myself in my worst years, so i know what I am talking about.

At the end of the day you can only support an addict to learn how he/she can help himself. There is no surgery to take a part of the brain out that holds the addiction details.

And for me as long as people throw around with SEs, yet keep opening accounts and then come here to complain, well, they haven't even made the first step - acknowledge that they have a problem.

Most gambling addicts will not start acting until they hit rock bottom, or maybe even below that, e.g. one foot in the grave. Hence, I fully stand by my comments.

Even as an addict you have clear hours where there is no urge. It is not like you run around on steroids all the time looking for a fix. And in those hours, gamblers who really want to do something, will start multiple things, like executing SE, handing over cards to the spouse/friend etc.

The rest have not hit rock bottom yet. Harsh, but you won't get a gambler / addict off his addiction by being soft on them.

 

[Harry_BKK]

If bets are voided and account returned to its original state, then that would mean refunding deposits. I'm not sure how that could be interpreted any other way?
Regardless of that, is the clear precedent in cases where the UKGC have stepped in and issued penalties for RG failings, they have always ordered that affected customers are refunded.

There is no clear text Colin and you know it. It has been interpreted that way by some but an interpretation is no legal argument, it is an opinion.

They ordered to pay back deposits because they failed to protect addicts.

In a deliberation a few years ago, the UKGC actually preferred that refunds should not be done as it will extend the addiction. Instead such monies should go to charities/organisations that help addicts.

 

[SpinUk]

If bets are voided and account returned to its original state, then that would mean refunding deposits. I'm not sure how that could be interpreted any other way?
Regardless of that, is the clear precedent in cases where the UKGC have stepped in and issued penalties for RG failings, they have always ordered that affected customers are refunded.

Exactly - “original state” means thats winnings are not paid but that deposits are refunded. It could not be worded or interpreted any other way.

 

[colinsunderland]

There is no clear text Colin and you know it. It has been interpreted but an interpretation is no legal argument, it is an opinion.

They ordered to pay back deposits because they failed to protect addicts.

In a deliberation a few years ago, the UKGC actually preferred that refunds should not be done as it will extend the addiction.

So how do you return an account to it's original state if you don't void everything from the date of exclusion?
Yes exactly, they were ordered to pay back deposits because they failed to protect customers who stated they had a gambling problem, is that not exactly what we are talking about? Hence precedent for casinos to refund.

 

[Harry_BKK]

Exactly - “original state” means thats winnings are not paid but that deposits are refunded. It could not be worded or interpreted any other way.

You go an ask a lawyer and see what he says.

Original state means the state before the first bet was placed. Nothing more, nothing less. The UKGC did not carry on in their paragraph with instructions what should be done after that.

 

[Harry_BKK]

So how do you return an account to it's original state if you don't void everything from the date of exclusion?
Yes exactly, they were ordered to pay back deposits because they failed to protect customers who stated they had a gambling problem, is that not exactly what we are talking about? Hence precedent for casinos to refund.

The UKGC has still not issued a clear instruction on how to handle the monies. So, it is decided on a case by case basis.

If the operator failed to follow the regulations and guidelines, they get fined and in some cases ordered to pay back the deposits, but not in all cases.

But there are tons of more cases who never make it to the UKGC because addicts misuse the system, to get a free ride.

 

[sapit222]

Original state means when it was first created, not after deposits etc, becouse thats a change.

 

[colinsunderland]

You go an ask a lawyer and see what he says.

Original state means the state before the first bet was placed. Nothing more, nothing less. The UKGC did not carry on in their paragraph with instructions what should be done after that.

Where have you got that legal definition from?
Even if that were correct, if I deposit £100 then make a bet, the £100 should be placed back into the account, then should be withdrawable

The UKGC has still not issued a clear instruction on how to handle the monies. So, it is decided on a case by case basis.

If the operator failed to follow the regulations and guidelines, they get fined and in some cases ordered to pay back the deposits, but not in all cases.

But there are tons of more cases who never make it to the UKGC because addicts misuse the system, to get a free ride.

Can you link to the cases where a penalty was issued for RG failings but they weren't told to refund the affected customers? I haven't seen one, and the ones I have seen don't seem to be decided case by case, for example the 888 ruling

• Due to a technical failure in 888’s systems, over 7,000 customers who had chosen to self-exclude(1) from their casino/poker/sport platform were still able to access their accounts on their bingo platform. The issue went undetected for a prolonged period of time, meaning customers were able to deposit £3.5million into their accounts, and then continue to gamble, for over 13 months. While 888 did have self-exclusion procedures in place, they were not robust enough and failed to protect potentially vulnerable customers.

The penalty package will see 888 pay £7.8million, which includes repayment of the £3.5million of deposits made by the self-excluded customers and compensation of £62k to the employer from whom money was stolen.

So over 7000 customers deposited £3.5 million, 888 had to repay £3.5 million, the full amount, I am sure some of them were people trying it on, but the UKGC ordered every one was repaid in full.

 

[SpinUk]

“Can you link to the cases where a penalty was issued for RG failings but they weren't told to refund the affected customers? I haven't seen one, and the ones I have seen don't seem to be decided case by case, for example the 888 ruling“

Yep there aren't any. Mainly because they refund before it gets to that stage. I don’t even sympathise with the operators who genuinely get taken for a ride on this - to surmise that there is not the technological tools to 100% prevent this in 2019 - with negligable cost - as an argument isnt right.

I wonder how many excluded players 888 have let through the net since that fine?


Some operators (including one very popular CM accredited group) are even recently changing their ts and cs to specifically guard against this “abuse” in the hope that this will protect them against refunding but it would still not stand with the UKGC

You will never fully protect a casino against an addict multi accounting using another person’s details but thats a completely differant matter.

 

[mariafbb]

and because gambling is such a controversial debate , each of us have a differnet opinion on it , IBM build an AI to have a debate if Outdated URL (Invalid) <- read the transcript and anlaysis in the link . more about The Debator IBM project and it's capabilities

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

.

 

[Steviedoo]

Can someone correct the grammar on the title of this thread. Thank you.


Pleaaaaaaase.

 

[Luckyscouser45]

Oh wow hahaha

 

[dunover]

You go an ask a lawyer and see what he says.

Original state means the state before the first bet was placed. Nothing more, nothing less. The UKGC did not carry on in their paragraph with instructions what should be done after that.

Yep, but there is a case of precedent now, with the UKGC fining 888 £7m and them refunding the deposits for all SE losses their players made previously. So if a casino uses the woolly UKGC wording as an excuse not to refund, they're either a bit dim or badly informed. I think the 888 case pretty much cements how 'bets void and account returned to original state' should be interpreted!

 

[EkJR]

“Can you link to the cases where a penalty was issued for RG failings but they weren't told to refund the affected customers? I haven't seen one, and the ones I have seen don't seem to be decided case by case, for example the 888 ruling“

Yep there aren't any. Mainly because they refund before it gets to that stage. I don’t even sympathise with the operators who genuinely get taken for a ride on this - to surmise that there is not the technological tools to 100% prevent this in 2019 - with negligable cost - as an argument isnt right.

I wonder how many excluded players 888 have let through the net since that fine?


Some operators (including one very popular CM accredited group) are even recently changing their ts and cs to specifically guard against this “abuse” in the hope that this will protect them against refunding but it would still not stand with the UKGC

You will never fully protect a casino against an addict multi accounting using another person’s details but thats a completely differant matter.

If bets are voided and account returned to its original state, then that would mean refunding deposits. I'm not sure how that could be interpreted any other way?
Regardless of that, is the clear precedent in cases where the UKGC have stepped in and issued penalties for RG failings, they have always ordered that affected customers are refunded.

It's taken to the "bets voided" position and no further hence no refund. Again, it's about clarity and precedent being followed. It's not happening across the board. The onus from a legal point is that the casino should be doing as much as possible to capture the SE player. The problem is a change of email address can get round it. In this day and age that's not good enough and is a casino leaving themselves open to this. The question that needs asked is if this is deliberate in the knowledge that they are somehow covered by their T&Cs due to the UKGC vague rules on it.

 

[colinsunderland]

It's taken to the "bets voided" position and no further hence no refund. Again, it's about clarity and precedent being followed. It's not happening across the board. The onus from a legal point is that the casino should be doing as much as possible to capture the SE player. The problem is a change of email address can get round it. In this day and age that's not good enough and is a casino leaving themselves open to this. The question that needs asked is if this is deliberate in the knowledge that they are somehow covered by their T&Cs due to the UKGC vague rules on it.

exactly, i use a catch all email, therefore use a different email for every casino, like guts@ videoslots@ etc, so changing email is nothing to do with getting round anything, and far too easy to get round other parts with some casinos.

 

[EkJR]

exactly, i use a catch all email, therefore use a different email for every casino, like guts@ videoslots@ etc, so changing email is nothing to do with getting round anything, and far too easy to get round other parts with some casinos.

Easily solved by the UKGC it has to be said. "As part of your licence agreements it is your responsibility to detect and prevent self excluded players playing by whatever means necessary. If a SE player is found to have played then deposits should be returned to the player and account closed." It's not difficult and technology as it is now should capture anyone else they move to verification before playing.

 

[Nottsogreen]

Totally agree.
Never judge a person until you walked a mile in their shoes.

Because then at least, you will be a mile away, AND you will have their shoes !!!

I'll get me coat