thePOGG

We've just published an article article detailing what we feel are serious issues with the manner is which Self-Exclusions are being managed by the SkillOnNet group. This is a result of a complaint where we feel a player has been actively mislead by the information they were provided regarding their exclusion. A subsequent review of the Self-Exclusion tool being offered by this group identified what appears to be an active strategy to encourage users to select the shortest possible exclusion length. You can find full details in the article posted here - https://thepogg.com/skillonnet-responsible-gambling-failures/ - and you can read the complaint report here - https://thepogg.com/complaint/playojo-ignored-permanent-self-exclusion/.

We have passed the above information on to the Gambling Commission for further review.

TP

Sadly we've encountered another issue with the manner in which SkillOnNet are managing their Responsible Gambling policies. This time we appear to have a player that towards the end of last year asked at PlayOjo if they had another account that they had self-excluded on. They were informed that they didn't, the casino suggested that the player consider whether they wanted to self-exclude and they were then allowed to continue playing. Fast forward a few months and the player signs-up an account with MegaCasino and wins mid four figures. They are then informed that they were self-excluded and could not be paid.

We presented this case to MegaCasino who were initially responsive. When we pointed out that retroactively applying an exclusion after a win based on information provided historically that was not deemed at the time they became aware of it to be significant enough to require the exclusion would be an abuse of the Responsible Gambling policies, the MegaCasino team took this away for an internal discussion that lasted several weeks. At the end of this period, after some prompting, we were informed that they would not make any further comment on the issue.

The only conclusion we can draw from the position that the operator has chosen to take at this point in the conversation is that the operator are not prepared to concede the points made. Otherwise, if the above was not an accurate reflection of events as they happened why disengage from the conversation rather than point out the errors in the timeline? Up to that point they had been cooperative with the discussion.

The reality here is that when the player started asking about whether they had previously self-excluded, if it was me responsible for player protection at the operator side, I likely would have imposed a 6 month exclusion just to be sure that the company remained on the right side of the moral line. However, that would have happened at or quickly following the player making that communication. Waiting till the player has had a significant win then going back several months to find information that they player communicated that they should have actioned at the time to justify non-payment of the win is a highly questionable practice in my view.

You can read the complaint here:

https://thepogg.com/complaint/megacasino-non-payment-of-withdrawal/

TP

Hello am I allowed to post about my problem with PlayOJO-AHTIGames (sister sites of SkillonNet) on here? New to this

The reason I am asking I have recieved some new evidence that will help my complaint. Thank you

We don't discuss complaints on the forums so any info you have relevant to a complaint you have submitted should be posted in your complaint thread.

Thanks!

TP

I have thank you TP