* Our ADR service was only approved on the 14th of January 2016 and as such this report contains details of complaints dealt with between the 14th of January 2016 and 30th of September 2016 under our ADR remit and complaints dealt with between the 1st of January 2016 and the 30th of September out with our ADR remit.
|Domestic Complaints||Cross-Boarder Complaints|
Types of Complaint
The different types of complaint are defined below:
- Bonus – Complaints related to the interpretation or application of promotional terms and conditions.
- Multi-Accounting – The complainant’s account has been associated with other accounts in a manner which breaches operator terms and conditions.
- Payment Delays – Self-explanatory.
- KYC – Issues with the verification of a player’s identity or the complainant’s understanding of what is needed to meet KYC requirements.
- Breakdown in Communications – Complaints where one or both parties has reached an impasse due to either technological breakdown or a failure of one or both parties to comprehend information that could resolve the issue. This also encompasses operators that refuse to discuss complaints and situations where a player becomes non-responsive to our service outside of our ADR remit.
- Gaming Protection – Complaints related to Self-Exclusions.
- Retro-Active Term Enforcements – Complaints where an operator has update terms after a player win and attempts to apply those new terms to justify non-payment of winnings.
- Software Issues – Complaints related to the fairness or integrity of the game software.
|Bonus||Multi-Accounting||Payment Delays||KYC||Breakdown in Communications||Gaming Protection||Retro-Active||Software|
There are 3 common problems that we would highlight to the Gambling Commission that if addressed would significantly reduce the volumes of player complaints received by our service. We will detail these in order of significance with the first being most significant:
- Maximum Bet Restrictions – These restrictions are the #1 source of player complaints. Operators do need to carry these terms to ensure that players cannot gain a significant advantage in any bonus situation. Removal of these restrictions would likely result in bonuses being commercially unsustainable. However it is a relatively trivial issue for the major game or platform providers to build these restrictions into their games so that they are enforced automatically, preventing players from breaching them via accident or oversight. If a player cannot bet over the maximum allowed bet this type of complaint would stop immediately.
- Restricted games – As with 1), if operators prevented players from accessing games that they wished to restrict while the player has a bonus this would significantly reduce complaint volumes. This should be even easier that 1) to implement, with most providers already restricting games providers to specific jurisdictions.
- Self-Exclusion clarifications – If operators were to provide a list of operators within their network (or link to their UKGC license page) that had to be checked at point of sign-up, this would significantly reduce the volume of players claiming that they did not know that a Self-Exclusion at property A also applied at property B.
An example of an operator already implementing this policy can be seen here - https://www.casinoluck.com/Register. It is a check box with a link to the license page explaining that if you’ve self-excluded at any of the listed venues you cannot play with Casino Luck. This practice makes specific effort at point of sign-up to draw the player’s attention to a term that causes a lot of disputes. By notifying the player at sign-up rather than only at point of exclusion you ensure that where new operators are added to a license the player is provided with adequate opportunity to take on board information that may not have been available at the point where they self-excluded.
|Regulatory Issue||No Money Contested||Insufficient Evidence|
* We only decline Self-Exclusion issues under non-ADR remit if they are against a UKGC licensed operator that do not use our ADR service.
Average Time Taken to Resolve Disputes
ADR = 21.5 days
non-ADR = 37.1 days
Compliance with rulings
ADR = 100%
non-ADR = 55.5%
Proportion of complaints ruled in favour of the Consumer/Operator
We only consider a complaint to be ruled in favour of the Consumer if the operator refuses to discuss the complaint, in which case we can only base our ruling on the information provided by the player, or where after discussion with the operator we feel that the player should be paid and the operator refuses to do so. In any case where the discussion results in an agreement that the player should be paid, or a middle ground is reached, we would consider the issue ‘Resolved’ rather than ruled in favour of either party as everybody has ultimately agreed to the decision.
Leave a Reply
You must be
to post a comment.