Frankly, I still have a problem understanding your words, so I'm just guessing now. I do not intend to provide some insufficient reaction, though.
I think I can mention the main problem with the self-exclusion:
a) player requested his/her account to be closed. Casino closes the account. A few days later the same player asks for his account to be reopened. The casino opens the account because the player asked for it.
b) player requested his/her account to be closed due to gambling issues because he/she is unable to control his passion and needs special care. Casino closes the account. A few days later the same player requests his/her account to be opened. The casino does not open the account because the gambling issues were mentioned.
Do I get it correctly you closed your account in some casino and the sister side let you play and deposit?
Furthermore, we see fair that in order to get self-excluded from some "sister" site, the player must inform the sister casino as well. You can not simply think that all casinos owned by the same owner/group share those requests through the group.
Is this the problem you have?
Αυτόματη μετάφραση: