Безпечні азартні ігри Ladbrokes Coral (Сторінка 2)

What’s also a bit worrying is that there’s only 6 complaints been raised against Ladcrooks.

I mean ok I’m concerned that it’s very low but maybe it’s the case 🤷‍♂️. However of those 6 not one has been found in the players favour and you’ve sided with them everytime 🤔….

are casino guru part of Entain group?

This is not at all about taking sides. But if our team has assessed that you don't have enough evidence, then I won't grant a reopen, because it would end the same way. It's important to remember that, as it was explained to you, just because you're SE from one casino in a group doesn't mean that you'll be SE in the sister casinos as well. It has to be explicitly written that this is the case. However, it is common that some players manage to reopen their accounts even though they are SE, which should not be the norm, but sometimes the casinos notice this thing later, which I don't really understand. 😕

It is important to note that user reviews that have a complaint closed are resolved on the basis of the outcome of the complaint. I think this is a quite logical procedure and casinos have nothing to do with it, whether we approve or reject it. 

I looked at some of the complaints and two of them were closed as unresolved, which is basically in the player's favour, as the casino got some black points for that as well. In the other one the player didn't respond, so I don't know how you imagine it would be closed in his favor. And in the others, you have to look at the reasons why the complaints were evaluated as they were. If the player doesn't follow the rules, then it's hard to evaluate cases in a way that we can try to help. If you had a casino and someone wanted to bend your rules or not play fair, would you also want to pay them ? 

Thanks Jaro.

ok so I provided the following evidence which hasn’t been acknowledged "The Entain group operate under a single licence and all the brands use the same licence. Under LCCP 3.5.3 it makes no reference to "sites or labels" it purely states licenses and customers. That said, at the point that I self excluded with Foxy that should have applied to all brands under that licence"

so I SE from foxy bingo last year as I’ve said, when I did this they also applied that to "foxy games" too which I didn’t request. Now if Entain will close linked sister casinos in that instance then how can they pick and choose when rules suit.

I know you’ll say "they are both under the same foxy name" and likely rely on that as justification but they are effectively different operators so the explanation doesn’t work. Foxys are under the same licence number as Ladbrokes and the rest of their casinos so the process doesn’t work

3 of the 6 are unjustified complaints

2 player stopped responding

last one seems to have been found in casinos favour.

with respect if the complaints closed unresolved then I can’t see how it’s in the players favour.

But I disagree with the complaint being closed and the outcome. I don’t feel it’s investigated at all.

it’s not right that my review of that casino is based on a complaint which I disagree with. You’re not allowing a negative review which is wrong Jaro

If I may add my point of view, and I'm really sorry to say that: only consider this a granted procedure if it is specifically written in the terms and conditions. Otherwise, such complex exclusion is not granted.

Thus, here comes this explanation, which, in my opinion, makes sense:

"Moreover, we would like to take this opportunity to clarify that there is no available information on the Ladbrokes casino website indicating that self-excluding from one casino will automatically result in self-exclusion from other casinos under the same owner."

Frankly, it seems you were assuming the industry works quite differently when it comes to this kind of self-exclusion. Yet the rules matter in this case.

I'd say the logic behind this is that unresolved complaints mean black points for the casino, black points affect the safety index, which, as a result, will be lowered eventually.

But I understand it's not pretty obvious. Especially considered from the complaining player's perspective.

To give this whole situation another input, I checked the reviews too.

"Twice fined for safer gambling breaches by Gambling Commission and I’ve been subjected to foul practices relating to self exclusion. Refuse to speak to me and resolve any issue. Avoid them"

Definitely in relation to your rejected complaint.

"ALLOW SELF EXCLUDED PLAYERS TO REGISTER

DONT DEAL WITH COMPLAINTS/PROBLEMS

PROFITS OVER PEOPLE

T&Cs RIDDLED WITH LOOPHOLES"

The very same association with your rejected complaint

"Be aware that Ladbrokes will let you register an account with them even if you are self excluded at another brand under the Entain Group. If you are vulnerable in this way they will exploit you!"

The same

"Avoid this casino they are very unsafe and will not protect you"

Hardly objective based on your rejected complaint

"I would not recommend this casino to anyone. Many problems with them "

Literally no value, I'm sorry.

I'm more than convinced your reviews are not reviews at all, just another addition to your rejected complaint. Under such circumstances, I think the casino does not deserve to be punished.

Please, try to understand that we have no reason to treat players unfairly, hence, we also try to remain fair even when it comes to the casinos.

Try to get your complaint reopened if you still feel it's worth it, though I would consider Jaro's opinion.

Simply put, if you don't have anything new in your hands, please, don't expect a different ending.

The rules state below: LICENCEES must take steps, LICENCEES must close any customer account, LICENCEES must ensure that individuals who are SE cannot gain access to gambling

now that’s clear, the licencee is Entain, or if not then as all groups operate on the same licence, they have responsibility for any brand under the licence?

"Licensees must take steps to remove the name and details of a self-excluded individual from any marketing databases used by the company or group" - LICENCEES - COMPANY OR GROUP….. so again this isn’t "casino" it’s the company or group they are under??

Reviews wise - ok they are factual based on my experience and my views on things . They aren’t lies or vexatious at all, while it might not add value it will make vulnerable people aware of the risks? They’ve not addressed my complaint, will not speak to me and have shown no support.

based on the below out of the LCCP 3.5.3 rules I think I’ve got a justified argument and you should put that on the casino

I referred to the casino's terms. Not UKGC.

And there is another point to consider:

"Our findings reveal that in 2020, the account was closed under normal circumstances, and not as a result of any self-exclusion related to gambling addiction."

But as I said, if you feel you have something worth re-investigating, ask for the complaint to be opened again. then you shall see.

In my opinion, there is nothing else we can explain here on the forum. 🤷‍♀️

But the casinos have to comply with the UKGC rules, they can’t set their own rules lower that the regulators standards?

your findings reveal the account was closed normally not under SE, how did you confirm that point please? If it’s simply Ladbrokes answer to a question then it’s hardly proof as they are not going to confirm it was self excluded as they’d be liable!

Yes I do feel it’s worth investigating however you fail to see my view. Ladbrokes have to meet UKGC rules and it’s clear that they haven’t .

It is the same approach used in the complaint. We are not here to consider legal bases, instead, we approach both complaints and user reviews based on our Fair Gambling Codex. Fairness is our point of view.

I'm sorry to say that, but I don't agree with you when it comes to user reviews. Based on the complaint's outcome, the Team has not found any unfair behavior on the casino's site.

As a result, your "warnings" posted in the reviews are already visible on the forum. Sadly, since your opinions and experiences have not convinced the Team your complaint should end differently, I'd say it's not fair to approve the same opinions in a review. Moreover, the user feedback has no impact on the casino's safety index, which demonstrates the efforts taken to keep this rating unbiased.

I believe all has been explained, still, feel free to reopen your complaint. From my side, this is the end of it, here on the forum. There is nothing else to add because we are not handling player's complaints. For further details, try the reopening.

I'm sorry, I can't help you with that, though.

So it’s about what’s fair, rather than following the rules they are governed by? Or is it because they’ve not broken or bent their own rules that they’ve acted fairly? The fact that the rules of the UKGC have been breached doesn’t matter?

it’s not a legal position my argument at all, it’s a failing of following the rules and safer gambling procedures. If you feel their actions are fair and that they can let known self excluded players register then I’m sorry you’re wrong. It’s morally wrong and they’ve failed!!

I will forget the review, it seems you are highly protective over them getting a negative review and won’t let this be done. I suspect that it’s an avenue you don’t want to investigate given that the legal consequences on Ladbrokes being found guilty a third time leaves you in a very difficult position and so it’s not something you will get involved in and state anything on for fear of consequences.

you’ve made it quite clear that I can’t review based on my opinions and I can effectively on review on your complaint outcome. You aren’t getting involved in safe/responsible gambling issues and I can’t comment on similar points. I think the situation speaks for itself really and it seems you are told what you can investigate.

i had a complaint previously with gossip slots which was closed in the casinos favour by you, I was allowed to leave an awful factual review on them tho. Not in line with what you are telling me now

This concern is exactly the reason why I would like you to try to have this complaint reopened. We are not lawyers, so we focus on fairness because this optic is not limited to certain countries and their different laws.

Frankly, for the very same reason, I can hardly provide any other insight to you. It's not like I don't understand your point, because I do. Sadly, there is little I can do to help you out, in this situation.

In our optics, if a player wishes to self-exclude in a casino, he should inform the concrete casino, stating the reason. Under such a circumstance, there would be no doubts as to whether the account was or was not closed, direct contact is important. Players are about to receive direct confirmation too. This is the safer gambling procedure, I'd say.

In fairness I’ve tried to have it opened and it’s your team that’s rejecting it.

Feels very hypocritical that you’re saying "try and have the complaint reopened" and that you can understand my point yet sadly there’s little you can do to help me out. Probably confirms my thoughts in that statement, you probably morally agree with me but sadly you can’t do anything to help me.

in terms of self exclusion, I am 99.9% sure in 2020 I self excluded, they say not, I can’t prove it so their statement is accepted

Sadly, I'm not part of the Complaint Team, hence, I'm not familiar with events happening outside the forum. You should have told me you had tried. I didn't know. 

If you can't prove you were excluded back then, what should we tell the casino representative when he says you were not?

I'm truly sorry, I already said there is nothing I can do.

Ok Radka no problem, I’d mentioned earlier in the thread that was all so assumed you’d have seen this already.

Ive asked again to have it reopened and stressed the information I provided to you and also put a note on to say you agree and feel it should be reopened so I’ll await their review.

I wouldn’t expect that just because the casino rep says something that you’d just accept it without any proof as they can tell you anything at all. If you aren’t going to seek proof or put forward what the other party’s said then there’s really no point in investigating.

Obviously the account I believe was SE and they say wasn’t, conveniently they couldn’t just reopen and I was made to open a new one with no traces or links back to the previous one. If the old account had simply been closed as they say then it would be a simple process to just reopen that one wouldn’t it?

I’ve my own views on the reasons