Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Casinomeister
Sorry to hear of this, but it's clear that you didn't follow the terms and conditions: The new Terms & Conditions took effect on March 31 at midnight; you registered, made your first deposit and claimed your bonus in the evening of April 1. It was your responsibility to read the Terms & Conditions that govern the £200 bonus when you claimed the bonus.
You wagered and won on games that were not to be played with the bonus. It may seem harsh, but that's the way it goes when you play bonus funds on non-playable games. There is no way in hell anyone should be dissing this casino just because they stick by the rules. If they were to say, "okay go ahead - we'll make an exception for you," then everyone and their brother would chime in and say "what about me? I played on the disallowed games as well!" Run a business like that, and you'll be run into the ground.
|
Well that's not really true.
They say " These winnings may be deemed null & void and will be removed/confiscated from your account balance or withdrawals at the sole discretion of Trident Entertainment Group. ". [ if you play the excluded games]
They basically say they can determine whether they will void your winnings *at their discretion*. In this case it seems that the player signed u a few hours after they had changed their terms and conditions, and he was not aware that the site had changed since he read the site. This would seem to me like a good case to use 'discretion', as there are extenuating circumstances. The player behaved honestly, he just erred in not checking the terms again at the time he made the deposit.
This is hardly setting a precedent: the terms had only just been changed, the terms already say the casino will 'use its discretion'.
And to suggest that you will be run into the ground if you don't confiscate people's winnings for playing certain games is absurd: pretty much every other online casino manages without such a term.
To say "There is no way in hell anyone should be dissing this casino just because they stick by the rules." is just wrong. People are entitled to diss the casino for taking the harsh line rather than using 'discretion'. Just the same as people criticise certain banks (e.g., Capital One, MBNA) for being strict with their rules when there are extenuating circumstances, I don't think it's unreasonable to criticise a casino for doing something similar. There are plenty of cases where the business might be in the right, but it makes the decision to go with the customer, and quite rightly those businesses are popular with the public.