The Rank Group claimed they paid me £376,635.33 to justify huge losses yet no supporting data to prove this.
Following my reinstatement in November 2024 after self-exclusion under the SENSE scheme, Grosvenor Casinos (part of the Rank Group) failed to uphold their duty of care. Despite submitting a lawful Subject Access Request (SAR), key records—such as full transaction logs (including GCA/Evri activity), CCTV footage, and affordability or risk assessments—were withheld, inconsistently provided, or redacted. The initial SAR response on 23 April 2025 contained inaccessible data, and a follow-up on 9 May remained incomplete, with concerns of backdated fabrication.
Grosvenor Casinos’ attempt to shift responsibility to GCA/Everi as a third-party operator is invalid. Their staff manually facilitated these transactions on-site, making Grosvenor a joint data controller under Article 26 UK GDPR. My gambling losses exceeded £82,000 in under 90 days—far beyond the £5,000 monthly and £1,000 maximum daily thresholds—with no effective affordability checks or interventions, despite my high-risk profile as a reinstated customer. Reliance on LinkedIn and OSINT to justify affordability fails to meet UK Gambling Commission standards for Enhanced Due Diligence (EDD), which must be documented and evidence-based.
Customer interactions were superficial. In one instance, an unverified £125k–£179k affordability claim was used without source evidence, breaching UKGC Social Responsibility Code 3.4.3. ID checks and transaction monitoring at the cashier desk were inconsistent, particularly for GCA/Evri slips. Initially, the casino denied tracking these, yet later disclosed incomplete records only after escalation, raising authenticity concerns.
They maintain that I cumulatively received over £376,000 in payouts. Again, no transparent or traceable transaction data has been provided to substantiate this figure. In fact, the underlying data directly contradicts these claims, raising serious concerns about data integrity and potential manipulation.
Despite requests for full and unredacted personal data via SAR, key attachments and complete documents have not been provided as of communications received July 15th. The casino maintains they cannot share internal documents, screenshots, or media links – which are essential for understanding decisions made about my account.
There appears to be a systemic and deliberate withholding or restructuring of data under the guise of “trigger protection” or “staff confidentiality”. This approach undermines the spirit and legal obligation of transparency under UK GDPR. The pattern of selective disclosure has significantly eroded any confidence in the authenticity of the SAR materials provided.
Rank claims CCTV no longer exists, no call recordings are held, and no internal correspondence is available—despite extensive on-premises interactions and decisions made about my gambling activity. This blanket absence is troubling.
Beware, they are not shy of advising you escalate to independent adjudicator that is because the casino knows they are disempowered to act. IBAS admitted they cannot help with affordability complaints, hiding behind UKGC guidance that prevents them from ruling against casinos—leaving victims like me with no recourse. The UKGC confirmed they only take regulatory action against operators as and when they identify. Also, they refuse to intervene in individual cases or recover losses, proving their system protects the industry—not players. In their reply, they also state and I quote “your only option would be to consider your own court action” … and this I will do. Needless to say, the industry needs a statutory ombudsman (like Financial Ombudsman for banks).
In summary, complaint handling was delayed and fragmented. Acknowledged on 14 April 2025 after chasing, responses lacked transparency and completeness. Instead of full datasets, I received vague summaries with key fields like transaction reasons and loss values redacted and unredacted without any apology or assurance other data is complete. GCA/Evri facilities were installed and operated by the casino with minimal oversight or ID verification, increasing the ease of overspending. Conversations and monitoring logs relied solely on my verbal self-reporting of financial comfort, with no evidence of independent creditworthiness or affordability verification, contravening duty of care principles. And now, they are proposing a £6,573 partial refund offered as a " gesture," not admission of fault. Someone needs to go undercover to investigate their unscrupulous and underhanded dealings.