AHTIGames - refund

Hi kemps1977 - welcome to ThePOGG.com!

I'm afraid GamStop do explicitly state that non-matching email addresses may result in the operator not identifying your account:

"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. "

That being the case if you've used a different email address to sign-up to Ahti Games this would be undermine any claim for a refunds.

I do however want to know what this "waiver" you signed was? How did this come about? At least on this surface this would seem to suggest that the operator were aware that you had an issue.

Thanks,

ThePOGG

Hello thanks for your reply and trying to help me. I did a bit of digging myself and found I was an account holder at PlayOJO.

Here was my email to AHTIGames.

1. For my reference please could you advise me why I was self excluded from your site at the start? Reason I had to sign the disclaimer?

2. After further investication from myself I can now inform you that the only Skill on net account I have had with you is with PlayOJO

This account was self excluded in November 2017. Was this why the disclaimer had to be filled and signed??

Is this why my account was self excluded with you in the first place?

If it is this makes sence now.

If you could confirm this is true I would be greatfull as this was the only casino I was with on your network????

3. Further more into my investications with you and Skill on net i have found out this information.

PlayOJO account-

kemps1977 opened on the 17-11-2017

Registered details

First name - Owen

Surname - Owen

Address - Maesmeredydd Newydd, Rhosybol. Amlwch.

Post Code - LL689RD

DOB - 04091977

Email - [email protected]

Self excluded in November 17 for 6months

And was not reopened by myself

This is the only Account I have had previously with SKILL ON NET.

Is this is the one I had to sign the disclaimer with obviously?? No other accounts where made before AHTIGames Register.

Now funny enough look at the registration details!! So you are telling me your site only picks up on -

First, Surname, Address, Postcode, Email.

As advised by you yourself

But you picked up that I was self excluded on PLAYOJO??

And i needed to sign a disclaimer to reopen my account?

But my account details dont match??

Hold on, the first name doest match and also the registered email doesnt match. How can you let me sign a disclaimer to bypass a self exclusion with another account that details do not match?

Also the registered Email is enrolled with Gamstop 26th April!! How can you let me reopen a new site through AHTIGames??

Now this is wrong, this is why I am claiming my deposits back through AHTIGames.

Now I have a case with you

I got this reply off them.

Dear Xxxxxx

Thank you for your patience while waiting for my reply.

Yes, we can confirm that your account with AhtiGames casino was originally blocked due to your earlier self exclusion from PlayOJO casino.

Please note that rules and methods used to match details registered with GamStop and those that are being used by us internally, should not be compared.

I believe that all your queries regarding your registration with Gamstop have been replied in our previous correspondence. Should you have further queries regarding the list of details that are being checked with GamsStop please contact GamStop directly.

As advised please feel free to file your complaint with eCogra our ADR body.

I wish you a pleasant afternoon

So in general. I am self excluded @ PlayOJO with Gamstop on the 26th June.

AHTIGames (sister site) through SkillonNet have let me register an account. Forwarded me a disclaimer to sign to reopen the self exclusion. But did not look what the SE was. It was Gamstop.

So this new info I have just come across yesterday.

SE with gamstop should affect the whole network.

They didnt have a problem finding a self excluded site with a different name and email address. But when I accuse them of bad practice, the name, email match does not matter.

I have kept all emails, screenshot all important facts via chat etc and have plenty of documents from Gamstop etc and screenshots of my details.

Simba games are a affected Casino also where I deposited £205 (skillonnet)

AHTIGames £900

I tried to sort it amicably and asked for refund on my deposits but they would not, maybe this changes the claim a bit.

Hi kemps1977,

I'm still unclear, exactly when were you asked to sign the waiver? Was this immediately after you registered your account with Ahti Games? The point here is that their asking you to sign a waiver may demonstrate that they were aware of the other self-excluded account. To my knowledge, and I'd need to discuss this with the UKGC, the UK license does not provide operators the right to request players engage waivers to allow them to disregard self-exclusion contracts.

ThePOGG

When I registered. Asked why I couldnt deposit real money as they lt you register to play practice money or something. I have the waiver still, which I filled in with my full name also!!

So Yes!! Immediately after registration. Couldnt deposit. Asked why, they explained i was blocked because of a self exclusion in a sister site. The time of exclusion that I set had passed and to an end . But it was also self excluded via Gamstop which Play OJO has confirmed. Which started on the 26th April, hope this helps

So they picked up on the blocked account, but the details like email didnt match. But knew I was excluded via both accounts but couldnt confirm PlayOJO was excluded by Gamstop apparently??

My gamstop went live on the 26th April 18 approx

I joined AHTI on the 26/27 July 18.

Enough time for the self exclusion with Gamstop to kick in so to speak. I have the document which matches exact details that I regustered with OJO also so no problems there in confirming SE

Just to confirm I used my Nickname “Rich” and a different email when I joined AHTI.

Didnt think at the time as i didnt find out about PlayOJO until yesterday.

But at the time of registration 26th July, they found the account themselfs, didnt notify me of the site, but offered me the waiver.

So bad at explaining these things. Im everywhere lol

Hi kemps1977,

Unfortunately you do not have a case here.

If your self-exclusion at PlayOjo was only 6 months it would have expired on 17th of May. The waiver you were being asked to sign was to confirm that you were taking 'positive action' to gamble with the group again after this exclusion. It's a little bit of overkill on the part of the operator but ensures they cannot be questioned on their responsible gambling practices. This does show that the operator has internally identified both accounts. However this does not mean that their systems would be able to identify your Ahti Games account via external information from GamStop that did not match the details you registered with GamStop.

As there wasn't an active self-exclusion in place there's no grounds to seek a refund on this basis. As the email address you used differed from that which you registered with GamStop there's not grounds to seek a refund on this basis.

Sorry we could not be of further help!

ThePOGG

So does the Fact that a passed self exclusion stays Self excluded in the registered casino for 7 years until it is reopen not mean anything? I mean a casino cannot reopen a still self excluded casino. I got advised that you would have to reopen the self excluded casino in the network before joining. Also a waiver cannot be signed that does not mention the casino in question either?

Ordinary code provision 3.5.4

Self-exclusion – remote ordinary code

All remote licences (including ancillary remote betting licences),

except gaming machine technical, gambling software, host, ancillary remote bingo, ancillary remote casino, remote betting intermediary (trading rooms only) and remote betting (standard) (remote platform) licences

1 Self-exclusion procedures should require individuals to take positive action in order to self-exclude:

a over the internet; this can be a box that must be ticked in order to indicate that they understand the system

b by telephone; this can be a direct question asking whether they understand the system.

2 Before an individual self-excludes, licensees should provide or make available sufficient

information about what the consequences of self-exclusion are.

3 Licensees should encourage the customer to consider extending their self-exclusion to other remote gambling operators currently used by the customer.

4 Within the licensee’s information about self-exclusion policies, the licensee should provide a statement to explain that software is available to prevent an individual computer from accessing gambling internet sites. The licensee should provide a link to a site where further information is available.

5 Licensees should take all reasonable steps to ensure that:

a the minimum self-exclusion period offered is of a duration of not less than 6 nor more

than 12 months;

b any self-exclusion may, on request, be extended for one or more further periods of at

least 6 months;

c the self-exclusion arrangements give customers the option of selecting a self-exclusion

period of up to at least five years;

d a customer who has decided to enter a self-exclusion agreement is given the opportunity to do so immediately without any cooling-off period. However, if the customer wishes to consider the self-exclusion further (for example to discuss with problem gambling groups) the customer may return at a later date to enter into self-exclusion;

e at the end of the period chosen by the customer, self-exclusion remains in place, for a minimum of 7 years, unless the customer takes positive action to gamble again;

f where a customer chooses not to renew, and makes a positive request to begin

gambling again, during the 7 year period following the end of their initial self-exclusion, the customer is given one day to cool off before being allowed to access gambling facilities. Contact must be made via phone or in person; re-registering online is not sufficient; and

g notwithstanding the expiry of the period of self-exclusion chosen by a customer, no marketing material should be sent to them unless and until they have asked for or agreed to accept such material.

6 The licensee should retain the records relating to a self-exclusion agreement for as long as is needed to enable the self-exclusion procedures set out in paragraph 5 above to beimplemented.

7 Please note that the Commission does not require the licensee to carry out any particular assessment or make any judgement as to whether the previously self-excluded individual should again be permitted access to gambling. The requirement to take positive action in person or over the phone is purely to a) check that the customer has considered the decision to access gambling again and allow them to consider the implications; and b) implement the one day cooling-off period and explain why this has been put in place.

Point 5 - e and f??

Also looking at the waiver I still have, I have fill this in with my Full Name. Also it does not mention reopening of any accounts that are self excluded? I didnt know I had any tbh. It was only recently I found about the PlayOJO account as I wasnt happy about it.

AHTI games made me sign this waiver. It doesnt match the named account holder. Especially if they say the name registered does not match the Gamstop Registration. So if it doesnt match one way, how does it the other.

Ive sent the waiver in for you too see it.

Please note. No mention about self excluded sites, i just thought it was a document that protected them and asked if I owed them money.

Its only recently ive delved into this SE and Responsible Gambling lark tbh

Hi kemps1977,

As covered in your other complaint, self-exclusions are extended until the account holder "makes a positive request to begin gambling again". Registering a new account on the network would be consider to be a request to begin gambling again. By filling out the registration form you are asking the operator to allow you to play with them. The request does not need to be made to the same site that the self-exclusion was registered on as long as the sites are on the same license.

The waiver was filled out by you. They can confirm the match with your account manually because the document comes from your registered email address and is close enough to your registered details that a person can confirm a match.

GamStop integration functions on an automated basis. As the details you registered at Ahti did not match those registered at GamStop the system will not have detected your account.

One is an internal manual process the other is an automated system not capable of detecting matches that aren't of an exact nature.

ThePOGG

Ok understand. If you could leave approaching them if you could. But im glad you have explained stuff

Hi kemps1977,

That's not a problem. I'm sorry I couldn't have given you happier news.

ThePOGG

Quick question mate. As they matched the self exclusion via PLAY OJO. Shouldnt they, as an operator and through there licence do a check on the account that they found before they let a user reopen a account? Just incase of an exclusion somewhere else...its really bad practice tbh and tbf it leaves a loophole for self excluded users to open accounts, even with gamstop!!

Just a thought thats all

Hi kemps1977,

In short no. No regulator requires operators to take the actions you're suggesting.

This operator has identified from their own systems that you previously had an excluded account, that the exclusion had expired and they actually went further than is standard or required practice to confirm with you - via the waiver - that you wanted to play again. Operators work on the assumption that if you've registered an exclusion with GamStop you will ensure that either GamStop is provided with all your information or that you will keep this information up-to-date if you do change details. The GamStop system is specifically intended to be automated to ensure that the workload created is manageable. Expecting operators to check every expired self-exclusion against an external database to see if they can locate any potential information mis-matches would create more than a reasonable workload and if the UKGC expected operators to engage this practice they would have defined this in the license by this point.

Thanks,

ThePOGG

Ok mate. I have recenctly found, when searching through stuff a confirmation that my account via PlayOJO was permanently self excluded. I have asked PlayOJO to confirm this is correct. But not had anything back as of yet??

Thoughts?

Hi kemps1977,

While the maximum length of self-exclusion that any operator is required to offer is 5 years, if either your previous self-exclusion had not expired or you have been informed that your self-exclusion was "permanent" this would fundamentally change the dynamic of this case.

What makes you believe your self-exclusion was permanent?

Thanks,

ThePOGG

Because this was the time I started to reject gambling. Alot of sites where I gambled where also SE permanetly.

PlayOJO are not willing to confirm the email, nor send me a hard copy. Which by rights I am 100 % allowed to ask for and recieve.

Hi kemps1977,

As stated above, no UK licensed operator is required to offer permanent exclusion. Some do but not many. I know from previous experience that the automated self-exclusion tool offered by the Skill-On-Net group does not offer permanent as an option. Most operators when asked for a permanent exclusion will engage a discussion to inform the user of what a self-exclusion is and what options are available.

Without a written record of them confirming that you'd been permanently excluded I'm afraid this claim simply would not be viable. As such you need to look through your communications with the operator. I can state as effective certainty that this operator will not share your communication records with us given our previous interactions with them. If you cannot find this record within your own email I would suggest firstly asking the operator nicely to hand over all communication records and if they refuse issuing a Subject Access Request under the Freedom of Information Act. If you can find confirmation that your exclusion was permanent we would have something to work with.

Thanks,

ThePOGG

Hi mate, im in process of getting the EMAIL off playOJO.

All information that conserns me should be readily available for me to access. I know 100% the emails says my account is SE permanetly, and oviously that means forever?

Or dont they use the term PERMANETLY in the same context?

This is What the email reads.....

“You have chosen to exclude yourself PERMANENTLY from making any futher deposits or real money bets. You may still log into your account, make withdrawals and view your account details.

Please note your self-exclusion will also apply on other sites sharing the same licence.”

Hi kemps1977,

Can you please forward this email on to [email protected].

Thanks,

ThePOGG

Email sent on another subject about PLAYOJO SE

Hi kemps1977,

No, your self-exclusion is with the license holder. The email may be phrased in a manner which suggest that PlayOjo make the decision regarding your exclusion, but as they are not the license holder, simply a sub-license, they do not have any authority to make any decision what-so-ever with regard to excluded accounts.

Thanks,

ThePOGG

Hi mate.

Ive reported these to the UKGC. I believe that they are preying on the vulnerable gambler also like I mentioned in another thread.

Asking for a self exclusion should be a full term not a short but sweet SE that you can come and reopen in 5 mins.

I dont think its fair if im being honest, there protocol stinks in my opinion and there T&Cs obviously need a tweek as if it says “only we can re-open an account with us” thats how it should be.

If it said if you want to re-open your account, just contact us or any site connected to the SKILL ON NET network.

Much more clear.

Hi kemps1977,

I'm afraid the wording in this instance is irrelevant. You were trying to open an account with another operator on the same license. Your intent clearly was to gambling again. Whether the request was made to PlayOjo or another SkillOnNet operator really makes no difference other than as a technicality on which you are looking to argue for the return of funds. Had you been asked at point of registration 'you are self-excluded with PlayOjo, are you sure you want to register here?' it is highly unlikely that you would have ended up changing your mind on this basis as this would be contrary to the intent of trying to register in the first instance. If you'd been told you had to go to PlayOjo to lift your self-exclusion first the chances are you would simply have switched over to PlayOjo to request your exclusion be lifted, where you would have dealt with exactly the same support staff. The Difference is only on the url displayed in the browser address bar, nothing else changes.

If you can provide the email where you were told your exclusion was permanent we'll take a look at it. That could make a difference to this case.

Thanks,

ThePOGG

Hi The Pogg

I recieved this email off PLAYOJO.

Well this wording....

Regarding your other email, I'm sure you'll be advised by your solicitor however please be aware that a self exclusion is not related to a specific brand, its related to the license. It's a 'self' exclusion, meaning that you have excluded yourself'.

It is not possible to be self excluded on one of the brands of the license and not on another, and similarly it is not possible to de-active a self exclusion on one brand and for it to remain in place on another brand. If we allowed it we would be allowing you to play on our license while you have an active 'Self' Exclusion and that is against the regulations.

As I was SE fully with Gamstop. Via PLAYOJO. Doesnt this mean something?

Sorry If I sound like a bad loser, but I was in a bad place at the time. But can you explain that this means exactly what I think it means?

Hi kemps1977,

We've already covered your GamStop exclusion above. Your GamStop account was registered under a different email address. By GamStop terms this means that the exclusion may not work. So you weren't "fully" self-excluded with GamStop as you had not provided them with all the information they need to cover the account you registered.

ThePOGG

No worries, just sent you what PLAYOJO sent me mate....was just wondering what the reason they sent it to me for

If there is no more you can do you may close this complaint. Ive reported them to the GC. Had reply etc and they are looking into it. Other than that no refund will be considered. They are not willing to do a SAR accross the licence either.

Thanks anyway

Hi kemps1977,

Their compliance with a SAR is not an option. They have to comply with a SAR. If they are saying that they will not do this "across the license", this could be construed and obstruction, but the easy solution to this would be to submit a SAR to each operator individually. If they are still not cooperative you should be reporting them to the Information Commissioner's Office as this is out of line with EU and UK laws.

Thanks,

ThePOGG

Hi The Pogg, thanks for your reply.

I will take up on your reply and go back to them. Thank you for your help

Hi kemps1977,

Did you manage to get the emails from AhtiGames?

Thanks,

ThePOGG

Hi thePOGG

No I didnt, they stopped answering me when I used resolver. All I recieved was my registration details and Deposits etc. They were not very talkative after that

Hi kemps1977,

Have you placed a freedom of information request?

Thanks,

ThePOGG

Hi kemps1977,

I'm following-up on the above?

Thanks,

ThePOGG

Hi The POGG

I have now yes, just waiting on reply mate

Hi kemps1977,

Did you receive your email communications with this operator as part of your SAR?

Thanks,

ThePOGG

None. Im in contact with the ICO at the moment. The operator has stopped all contact and not willing to help. Also the Licencee of AHTIgames have not answered any emails, and have phoned them also.

Thank you

Tbh i have given up on this.

Hi kemps1977,

Can you forward the emails you've sent to the ICO regarding this issue to [email protected]>? There is nothing further we can do to help, but I would like to highlight that this group have failed to respond to a SAR request as that's fairly serious behaviour.

Thanks,

ThePOGG