Self Exclusion Failure?

[TravellingRecluse]

Hi all.

Before we start I’ll make it clear this is another one of those “I gambled whilst self excluded” threads.

Last April I released enough was enough, I joined GamStop, it felt a great relief.

I have also excluded through Sense which my local Grosvenor handled in an excellent manner.

All was good until I got the overwhelming urge.

To cut it short I signed up to a UGKC licensed casino, I’ll will restrain from naming them at this point.

Admittedly my address was different on the registrations (since updated with GS) due to moving in September last year.

I had a small number of small deposits over a week or so period, lost.

Payday comes and I do I think it was £800 in around 10-12 deposits I believe it was.

I felt sick, I approached said companies live chat to self exclude.

They said why?

I said I have a gambling issue and have been registered with GS since last April.

They said OK we”ll block you etc etc (more on this later) they said we”ll be in touch after reviewing the account to see if any refunds are due (I never asked for one)

I sent the PDF from my GS a account to confirm this.

They came back and said oh details don’t match so tough we keep the deposits.

I queried what didn’t match, they replied we only get a yes or no answer.

Clearly that’s bullshit as I sent them the PDF, it was my address.

Name, DOB,email and mobile number all match.

I asked for clarification on if I’d won would I have been paid, I had to wait until it escalated to the Fraud and Risk Manager to get a reply which was no, we retain deposits and winnings once we realise you are self excluded, hmm.

Whilst this was going backwards and forwards I contacted another casino in the same group to check the self exclusion had been transferred.

This was due to the original mentioned casino sending a deposit bonus offer the day after I asked live chat to exclude me.

They argue that it was sent after self exclusion because it’s not self exclusion until it’s dealt with by the accounts department!! Really?

Anyways, the second casino said your account has been closed since XYZ date (years) but it isn’t self excluded!!!
Wow again so 72 hours after I notify the live chat at casino 1, casino 2 in the same grouo had no idea.

The final response came from the F and R manager saying nope you tried to circumvent the system.

Previously discussed topic followed, compulsion etc

They said complain to IBAS, I did and they said they can’t help as only the UKGC can rule in this situation.

I contacted GamStop for clarification after I’d read here that there are 3 possibly 4 required trigger points for GS to notify correctly, I had 4. (Original casino was sent a passport scan to confirm name and DOB) and the GamStop PDF showed the email and phone number.

So, the crux, GS in no uncertain terms on live chat said that the original casino had not conducted FULL check as purely a phone number and email address should flag their system to warm them its a self excluded gambler trying to register (they claim they did KYC which checked out, not sure how if the information I provided was supposedly wrong)

I have a transcript from GS chat which in black and white says this casino should have prevented me gambling.

Do I have anything to go on here for a refund, I’m now of the opinion that I should have this as their internal system has not been used to even its most basic potential?

I had no way of financially gaining here if they would not have paid me even if I’d won and provided personal details that are correct and can be proved with my passport, phone bill and email trails so I’m not trying to swindle the system I have a compulsion which until this incident I had proudly controlled for nearly a year.

I welcome all reply’s even the critical ones, none of us are perfect so I’m not a crying victim of my own lack of self discipline.

 

[paul7388]

To be honest i think to get any sort of advice on what to do next you should name the casino.

Does no harm naming them as people will start guessing names. But name the casino and members will be able to give you best advice whether it is a PAB or something else.

 

[TravellingRecluse]

Hi Paul.

As an experienced member of this forum then I will take your advice, it’s 21.co.uk of the Leo Vegas group.

 

[dionysus]

edited out, apologies

 

[paul7388]

Hi Paul.

As an experienced member of this forum then I will take your advice, it’s 21.co.uk of the Leo Vegas group.

Lol why did i have a feeling that you would say it was that group.

Seems to be a common trend at the moment as there have been several threads similar.

But glad you named the group. At least now members will let you know what the best course of action is. Maybe be better to do a PAB tho so Max can check it out for you. Details on how to do it are at top of page under submit PAB.

But if this is all correct and the other Pab's are also correct it would seem this group is not taking their responsible gaming duties very well but not my place to speculate on that.

 

[TravellingRecluse]

Yes Paul I guess it is a fairly common thing, I was totally unaware of the other big news events regarding this group until I was googling to see if anyone else had issues that were similar.

I have sent them the copy of the transcripts from GS who surely know their own system.

I don’t know how the GS system works personally hence I sought advice from them.

They even mentioned at the bottom of the chat that this grouo had been fined in the past for poor Responbile Gambling practices.

 

[colinsunderland]

I knew it was going to be LV too before I finished the first post. However, if the OP didn't keep his address updated with Gamstop then not sure how they can be blamed in this instance. If Gamstop came back with a negative response then its hardly the casinos fault.
I don't believe gamstop saying 2 points should have triggered it, there have been numerous posts by casino staff on here saying that not to be the case. If Gamstop are telling the truth, then what action have they taken against the casino? They should be able to tell you what the responses have been when you have logged into your account, if they said you were self excluded, LV are in the wrong and they should pay you back all the money you spent, if they didn't then Gamstop are to blame. Unfortunately you are in breach of the terms and conditions you agreed to when you used the service and I'll pretty much guarantee you won't get anywhere with them.

@LeoVegas Rep any reason why we are seeing regular posts on here recently about you allowing self excluded players to play at your sites?

 

[TravellingRecluse]

I knew it was going to be LV too before I finished the first post. However, if the OP didn't keep his address updated with Gamstop then not sure how they can be blamed in this instance. If Gamstop came back with a negative response then its hardly the casinos fault.
I don't believe gamstop saying 2 points should have triggered it, there have been numerous posts by casino staff on here saying that not to be the case. If Gamstop are telling the truth, then what action have they taken against the casino? They should be able to tell you what the responses have been when you have logged into your account, if they said you were self excluded, LV are in the wrong and they should pay you back all the money you spent, if they didn't then Gamstop are to blame. Unfortunately you are in breach of the terms and conditions you agreed to when you used the service and I'll pretty much guarantee you won't get anywhere with them.

@LeoVegas Rep any reason why we are seeing regular posts on here recently about you allowing self excluded players to play at your sites?

Hi Colin,

Thanks for the reply.

I don’t know how it all works that’s why I’m asking for opinions/assistance.

GamStop have advised me this should be enough and I shouldn’t have been able to gamble.

I asked if they could see the results of the request and they said no (at livechat level, I have it in the transcript).

I have acted and commented on what they have told me, nothing more.

If the system is indeed not intelligent to even query something like a common email address etc then surely it’s flawed.

If I ran a company or database etc that had an obligation and moral position to prevent a certain type of clientele and I became aware of information to suggest someone on this list is trying to enter I would at least query it. A simple email to say “no suggestion made but are you a problem” if not then the process continues.

Terms and condition breach may be quoted however I should have not been allowed to sign those terms in the first place if that is the case in this situation, agree?

If GamStoo have provided me incorrect information that I should have been detected where is the benefit to them in lying to me?

I don’t know the intricate details of this process as stated before but as an intelligent and sound minded person if I read something that says “here’s a government/regulatory bodied backed system to prevent you from harming yourself anymore”.

I am going to look into it and like any sound minded person would at least consider, go with the information they have given you.

I believe I have done my part to prevent my issue getting worse, yes I didn’t have an updated address on the system but that would not fool a police record check if they had other complete information nor would it fool a credit checking service, we’ll not favourably anyways, so why it it seemingly OK in a casino situation.

and what about the lack of transferring a problem gamblers details to a sister company, grouo partner whatever you want to call it.

I will say with confidence that had I gone to Leo Vegas and reopened my account (I thought about reopening the account in desperation a year or two ago but didn’t as I thought I was already self excluded there.

I did self exclude at many places before through rage etc, admitted, they would after the pending period reopened that account due to the vital information from 21 not being transferred to them (I have screenshots of that conversation on 3/3/19 after my original admission of an issue to live chat was on 1/3/19.)

On that conversation they clearly acknowledge that the account was closed but not excluded, only through me asking and then telling them did they take action. I had no intention of trying to reopen that account or deposit in anyway, I’d had my shock. I was there to ensure temptation could not get the better of me again.

 

[TravellingRecluse]

I knew it was going to be LV too before I finished the first post. However, if the OP didn't keep his address updated with Gamstop then not sure how they can be blamed in this instance. If Gamstop came back with a negative response then its hardly the casinos fault.
I don't believe gamstop saying 2 points should have triggered it, there have been numerous posts by casino staff on here saying that not to be the case. If Gamstop are telling the truth, then what action have they taken against the casino? They should be able to tell you what the responses have been when you have logged into your account, if they said you were self excluded, LV are in the wrong and they should pay you back all the money you spent, if they didn't then Gamstop are to blame. Unfortunately you are in breach of the terms and conditions you agreed to when you used the service and I'll pretty much guarantee you won't get anywhere with them.

@LeoVegas Rep any reason why we are seeing regular posts on here recently about you allowing self excluded players to play at your sites?

In addition, you say you knew the name already, says it all does it not.

Monster fines are not given lightly, they have and I believe continue to fail problem gamblers.

 

[colinsunderland]

I wasn't having a go at you, just saying it how it is. You agreed to the term below when you signed up to gamstop, and they WILL use it to say they aren't at fault.

You agree not to attempt to register new gambling accounts, log in to any of your existing accounts, or in any other way try to circumvent GAMSTOP's mechanisms for the duration of your self-exclusion. You are entirely responsible for any actions you take designed to circumvent any self-exclusion registered with GAMSTOP.

I don't agree with it at all, a gambling addiction is an addiction. If you have someone addicted to coke trying to get off it, and stick a line of coke in front of them, they are likely to use it. If you have a self excluded gambler and allow him to open a new account he will.

Theres no reason there has to be 4 matches on the database, yes a name and DOB shouldn't be enough, but an email address or telephone number are (almost) unique and that should block an account, unless the customer can prove they aren't the self excluded player.

If Gamstop sent a negative response to the query then you cannot blame Leovegas, as how would they possibly know you were self excluded?

Also, just to point out, the penalties LeoVegas were given were not for this type of thing, they didn't automatically return funds to SE'd players and allowed players, after the self exclusion ended, to play without speaking to them. Theres no suggestion they were allowing SE'd players to play. Having said that, recent threads suggest there is a problem there.

How do you think they failed you in this case?

 

[TravellingRecluse]

I wasn't having a go at you, just saying it how it is. You agreed to the term below when you signed up to gamstop, and they WILL use it to say they aren't at fault.

You agree not to attempt to register new gambling accounts, log in to any of your existing accounts, or in any other way try to circumvent GAMSTOP's mechanisms for the duration of your self-exclusion. You are entirely responsible for any actions you take designed to circumvent any self-exclusion registered with GAMSTOP.

I don't agree with it at all, a gambling addiction is an addiction. If you have someone addicted to coke trying to get off it, and stick a line of coke in front of them, they are likely to use it. If you have a self excluded gambler and allow him to open a new account he will.

Theres no reason there has to be 4 matches on the database, yes a name and DOB shouldn't be enough, but an email address or telephone number are (almost) unique and that should block an account, unless the customer can prove they aren't the self excluded player.

If Gamstop sent a negative response to the query then you cannot blame Leovegas, as how would they possibly know you were self excluded?

Also, just to point out, the penalties LeoVegas were given were not for this type of thing, they didn't automatically return funds to SE'd players and allowed players, after the self exclusion ended, to play without speaking to them. Theres no suggestion they were allowing SE'd players to play. Having said that, recent threads suggest there is a problem there.

How do you think they failed you in this case?[/QUOTE

I sound say regardless of what the fine was for that still sounds to me like they failed problem gamblers if they allowed them to play again without clarifying they did not have issues.

They have failed in that they failed to detect I was a problem gambler despite GS confirming they should have detected it.

You have said it yourself that information such as email and phone number are unique enough for a valid connection yet that didn’t happen.

So yes ok there is the possible situation that GS didn’t send the correct information for a valid connection to be made but they are saying they did, if they didn’t then it’s worrying that this situation appears to happen more than once if you say it’s not the first time you have heard similar issues.

But I don’t also believe that something as simple and an email address and phone number can be so easily miscommunicated between the two parties to fail in a detection.

It all feels a little bit like every party can hide behind some sort of term or condition to absolve themselves of responsibility apart from the player who is the person that is supposed to be protected.

The casino will be not better or worse off and neither would I if I’d they returned the deposits, if it costs a few percent to process so be it.

I could not have gained from it as winnings wouldn’t be paid and they wouldn’t have had the money anyways if the detection system did it’s job properly and stopped me depositing.

It all just lacks ethics and morality to me.
Gamblers are being left out to dry by a broken system and the big corporates are still benefiting from those who can afford it not just financially but mentally.

I guess what you are saying is, tough, maybe, I don’t know the complexities.

 

[TravellingRecluse]

I wasn't having a go at you, just saying it how it is. You agreed to the term below when you signed up to gamstop, and they WILL use it to say they aren't at fault.

You agree not to attempt to register new gambling accounts, log in to any of your existing accounts, or in any other way try to circumvent GAMSTOP's mechanisms for the duration of your self-exclusion. You are entirely responsible for any actions you take designed to circumvent any self-exclusion registered with GAMSTOP.

I don't agree with it at all, a gambling addiction is an addiction. If you have someone addicted to coke trying to get off it, and stick a line of coke in front of them, they are likely to use it. If you have a self excluded gambler and allow him to open a new account he will.

Theres no reason there has to be 4 matches on the database, yes a name and DOB shouldn't be enough, but an email address or telephone number are (almost) unique and that should block an account, unless the customer can prove they aren't the self excluded player.

If Gamstop sent a negative response to the query then you cannot blame Leovegas, as how would they possibly know you were self excluded?

Also, just to point out, the penalties LeoVegas were given were not for this type of thing, they didn't automatically return funds to SE'd players and allowed players, after the self exclusion ended, to play without speaking to them. Theres no suggestion they were allowing SE'd players to play. Having said that, recent threads suggest there is a problem there.

How do you think they failed you in this case?

I sound say regardless of what the fine was for that still sounds to me like they failed problem gamblers if they allowed them to play again without clarifying they did not have issues.

They have failed in that they failed to detect I was a problem gambler despite GS confirming they should have detected it.

You have said it yourself that information such as email and phone number are unique enough for a valid connection yet that didn’t happen.

So yes ok there is the possible situation that GS didn’t send the correct information for a valid connection to be made but they are saying they did, if they didn’t then it’s worrying that this situation appears to happen more than once if you say it’s not the first time you have heard similar issues.

But I don’t also believe that something as simple and an email address and phone number can be so easily miscommunicated between the two parties to fail in a detection.

It all feels a little bit like every party can hide behind some sort of term or condition to absolve themselves of responsibility apart from the player who is the person that is supposed to be protected.

The casino will be not better or worse off and neither would I if I’d they returned the deposits, if it costs a few percent to process so be it.

I could not have gained from it as winnings wouldn’t be paid and they wouldn’t have had the money anyways if the detection system did it’s job properly and stopped me depositing.

It all just lacks ethics and morality to me.
Gamblers are being left out to dry by a broken system and the big corporates are still benefiting from those who cant afford it not just financially but mentally.

I guess what you are saying is, tough, maybe, I don’t know the complexities.

 

[colinsunderland]

I sound say regardless of what the fine was for that still sounds to me like they failed problem gamblers if they allowed them to play again without clarifying they did not have issues.

They have failed in that they failed to detect I was a problem gambler despite GS confirming they should have detected it.

You have said it yourself that information such as email and phone number are unique enough for a valid connection yet that didn’t happen.

So yes ok there is the possible situation that GS didn’t send the correct information for a valid connection to be made but they are saying they did, if they didn’t then it’s worrying that this situation appears to happen more than once if you say it’s not the first time you have heard similar issues.

But I don’t also believe that something as simple and an email address and phone number can be so easily miscommunicated between the two parties to fail in a detection.

It all feels a little bit like every party can hide behind some sort of term or condition to absolve themselves of responsibility apart from the player who is the person that is supposed to be protected.

The casino will be not better or worse off and neither would I if I’d they returned the deposits, if it costs a few percent to process so be it.

I could not have gained from it as winnings wouldn’t be paid and they wouldn’t have had the money anyways if the detection system did it’s job properly and stopped me depositing.

It all just lacks ethics and morality to me.
Gamblers are being left out to dry by a broken system and the big corporates are still benefiting from those who cant afford it not just financially but mentally.

I guess what you are saying is, tough, maybe, I don’t know the complexities.

You are basing your comments on misinformation by Gamstop.
They do not share your information with the casino, as I said, they are sent your info by the casino and get a yes/no type response, that is all. Again, thats in their privacy policy, presumably something you read before you gave them all your details? As you have read the other posts on here where people have stated there has to be a certain number of matches, I'm sure you know that anyway as it's quite well documented on here.

Online operators which have chosen to participate in the GAMSTOP scheme are required to check if their customers have self-excluded with GAMSTOP each time a customer logs in or tries to register for an account with them. They send their customer's data to our matching service, which checks this information with the personal data we hold about people who have self-excluded. The data is hashed for security and we only store this information as long as necessary to perform the check and let the operator know if there is a match.

The other thing is, you would have been paid if you had won, as LeoVegas wouldn't have known anything about your SE if you hadn't told them, which presumably you wouldn't if you were waiting for a cashout. And this type of thing is damaging to them as if it becomes known as a way to have a no lose situation, people will take advantage.

Your complaint should be with Gamstop, from what you have posted, not with LeoVegas. You could try a SAR and see if you can get them to disclose the response from Gamstop on all your logins, but I'm not actually sure if that would fall under the scope of the act. Having said that, to put this to rest, they might tell you anway. I also note, Gamstop wouldn't (or possibly couldn't) tell you what the result was they sent back, yet you seem to think it is LV's fault. Gamstop seem to be implying a mobile number should flag it, yet as they don't send the mobile number to the casino, how could the casino possibly know what number Gamstop have stored? Or email address or anything? However, Gamstop do see the data the casino have stored. If you don't believe me thats fine, but look at the bolded parts above. Gamstop collect the customer data and send a response back saying yes there is a match, no there isn't a match. That is all they do. All LV see is yes/no match.

I'm not saying it's right, but you are targeting the wrong people.

 

[TravellingRecluse]

You are basing your comments on misinformation by Gamstop.
They do not share your information with the casino, as I said, they are sent your info by the casino and get a yes/no type response, that is all. Again, thats in their privacy policy, presumably something you read before you gave them all your details? As you have read the other posts on here where people have stated there has to be a certain number of matches, I'm sure you know that anyway as it's quite well documented on here.

Online operators which have chosen to participate in the GAMSTOP scheme are required to check if their customers have self-excluded with GAMSTOP each time a customer logs in or tries to register for an account with them. They send their customer's data to our matching service, which checks this information with the personal data we hold about people who have self-excluded. The data is hashed for security and we only store this information as long as necessary to perform the check and let the operator know if there is a match.

The other thing is, you would have been paid if you had won, as LeoVegas wouldn't have known anything about your SE if you hadn't told them, which presumably you wouldn't if you were waiting for a cashout. And this type of thing is damaging to them as if it becomes known as a way to have a no lose situation, people will take advantage.

Your complaint should be with Gamstop, from what you have posted, not with LeoVegas. You could try a SAR and see if you can get them to disclose the response from Gamstop on all your logins, but I'm not actually sure if that would fall under the scope of the act. Having said that, to put this to rest, they might tell you anway. I also note, Gamstop wouldn't (or possibly couldn't) tell you what the result was they sent back, yet you seem to think it is LV's fault. Gamstop seem to be implying a mobile number should flag it, yet as they don't send the mobile number to the casino, how could the casino possibly know what number Gamstop have stored? Or email address or anything? However, Gamstop do see the data the casino have stored. If you don't believe me thats fine, but look at the bolded parts above. Gamstop collect the customer data and send a response back saying yes there is a match, no there isn't a match. That is all they do. All LV see is yes/no match.

I'm not saying it's right, but you are targeting the wrong people.

Hi Colin

Thanks for the honest response.

You mention there are numerous recent issues of a similar situation with the same part involved, have they been addressed do you know?

I know for certain I would not have been paid as 21 have finally issued a response to that saying I tried to circumvent their system so all funds would be retained.

So actually for me in this situation it’s the opposite, I had a no win situation, even a problem gambler would be silly to try that one.

For me personally I haven’t tried to open an account anywhere else apart from the Leo Vegas Group so I can’t comment on others but it does seem to me that either GS require limited information to make their judgement in terms of sending a yes or no reply or the sender is presenting limited information.

I’ve been given one side of the story but not the other.

The whole situation does suggest the GamStop system is basically pointless if it can so easily fail and it’s an industry/regulator barrier to responsibility that is disguised as a prevention tool.

It is a sad state of affairs in society when an addict can be told if you are an addict then we will pretend to care but actually when you make a mistake you are on your own.

 

[colinsunderland]

The other issues aren't the same as this, although to do with SE.

They told you you wouldn't have been paid as by that point they were aware you were self excluded, if they didn't know, then theres no reason not to pay you.

I would go back to gamstop and complain, using some of the information in this thread and what the casino have told you to take it further, specifically I would be asking why they told you they sent information to the casino when their privacy policy states they don't, the fact they said the casino should have picked up on the mobile number or email address is them suggesting they sent the casino that information.

 

[EkJR]

Gamstop looks at 5 details.

First Name, Surname, Date of Birth, Postcode and email address.

If 4 or 5 of these match the Gamstop register then the account is blocked. I have argued that it should be 3 and an automatic suspension put on an account until it can be ascertained.

LV are having some real issues with exclusions applying across the group and I know they are trying to fix this but really they should be returning your deposits. If you can show that 4 or more of the above details match then you have a case.

 

[colinsunderland]

Gamstop looks at 5 details.

First Name, Surname, Date of Birth, Postcode and email address.

If 4 or 5 of these match the Gamstop register then the account is blocked. I have argued that it should be 3 and an automatic suspension put on an account until it can be ascertained.

LV are having some real issues with exclusions applying across the group and I know they are trying to fix this but really they should be returning your deposits. If you can show that 4 or more of the above details match then you have a case.

A match on an email address or phone number should be enough by itself to block the account. As much as both can be re-issued, the chances of that are low, and even lower that they would both have casinos accounts with the previous owner having self excluded.

If LV are at fault I agree they should refund the deposits, but in this case I think Gamstop didn't say there was a block on, if thats the case then Gamstop should refund, not that they will

 

[TravellingRecluse]

Gamstop looks at 5 details.

First Name, Surname, Date of Birth, Postcode and email address.

If 4 or 5 of these match the Gamstop register then the account is blocked. I have argued that it should be 3 and an automatic suspension put on an account until it can be ascertained.

LV are having some real issues with exclusions applying across the group and I know they are trying to fix this but really they should be returning your deposits. If you can show that 4 or more of the above details match then you have a case.

Thanks for the reply.

Well I’ve sent them a copy of my passport so that’s name and DOB and my email address has been the same for EVERY casino I’ve used in at least 10 years.

Colin, again thanks for your reply.

If I’ve mentioned that GS have sent the casino information then I could be incorrect (I’ll re read the transcript after work) but if definitely states that phone number and email alone should have flagged the account.

From what you say though it sounds like they will stand behind the “broken T&C” bit which I’m shocked to believe that such a thing can be included. As we have said an addict will seek to fulfill a craving regardless of what it is.

Had a submitted incorrect details and tried to fraud the system I’d understand but I haven’t and when other posters are saying they know that this group is having issues then clearly I’m not unique.

A messy situation it seems and one I’m not likely to succeed in getting a satisfactory result from based on what has been said here.

 

[colinsunderland]

If I’ve mentioned that GS have sent the casino information then I could be incorrect (I’ll re read the transcript after work) but if definitely states that phone number and email alone should have flagged the account.

The point I'm making about that is, if Gamstop are correct in what they said about that, then the failing must be with them, as 21 don't get that information from Gamstop. If they say 21 should have picked up on it, then you should be asking how, as the only way the casino could pick up on it is if gamstop sent them that information, which they don't. If Gamstop sent a positive flag back then 21 are at fault, but without confirmation of what flag was sent then its just guessing. I would be asking them both to confirm what response Gamstop sent every time you logged in then work from there.

 

[TravellingRecluse]

The point I'm making about that is, if Gamstop are correct in what they said about that, then the failing must be with them, as 21 don't get that information from Gamstop. If they say 21 should have picked up on it, then you should be asking how, as the only way the casino could pick up on it is if gamstop sent them that information, which they don't. If Gamstop sent a positive flag back then 21 are at fault, but without confirmation of what flag was sent then its just guessing. I would be asking them both to confirm what response Gamstop sent every time you logged in then work from there.

Hi Colin,

Good advice cheers I’ll go back to them both and see if they are willing to provide this information.

 

[EkJR]

Ask for a full SAR from 21 including the verification check details as it will show if there has been a mismatch and show the information shared.

 

[TravellingRecluse]

Ask for a full SAR from 21 including the verification check details as it will show if there has been a mismatch and show the information shared.

I have emailed them asking for the details. Let’s see what they come back with

 

[TravellingRecluse]

I’ve spoken to GamStop and now a different story, this CS Rep sugggests that it is the 4/5. So I said great name, DOB, email and phone.

Ugh no was the reply, the first line of address and postcode must match, hmm not what other people are saying it seems.

GS have now basically said the operator can at their discretion chose whether the information mismatch is sufficient to accept liability or not.

GS saying conflicting things and the operator can use an address mismatch as a valid reason to not block an attempted access/play.

The whole thing sounds like it belongs in a Big Top.

 

[TravellingRecluse]

Oh and GS won’t send me anything to confirm what reply’s etc where sent to the operator.

 

[colinsunderland]

Oh and GS won’t send me anything to confirm what reply’s etc where sent to the operator.

Why not? Have you asked the casino yet?

 

[TravellingRecluse]

Why not? Have you asked the casino yet?

Awaiting a reply from 21. No justifiable reason from GS as far as I’m concerned. They said contact the casino.

 

[TravellingRecluse]

Now waiting for GamStop to send me the recent transcript as they can’t find it and filling in the auto “email transcript” did not work twice.

 

[TravellingRecluse]

Update: nothing from GS with yesterday’s chat transcripts and nothing from 21 at all since I emailed them on Friday and yesterday.

Previously they would respond within 12 hours or so at the most. I guess if they have said final response to me previously then now they will just blank me.

 

[Mr Wild]

GamStop is not a UKGC requirment and is run by a private organization. If you signed up with GamStop and tried to register or login at a casino site, you are in breach with GamStop terms and conditions (if they havent recently changed them).

 

[colinsunderland]

GamStop is not a UKGC requirment and is run by a private organization. If you signed up with GamStop and tried to register or login at a casino site, you are in breach with GamStop terms and conditions (if they havent recently changed them).

They haven't, I posted them earlier in the thread. Bit of a get out clause for them isn't it!

 

[Mr Wild]

They haven't, I posted them earlier in the thread. Bit of a get out clause for them isn't it!

Its quite bad compared to spelpaus in Sweden and its not a free service either for the casinos. I think it cost up to £200,000 a year for an operator to take part in and reality its not the best protection for the players.

 

[EkJR]

GamStop is not a UKGC requirment and is run by a private organization. If you signed up with GamStop and tried to register or login at a casino site, you are in breach with GamStop terms and conditions (if they havent recently changed them).

As much as that is the case currently it would still be frowned upon by the UKGC because it is a safeguard they have peddled. I would imagine some regulatory action could still result from that it Gamstop did not prevent someone opening an account.

 

[TravellingRecluse]

GamStop is not a UKGC requirment and is run by a private organization. If you signed up with GamStop and tried to register or login at a casino site, you are in breach with GamStop terms and conditions (if they havent recently changed them).

I am not disputing that I tried to open an account so I agree with you, however as a gambling addict I took steps to assist in me not gambling, steps that are supposed to prevent problem gamblers making the problem worse.

This system is broken and based on the fact that someone posted on this thread to see if the LV rep was interested so so far no response and that 21 are just not replying at all isn’t the most comforting considering how much scrutiny the industry is under currently. (The rep may be away etc so a bit of time is expected)

 

[irish-ranger]

It's not just LV group a friend in work is 4 months into a 6 month exclusion on Gamstop signed up to Netbet all details correct except email Address.
He also got fully verified, as yet he hasn't cashed out will be interesting to see if they pay when the time comes.
So obviously they ain't doing the required checks or they are happy to screw people.

 

[TravellingRecluse]

Does anyone else thing that the gambling industry is just too big to fail? As a now hopefully successfully excluded player it’s not my concern but I’m just intrigued.

I don’t want operators to fail, I’m not that way inclined but when you look at how prevelant it is nowadays it is basically the new tobacco.

It’s no longer the Embassy this or the John Player that it’s the Betfair this or the Bet 365 that.

I guess the main difference is that damage from smoking and alcohol is generally a lot more visual than the damage that gambling does so it is a lot easier to brush under the carpet maybe?

 

[TheAddict]

@irish-ranger
quote below pulled from an old discussion listed on the pogg website, which seems to be a quote taken from gamstop T&c's given to someone in a similar situation as to what your friend knows he is doing, that is, signing up with a different email to that which he has provided to gamstop, while signing up with netbet, in order to attempt to gamble after signing up with gamstop.

"During your self-exclusion, you will be prevented from accessing any accounts with online gambling operators registered with the Gambling Commission that match the details you have provided to us as part of your application. It is in your interest to provide us with accurate details consistent with those which you have used to set up accounts with online gambling operators. GAMSTOP may not be able to spot inaccuracies or other differences in account details, and we may not be able to prevent you accessing accounts you have created using, for example, email addresses that you have not provided to us as part of the registration process. GAMSTOP will operate on the basis of the information you have provided at registration and we will not be responsible for failure to spot errors made on your part."

with due respect, perhaps you should have a word with your friend and tell him he is being stupid.
it amazes me that your friend bothers wasting his time playing somewhere deliberately, and not just as a one off, while changing his email address to do so, since if he had bothered to read the terms on gamstop regarding checks, he would know that he won't able to withdraw if/when he tries to do so. i don't think it will be interesting, just eye rolling.

 

[TravellingRecluse]

@irish-ranger
quote below pulled from an old discussion listed on the pogg website, which seems to be a quote taken from gamstop T&c's given to someone jn a aimilar situation as to what your friend knows he is doing, that is, signing up with a different email to that which he has provided to gamstop, while signing up with netbet, in order to attempt to gamble after signing up with gamstop.

"During your self-exclusion, you will be prevented from accessing any accounts with online gambling operators registered with the Gambling Commission that match the details you have provided to us as part of your application. It is in your interest to provide us with accurate details consistent with those which you have used to set up accounts with online gambling operators. GAMSTOP may not be able to spot inaccuracies or other differences in account details, and we may not be able to prevent you accessing accounts you have created using, for example, email addresses that you have not provided to us as part of the registration process. GAMSTOP will operate on the basis of the information you have provided at registration and we will not be responsible for failure to spot errors made on your part."

with due respect, perhaps you should have a word with your friend and tell him he is being stupid.
it amazes me that your friend bothers wasting his time playing somewhere deliberately, and not just as a one off, while changing his email address to do so, since if he had bothered to read the terms on gamstop regarding checks, he would know that he won't able to withdraw if/when he tries to do so. i don't think it will be interesting, just eye rolling.

I think the point behind the whole dicusssion is regardless of whether someone inputs the details incorrectly with intention or not, it SHOULD NOT be that easy to circumvent the system that is there to prevent problem gamblers from gambling, I don’t think that’s unfair to suggest, an addiction is an addiction regardless of what it is.

 

[Scott1baird]

Does anyone else thing that the gambling industry is just too big to fail? As a now hopefully successfully excluded player it’s not my concern but I’m just intrigued.

I don’t want operators to fail, I’m not that way inclined but when you look at how prevelant it is nowadays it is basically the new tobacco.

It’s no longer the Embassy this or the John Player that it’s the Betfair this or the Bet 365 that.

I guess the main difference is that damage from smoking and alcohol is generally a lot more visual than the damage that gambling does so it is a lot easier to brush under the carpet maybe?

As long as the queen is allowed to gamble on horses there will always be sites.

 

[TheAddict]

@TravellingRecluse true. i get that.
i just see it being a waste of time, and i assume deposits will be returned after going through more pointless hassle chasing them, after the pointless time wasted gambling with no chance of potential winnings ever being paid out, assuming it is picked up on withdrawal of course.

i can understan an addict feeling like a desperate gamble during a weak moment, but it sounds like his work friend is gambling on a regular basis. maybe I'm wrong and he did read the above terms and is just hoping he can get a free roll on payout.

one of the responses from thepogg in regards to the "complaint" made on the website..

"unfortunately I think it's unlikely we'll be able to do anything to help you with this issue. When the automated systems that are used to detect self-excluded accounts review new registration there are certain key pieces of information that are considered important for detecting account. Both names and addresses can legitimately be shared by multiple people. Email address are almost never shared. If you've changed your email address it's highly unlikely that an automated system would pick-up your registration".


edit. sorry, in a crappy mood, and it increased a frown that was already on my face b4 opening this thread. didn't mean to divert the convo from the point. think I'll log off b4 i attack a friend of someone else that i don't know

 

[irish-ranger]

I think the point behind the whole dicusssion is regardless of whether someone inputs the details incorrectly with intention or not, it SHOULD NOT be that easy to circumvent the system that is there to prevent problem gamblers from gambling, I don’t think that’s unfair to suggest, an addiction is an addiction regardless of what it is.

Correct it shouldn't be that easy supplying a duff email address is one thing but then getting verified with all the docs required is another the system is broke somewhere.

 

[TravellingRecluse]

true. i get that.
i just see it being a waste of time, and i assume deposits will be returned after going through more pointless hassle chasing them, after the pointless time wasted gambling with no chance of potential winnings ever being paid out, assuming it is picked up on withdrawal of course.

i can understan an addict feeling like a desperate gamble during a weak moment, but it sounds like his work friend is gambling on a regular basis. maybe I'm wrong and he did read the above terms and is just hoping he can get a free roll on payout.

one of the responses from thepogg in regards to the "complaint" made on the website..

"unfortunately I think it's unlikely we'll be able to do anything to help you with this issue. When the automated systems that are used to detect self-excluded accounts review new registration there are certain key pieces of information that are considered important for detecting account. Both names and addresses can legitimately be shared by multiple people. Email address are almost never shared. If you've changed your email address it's highly unlikely that an automated system would pick-up your registration".

I think that reinforces my oringinal post then. I’m no saint but I did not try and commit fraud and if as said above a few times the chance of being paid out was slim once they detected I had been excluded what did I have to gain?

Interesting to see the POGG talk of something like an email being unique. I’ve had mine since 2003 and it’s alwaya used to casinos

 

[colinsunderland]

Correct it shouldn't be that easy supplying a duff email address is one thing but then getting verified with all the docs required is another the system is broke somewhere.

The casino don't see the details registered with Gamstop and therefore if different will verify as, as far as they know, there is no problem.
Gamstop is flawed while the checks are so lax.

 

[TheAddict]

I think that reinforces my oringinal post then. I’m no saint but I did not try and commit fraud and if as said above a few times the chance of being paid out was slim once they detected I had been excluded what did I have to gain?

Interesting to see the POGG talk of something like an email being unique. I’ve had mine since 2003 and it’s alwaya used to casinos

edited my post to apolagize, but only after you had quoted it. i appreciate i was nit picking there, and somewhat diverting from the point of the OP.

 

[TravellingRecluse]

The casino don't see the details registered with Gamstop and therefore if different will verify as, as far as they know, there is no problem.
Gamstop is flawed while the checks are so lax.

If you were in my situation would you have expected a rep or the casino via email to have responded to my further queries even if they had issued a final response?

 

[TravellingRecluse]

edited my post to apolagize, but only after you had quoted it. i appreciate i was nit picking there, and somewhat diverting from the point of the OP.

All is well as far as I’m concerned mate, everyone is entitled to say what they feel

 

[Mr Wild]

If you were in my situation would you have expected a rep or the casino via email to have responded to my further queries even if they had issued a final response?

Your best chance is to do a PAB. But the casino send the details you put into the system to GS and as Colin said, they just get a Yes or No answer. The only reason the casino would be in error here is if their integration to GS is broken or incorrectly integrated.

 

[TravellingRecluse]

Your best chance is to do a PAB. But the casino send the details you put into the system to GS and as Colin said, they just get a Yes or No answer. The only reason the casino would be in error here is if their integration to GS is broken or incorrectly integrated.

Yeah no doubt the big corp will prevail.

Not replying to my emails etc or someone here asking for rep input and again nothing doesn’t fill you with confidence they are even remotely interested.

 

[EkJR]

Correct it shouldn't be that easy supplying a duff email address is one thing but then getting verified with all the docs required is another the system is broke somewhere.

Betway verified someone whom they couldn't verify automatically on age checks. The person signed up with an incorrect date of birth, Betway requested docs including passport. Passport had the correct date of birth on it and they still verified the account fully despite the obvious differences. That's how good some of these checks are from operators. Note, this was an excluded player opening a new account.

 

[TravellingRecluse]

I am of the thinking that there really wasn’t much point in rolling out this system at all if they are about to introduce a verify before play approach?

If it’s so common in failing then why bother having it?

I’ve got over 15 years been of the belief that a player should be verified before they should play but I guess the industry/regulators thought otherwise.

 

[TravellingRecluse]

Ask for a full SAR from 21 including the verification check details as it will show if there has been a mismatch and show the information shared.

So I’ve just been on live chat (I think eventually they just cut the chat off) as I’m not getting replies to my emails.

I’ve asked for a SAR and that was just blanked as a question, I then said can I have a log of the information put forward and got generic reply’s if it’s all automated, it’s with GamStop etc etc. I have the transcript saved.

To not even give me this information I think is suspicious to say the least, if they are in the right what is there to hide?