Complaints

[ValDes]

13 hours ago, pinnit2015 said:

Agree but i think some casino's recently have been trotting out the line of basically 'It needs to go to our ADR, not another party' and then prattling on, wrongly, about data protection (think Redbet were one - was having a look to see any recent complaints here to see if they were still engaging). Was just curious if it was something you guys had picked up on. 

Of course we are facing the same problems as any other website out there offering a service similar to AGCCS where AskGamblers Complaints Team have been categorically denied by casino operators to provide any real proofs due to concerns regarding player's privacy/GDPR stuff. Most of them being UKGC licensed... 

Good thing is that as the world's most popular, successful and efficient online casino dispute mediation service,   AGCCS could have really huge impact over an operator's reputation online, therefore most casino reps would comply eventually with our arguments that GDPR (or any other modern excuse used by casinos lately) is definitely NOT an obstacle in front of the normal complaints process here. 

[TheAverageGuy]

Both side of the “arguement” made by the casinos in the above instance are nothing less than ludicrous just as a matter of logical fallacy, yet alone when considering underlying motive.

lets try them out in other situations. 

“Sorry officer, I understand you’d like to get to the truth about the claims John made in his police report about me failing to pay him for the work he did in the construction of my house, but the answers you’re seeking Concern private, sensitive information both personal and financial so I’m unable to assist you as it would be terribly wrong of me to violate john’s privacy in such a manner. 

Ill tell you what though, while I’m sure you’re a swell guy and are really working hard to right wrongs and pursue justice, I respect that and o believe we all have a part to play in that and I’m just as concerned about john’s well being and his right to mediation/resolution as you are: while I simply can’t engage in any further conversation on these matters with you or anyone else from your department, if John wants to pursue the matter further he can contact this a guy that I have an arrangement with where he hears both sides, acts as an unbiased, impartial 3rd party mediator and I pay him to be my exclusive mediator in such matters..”

 

“”we’ll judge, i’d Love to take this opportunity to defend myself against these allegations that I’ve used a pattern of evasiveness, fraud and bribery in the pursuit of corporate success, but the facts in question would violate the claimants privacy rights, so I’m obliged to decline any further participation in this court case, bu don’t worry, there’s a guy I pay to deal with this sort of thing, in the claimants best interest of course, trust me..”

”I’m sorry your daughter feels that myself and my associates violated her mrs. smith, but that’s frankly none of your business, tell her to come see me and my associate Steve later today and we’ll be sure she gets what she deserves”

 

 

 

 

 

[Steven339]

Morning,

So after contacting the casino again this time cc ukgc  advising them I had reportem them to the ico I finally recieved the data.

Unfortunately they have left out most the emails from the vip teamconvenienlty the ones with the offerings on. Likewise they have done this with the calls. I have had to go back to them and ask why.

Interestingly it was 16 account closures with one part of the group but including the other 2 it was over 25 closures.

[Steven339]

I also put a link to the thread.

 

The ukgc have also replied saying they have raised this ,but will wait for the data to be sent accros before acting.

[pinnit2015]

7 minutes ago, Steven339 said:

Morning,

So after contacting the casino again this time cc ukgc  advising them I had reportem them to the ico I finally recieved the data.

Unfortunately they have left out most the emails from the vip teamconvenienlty the ones with the offerings on. Likewise they have done this with the calls. I have had to go back to them and ask why.

Interestingly it was 16 account closures with one part of the group but including the other 2 it was over 25 closures.

Well if you watched the bbc programme, the phone calls from VIP didn't look too great: hey; sorry your dad died, have a 100 quid bonus. So maybe they're concerned about that. Other option, and more likely, is that they're incompetent. 

'Mug Punters' etc

Only thing i would say in terms of a/c closures - whilst i agree it's a sign of an issue, there are plenty of folk who use the Time Out (different to closure?) function to simply limit themselves if saving etc and I wouldn't like to see people simply not use it for fear of being designated an addict etc. 

[pinnit2015]

Edit - it's a possible risk indicator of there being a GA that requires further follow-up - many (most) close accounts due to many non RG issues. 

[Steven339]

Hi 

We have received the response below from the gambling commission which in my option is a way of saying we don’t take these issues on just log them. 

We haven’t even raised the issue with them yet just cc them in a couple of e mails.

We didn’t mention compensation or refunds.

It would seem pointless now even speaking to them as by the looks of it they do bugger all with the information.

 

Dear Mr xxxxxx

Thank you for your most recent correspondence regarding Coral, operating under the licence of Coral Interactive Limited.

We note from your correspondence that you have explained that you have not sent in your letter on how you feel Coral have breached their licence. You wish to know if we will look at it. 

As you are aware, our role is one of a regulator and this means we are only able to consider issues from a regulatory perspective to see if any breaches of licence conditions have occurred. We do not hold the legal powers to obtain a refund and/or compensation on your behalf.

We have advised you on the correspondence that you had given us already. We have logged the emails you have given to us against the operator. You can forward on the letter to us and we can attach this to our log.

It may be that information you have given to us feeds into a wider investigation. Our investigations are purely regulatory and concentrate on an operator’s internal processes. 

If an investigation does take place, we look collectively at all the information provided by consumers and other sources, and identify trends in relation to complaints that we have received about the operator in question.

Please be aware that we cannot provide any updates, progress or any action taken as we would not only be looking into your single complaint. 

As previously advised, we have made a record of your complaint against the operator.  This will be recorded for compliance reference for that team to look into. Please note that this will be from a regulatory perspective..  

If you wish to seek funds or compensation that you believe to be owed. We would advise you to pursue this with the operator directly as well as seeking your own legal advice.

Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention we do welcome all consumer feedback. We hope this clarifies your query.  

Your enquiry reference number is 1-178506483.

 

To gain a better understanding of your needs and expectations, we would be grateful if you could take part in our online survey.  Please click on the following:

 

[pinnit2015]

So, you tell the regulator that there’s a possible breach of regulatory conditions and the response is; feel free to complete an online survey?

Bravo GC

[Steven339]

Yeah it wasn’t the best response was it, I wouldn’t mind I didn’t even send in any details just cc them in my request for details to the operator.

 

this is basically I way of saying we don’t actually look into these types of enquiries and your on your own.

i do worry for others that if this is the kind of response from the GC. operators are free to pretty much carry on the way they are doing, thankfully it would seems some operators have better processes than others for the way they monitor this kind of thing.

On a positive note my son is doing really well, so far so good. So that’s the main thing, 

[pinnit2015]

On 9/14/2019 at 11:53 AM, Steven339 said:

Yeah it wasn’t the best response was it, I wouldn’t mind I didn’t even send in any details just cc them in my request for details to the operator.

 

this is basically I way of saying we don’t actually look into these types of enquiries and your on your own.

i do worry for others that if this is the kind of response from the GC. operators are free to pretty much carry on the way they are doing, thankfully it would seems some operators have better processes than others for the way they monitor this kind of thing.

On a positive note my son is doing really well, so far so good. So that’s the main thing, 

For payment issues etc, you have the ADR's at al - so that's kinda covered but yeah, for the social responsibility elements/general licence issues there is a bit of a chasm that needs plugged. 

Don't get me wrong, i think if they get enough detail and information through it does contribute to the triggering of an ad-hoc review but the cases they pick up on are likely to be the headliners (1million lost due to x,y,z) - doesn't really help Joe Public. 

I've just had an email from EveryMatrix setting my deposit limits at 185 a month due to 'indications that i may be a problem gambler' - now, 20 quid in deposits over the last year there suggest otherwise: why? Because they've had their licence suspended (haha - no loss) and are attempting to try and get it back by showing how good their procedures are - I've forwarded it onto the UKGC to show how UTTERLY BAD they are as i've only deposited that 20 in a year there, so how their procedures have identified that are beyond me : absolutely clueless. Fining these people must be like shooting ducks in a barrel. 

[ValDes]

A lot has been said about UKGC policy towards individual player claims, ADR concept and so on over the last few years. Won't comment in details, have done a few times before anyway, but kinda puzzled why  the simply yet most important question remains unanswered yet...

  "If the purpose of the commission's existence is to protect gamblers then why they won't deal with individual claims/complaints?" 

Your thoughts? 

[pinnit2015]

11 hours ago, ValDes said:

A lot has been said about UKGC policy towards individual player claims, ADR concept and so on over the last few years. Won't comment in details, have done a few times before anyway, but kinda puzzled why  the simply yet most important question remains unanswered yet...

  "If the purpose of the commission's existence is to protect gamblers then why they won't deal with individual claims/complaints?" 

Your thoughts? 

Have to say I don't know. They do get involved to an extent with some of the big cases - eg. Casumo and will publish the findings on the site etc. Now, how they choose these, I'm not sure. Monetary value? Publicity generated? Pass.

They state in their own complaints rules that they use the reports from consumers to inform their review - so, erm, they pay a bit of attention to individual complaints but that's about the height of it really. 

Even the GC has said that the reports they get from casinos re their complaints received isn't accurate - gee whiz. 

This is an extract: We are not an ombudsman or a complaints service, and we do not investigate consumer complaints on behalf of the consumer. In most cases, this does not affect the consumer because their report is about a potential breach of a licence condition rather than about the outcome of a gambling transaction.

I find the bolded bit laughable...so, a complete failure of social responsibility, leading to a person gambling their 3rd mortgage on their house, may not affect the individual. That's naive at best. 

Why not empower the ADR's to take on the licence issues such as social responsibility?  

Let's be honest, if they wanted to protect gamblers they'd look at the benefits of banning reversing, insist on minimum periods for processing, arguably ban the progressive type games that actively encourage you to continue ur progress, ban bonus buy's etc. 

Seem's simple to me: you are the regulator that make the rules to follow and ergo you're best placed to rule if they've been adhered to. To give it to another body would possibly lead to subjectivity and interpretation of the regulations, which may lead to inconsistent decisions. 

In the UK we have the Care Inspectorate who regulate the Social Work Service and guess what? They are also the people who deal with individual complaints about the care service (there is a further port of call to the Public Sector Ombudsman) - point being, the regulator investigates possible breaches of care. 

You can't stand on a podium of protecting vulnerable folk without putting your money where your mouth is. Unfortunately, that's exactly what they do - either that, or they're a staunch believer of self regulation. 

[honestdude]

Well, Tony and all the rest who have helped Tony and his son with this issue of RG compliance, I have read the whole 5 pages of comments and what you have been through, Was a very interesting but unfortunately a disappointing outcome on the part of both the casino and the GC. To sum it all up, there really isn't any agency protecting individual gamblers out there and with the GC being supposedly one of the best regulators in the world, even they do not follow their mandate even as it is reads in their governance.  

I'm just glad your son is taking the right path and given what I read and the path he's chosen, it's a positive outcome nonetheless. having a graduates degree in psychology I understand addiction and although you mentioned you were also angry at your son's behaviour you stood behind  and helped.  That alone is what any addictive personality needs. Support.  Of  course it is undoubtedly frustrating and anger does unfortunately set in but as you know, addiction is a very difficult behaviour to  overcome and  unfortunately most of the time not easy on the individual and anyone in the family involved.  Having said that, it is more disappointing that governing bodies, who the public count on in these cases are more an entity for show rather than what they stand for.  

Thanks for the great read and hope many have had the opportunity to learn from this experience.

Sincerely

Honest Dude.  

     

 

[ValDes]

3 hours ago, honestdude said:

... Having said that, it is more disappointing that governing bodies, who the public count on in these cases are more an entity for show rather than what they stand for.  ...

[Fiekie247]

Sounds to me like a similar scenario at work to be honest.

HR is there for the show and you give you some hope that someone is protecting you, meanwhile they stand with the firm/company itself.

I remember I was in a disciplinary hearing for ''MoonLighting". Now you know in the beginning they want all information so they can ''HELP'' you, while in the meanwhile they stab you in the back and use information against you.

Point I am making - In General:  No matter what situation, industry or the position is - Know that companies/clients will 99% of the time side with their Clients/Business Partners/Employers/Bosses in any event whenever you fight them. This is a FACT in my experience....

 

Anyways  , Back to the topic - Reading the above it sounds to me the Gambling Commision are doing the same. Giving the camouflage or idea that the player knows they are in safe hands with someone on their side fighting for them, meanwhile as Honest Dude said, its just for the Show, but you only realize that they do not perform at the level for what they stand for, when you are involved in an ongoing dispute and its already too late.

I always use this  saying- They (The regulators/gambling commission) try to put wooden glasses on our faces! Oh well some of us see through those Wooden glasses

[pinnit2015]

Ah, HR...been there a few times. Never once have found them to be remotely human, never mind impartial/employee focused: employed by the business, for the business. 

Though I have enjoyed my sparring session with them in the odd Employment Tribunal or three over the years 

[Steven339]

Thank you for all the input guys and taking time from your busy lives to help me and my son, your Input on this matter has been amazing and I can’t thank you enough.

Its already been said before and I do worry for other people who have problems with gambling.  What’s most disappointing is the gambling’s commissions response to all this, and if that’s all there is then the people like my son don’t stand a chance. Had they looked into all the evidence and responded with some findings on the evidence alone It would have been enough to satisfy me that at least they are putting measures in place to protect players, what ever the outcome was. However that hasn’t been the case, my sons been talking to other people on a support forum and there are some horrendous stories. 

But like I’ve said before I must give credit to those casinos who I believe acted fairly and correctly in recognising the problems and not allowing it to continue. It’s certainly very inconsistent across the board and I’m sure it will continue given the response from the ukgc 

It’s going well for my son, as well he’s got himself another hobby this time earning money in his spare time, he’s also been helping a couple of other people with there addiction and I’m very proud of him for this, I guess only time will tell for him but I hope something changes for the better, in the future and for those who don’t have addiction and enjoy gambling best of luck hope you hit some jackpots!

Best Regards

Tony 

 

[honestdude]

On 9/17/2019 at 1:22 AM, Fiekie247 said:

Sounds to me like a similar scenario at work to be honest.

HR is there for the show and you give you some hope that someone is protecting you, meanwhile they stand with the firm/company itself.

I remember I was in a disciplinary hearing for ''MoonLighting". Now you know in the beginning they want all information so they can ''HELP'' you, while in the meanwhile they stab you in the back and use information against you.

Point I am making - In General:  No matter what situation, industry or the position is - Know that companies/clients will 99% of the time side with their Clients/Business Partners/Employers/Bosses in any event whenever you fight them. This is a FACT in my experience....

 

Anyways  , Back to the topic - Reading the above it sounds to me the Gambling Commision are doing the same. Giving the camouflage or idea that the player knows they are in safe hands with someone on their side fighting for them, meanwhile as Honest Dude said, its just for the Show, but you only realize that they do not perform at the level for what they stand for, when you are involved in an ongoing dispute and its already too late.

I always use this  saying- They (The regulators/gambling commission) try to put wooden glasses on our faces! Oh well some of us see through those Wooden glasses

Thanks Frankie, the  difference though in what you are explaining is of course correct and I agree in my own experience but this is supposed to be a 3rd party without any ties to casinos and working to protect the people they represent in their countries.  Being a government body, this makes it even more alarming. Then again, is there really anything alarming when it comes to this level of corruption ? 

 

 

[Fiekie247]

4 hours ago, honestdude said:

Thanks Frankie, the  difference though in what you are explaining is of course correct and I agree in my own experience but this is supposed to be a 3rd party without any ties to casinos and working to protect the people they represent in their countries.  Being a government body, this makes it even more alarming. Then again, is there really anything alarming when it comes to this level of corruption ? 

 

 

Frankie?

Corruption is everywhere I guess. Doesn't surprise me at all these days.

[pinnit2015]

8 hours ago, honestdude said:

Thanks Frankie, the  difference though in what you are explaining is of course correct and I agree in my own experience but this is supposed to be a 3rd party without any ties to casinos and working to protect the people they represent in their countries.  Being a government body, this makes it even more alarming. Then again, is there really anything alarming when it comes to this level of corruption ? 

What corruption? What level?Can't say I've seen any news headlines of the UKGC being embroiled in this....unless you have evidence to the contrary?

Not their biggest fan but, from a corporate governance point of view, they are wholly transparent both in terms of their funding, complaints and objectives: compared to say Costa Rica, whereby their address on google maps appears to take you to a shanty town. 

You only have to check out their fines to see they aren't that scared of hitting the Big Boys in the pocket - the consistence is the issue.