Ladbrokes Coral Safe Gambling

So in 2019 Ladbrokes Coral got fined for failings in money laundering and safer gambling.

2022 they were hit with a record fine for falling foul of the rules for a second time and not making gambling safer and crime free.

They had additional licence conditions imposed on them and an improvement plan was put into place which should have prevented any repeats of the serious failings that had been carried out by them.

I have recently been victim to a self exclusion breach my Ladbrokes (no process circumvented and same details used) where they allowed registration of a new account when they had just confirmed on live chat that I was self excluded so my old account would not be opened and I should register a new one, They also confirmed I was SE at another firm which is within their group.

When I looked into this, when I SE from the foxy brand last year, the account closure should have been applied across their entire Entain Group but wasn’t.

In 2020 I then discover that I had an account with BETDAQ (part of the Ladbrokes Group at the time) who had contacted me to say that an account issue had meant that I had been allowed to deposit more than I should have and so were issuing me a refund. Came out the blue but was obviously a welcomed gesture.

I outline to the agent by email that I have problems, gamble too much, too often and have an addiction. This prompts him to close the BETDAQ account instant due to the concerns he had. If he had such serious concerns, would it be reasonable to assume he should have applied the action to the other brands within the group?

I then state that the deposit limits should be a cumulative amount across the whole group rather than individual limits for each site. Obviously this would limit depositing limits and I confirmed that this process is in place at other groups. I specifically list "your sister companies which include gala spins, gala bingo, gala casino and coral". The agent confirms my email was passed to the compliance team who would come back to me in due course. They did not respond to my point raised related to safer gambling.

My question being, if BETDAQ in 2020 and or Foxy in 2023 had acted on the information available to them (in knowledge of a vulnerable addicted Customer) under safe gambling is it the case that the SE should have been applied to all accounts under the same group. If the information is available on the system so much so that they can confirm SE are active at sister casinos, my understanding is that it should be applied across their entire brands.

I have SE with other groups previously and that has always seen that the exclusion has carried over their entire group so I believe it is what should happen.

When Ladbrokes Coral were fined in 2022 this would have been for safer gambling failings likely taking place in 2020 when they failed to act on my comments and protect me.

Allowing a known vulnerable and self excluded customer (in fact instructing me to) to open an account can only be a failing under safer gambling. When I’ve put the matter to Ladbrokes they haven’t commented on the matter at all, seems that they are under instructions to avoid any complaints made that relate to safe gambling to avoid the possibility of anyone admitting any from doing on Ladbrokes part and leaving them exposed again.

In terms of their clear failings to me in 2020, 2023 and 2024 and them being fined and likely having to compensate any affected customers, is there a way that I can make a claim against their misconduct in 2020 breaching safer gambling, and seek compensation for any deposits that I have been allowed to make from the point of the account closure up to the point of being self excluded from the Entain group this week. Would I have case to be compensated using the court case in 2020 as a basis for being refunded for all deposits made to any company under the group?

Hi, you wrote quite a busy post. Also, I'm sorry to hear about your negative experience with Ladbrokes Casino. Please allow me to ask you a few questions to make sure I understand your situation completely.

Have you tried to inform the UK Gambling Commission about your wish to self-exclude from all the casinos licensed in the UK? Moreover, have you already self-excluded yourself from GAMSTOP?

Some casinos do it in such a way that when you SE, it also affects casinos from the whole group. Sometimes it's not like that and you could register to a sister casino, so it's different.

Anyway, I saw that you have submitted a complaint about this problem, so I hope that our team will be able to help you in your situation. 

If you have any new information, please let us know and I hope that we will be able to resolve everything in a fair way. 

I will keep my fingers crossed for you. 🤞

Hi Jaro

Apologies I know it’s busy but I really needed to capture the details. Appreciate people do lose interest in long threads tho and that’s why replies tend to be lower.

So yes I’ve SE now so all covered.

You’ll have seen the decision came back on the complaint and to say I’m disappointed is an understatement, I’ve asked for it to be reopen. While I understand it’s an area ridden with corruption and some companies like Ladcrooks taking a non moral view and abusing any loopholes as much as possible within any rules.

Clear that the "safe gambling is very important to us" is just smoke and mirrors and actually means nothing, people over profits it seems.

My understanding was that any companies operating under the same licence and sharing customer information across their group brands and therefore having access to player data, should apply all restrictions across the brands that are under that particular license.

I can imagine that if a player was banned by one brand in the group for "breaching rules or abusing playing patterns" for eg, that would be applied by them in that instance, or abused by them at the time that player went to withdraw from from another brand - sorry unfortunately we are suspending your account due to a breach of the rules at another operator.

Absolutely lawless it seems and free to abuse the rules, customers and regulators.

Do you have a trial bonus active?

How is

Yes I understand that you thought that if a casino under the same owner and with the same license and therefore sister casinos since they have all the information, they could SE you. 

However, as I also mentioned in my previous post, this is not a rule and I would always look for such information to be explicitly stated somewhere. Or I would ask support how it is if I didn't find anything. Because exactly in such cases if it is not written anywhere they are not obliged to SE you from other casinos and you have to ask for it. 

I'm sorry that it turned out this way, but one always learns at least a useful lesson from such situations. It's a pity that more couldn't have been done. 🙁

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. The agents obviously have full visibility of the customer data across all brands under the licence so they should utilise and apply it across all accounts.

Are you guys paid by ladcrooks? You’ve rejected a complaint against them which doesn’t justify their actions. I’ve reopened it with evidence fe and 3 days later it’s still being reviewed.

ive written 2 reviews on ladcrooks, neither were offensive or rude and they were factual reviews and you rejected both

something doesn’t sit right here!!

We are definitely not getting paid by any casino, especially not getting paid to reject any of the complaints. Veronika from our team has explained the reason for rejecting your complaint: "We have conducted a comprehensive investigation into your inquiry regarding the closure of your Ladbrokes account. 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.

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. Therefore, if you did not request Ladbrokes to self-exclude you due to gambling addiction, we are unable to assist you in obtaining any refunds.

Due to the aforementioned reasons, this complaint will now be rejected. Thank you for your understanding, I am sorry we could not be of more help on this occasion. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you run into any issues with this or any other casino in the future."

Sorry, when exactly have you reopened the complaint? I can not see it anywhere, actually.🤷‍♀️

And also to explain why your reviews have been rejected, as we sent it to you in emails, already. It is simply because they were related to your complaint, which was rejected and the explanation is written above.

If you feel, that you have some kind of new evidence, please try to reopen your case again. Thank you.

Hi romi

see picture confirming that the complaint was asked to be reopen 🤷‍♂️

last year I self excluded from foxy who are under the Entain label. These operate under the same licence number as Ladbrokes and share the same customer database. This allowed Ladbrokes to confirm in writing that they could see a self exclusion at a sister site so it is reasonable to expect them not to allow (let alone advice) a self excluded customer?

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. The agents obviously have full visibility of the customer data across all brands under the licence so they should utilise and apply it across all accounts.

The reviews weren’t linked to the complaint they were factual based on my experience. This evidence shows that even though they know someone is self excluded and vulnerable, and they should therefore have a duty to protect, their agents are happy to instruct people to open accounts with them!

Thank you for your post. I will check that with our complaint team, and inform you as soon I find out. Can you tell me the date, when you have requested to reopen the case, please?

It was either the day it closed or the following day I reopened it. I also emailed Veronika to advice her so she was aware of it all

So it seems that all is well, though it may take some time to consider the reopening.

Please give the Team some time. 🙏

In my opinion, though, the screenshot also says, "Can't see that you ever had one with Ladbrokes.."

I would not personally take that as ultimate evidence, so this explanation feels appropriate to me:

"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. Therefore, if you did not request Ladbrokes to self-exclude you due to gambling addiction, we are unable to assist you in obtaining any refunds."

One way or another, I'm sure you will be notified regarding the reopening.

Thanks Radka.

their statement "I can’t see you’ve ever had one with Ladbrokes" is not really clear confirmation of anything, it’s more of a vague statement.

my belief is that I SE from Ladbrokes in 2020, and I’m reliant on their "good nature" to be able to prove that. I’m not privy to that info and obviously if it did show a self exclusion it’s not something they are going to want to publicise is it?

Now since the account was closed with Ladbrokes I’ve never receive any emails or marketing info from them. This would support my case that I SE from them too, it’s something I’m going to struggle to prove and they are going to try and hide.

again tho the rules confirm that multi brand operators should be applying restrictions across their entire licensed operators, so when I self excluded with foxy that should have carried to all other brands under 52743. In the scenario that someone won (I’ve read this has happened) they have refused to pay out due to SE with other brands so feels very much that the rules are applied and manipulated as they want!

I see where you're going with this, and it's possible that something exactly like you say could happen if the player wins, but it's just conjecture. So let's see about the reopen, how it will turn out and as it was said you will be informed about it. 

Maybe so but I’ve read examples where this has happened so I know it’s prevalent within some operators!

happily let you register and deposit but then manipulate the rules where they can to stop having to pay out!

same licence same operator same customer database.

in terms of reopening, why is it still not reopened yet and when is it likely to be looked at

That's why it's always good to have some evidence, and if a casino bends its own rules, we try to look at everything fairly to avoid similar situations, although it's not always possible. 

As for the reopening, have you applied for it yet ? 

I’ve evidence to show this, I can show that a sister casino who operates under the same licence as the other brand, condones a self excluded player to register a new account with them.

a player who’s previously closed his account with them and suggested he felt this was as he had self excluded. The players also self excluded at a sister casino and they did no checks or discuss anything with him and just let him open a new account.

So they refuse to reopen the complaint as the evidence I’ve provided isn’t good enough. I’m astounded honestly at your lack of interest in this issue. If I’m honest it feels the casino have a hold over you and you therefore won’t investigate this operator and side with any customer.

Quick query, I keep getting my review rejected. See below… it’s factual, correct and truthful but you won’t allow this. Can you see why I feel the casino has a hold over you!

So you’ve rejected my review again which was not at all linked to my complaint?

You can’t reject an honest review when it’s a reflection of my experience with the casino. You’ve provided me no evidence as to why you’ve rejected my appeal and shouldn’t prevent freedom of speech when people provide an honest view on a casino.

it’s my honest summary on how I’ve been treated by them and unless they are paying you to keep these things quiet then I should be allowed to provide a review!!