[CLOSED] Misleading Bellerock terms, DO NOT play there.

[paul02085]

This case is "CLOSED" and the message is clear. Anybody who plays at a Bellerock casino and intends to take the signup bonus needs to hire a lawyer to examine their website before playing there!!! After all they used their lawyers to get out of paying a player, right?

[BBKPoker]

I messaged the Bellerock representative a second time asking specifically when the 100x wagering was added to their terms and conditions and still have not gotten a response from him.

The term that specifically requires 100x wagering definitely did not exist in 2004 as he initially has claimed.

[BBKPoker]

Here is Bellerock's completely unhelpful response:

"Hi BBKPoker,

As an affiliate with Referback I suggest you take this up with your affiliate manager.

Best regards,

John"

Why is it so hard to figure out when this term was added? They should have clear records of each and every modification, especially one that is as impactful as a term that is shortly thereafter cited to confiscate money.

[vinylweatherman]

Originally Posted by BBKPoker

Here is Bellerock's completely unhelpful response:

"Hi BBKPoker,

As an affiliate with Referback I suggest you take this up with your affiliate manager.

Best regards,

John"

Why is it so hard to figure out when this term was added? They should have clear records of each and every modification, especially one that is as impactful as a term that is shortly thereafter cited to confiscate money.

Really

Since when did AFFILIATE MANAGERS become responsible for the management of the casino, and design of their terms and conditions

This looks like a case of the rep wanting to say "I don't know", but in a way that makes us think everything is above board and under control.

This one advantage player has certainly stirred things up alot!

BelleRock should consider how much worse this could have been, say, if this had turned out to have been an innocent "Dolphin", completely caught up in the cross marketing, and not having any real idea of the concepts of "bonus abuse" and "advantage play".

[scrabble73]

Sorry on the delay in my responses. I have not been posting much here because I have been disputing this with Gibraltar directly and making some headway and didn't want to update until I had a more clear picture of what violations of their terms are. I am certain Gibraltar is responsible for finally getting me some clear information about questioning the date the terms were added as many forum members have suggested doing here and via private messaging/emailing me.

Today I received this email:

Hi there XXXXX,

Thank you for emailing Belle Rock Entertainment.

XXXXX, we can confirm that the official change was made in the terms and conditions on the 19th of December 2007, however kindly note the following clause in our terms and conditions at the Casino:

8.1.1. The Casino may, without notice to you, amend, alter, delete, interlineate or add to ("Changes") these Terms and Conditions, the promotion or competition-specific Terms and Conditions or Rules of Play at any time whatsoever.

8.1.2. These Changes shall become effective, and you shall be bound by these Changes, immediately upon their posting on the Casino Website.

8.1.3. You agree to regularly review these Terms and Conditions, promotion or competition-specific Terms and Conditions and the Rules of Play regularly in order to assess whether any Changes have been made.

You are welcome to access the full terms and conditions from the following link:

http://www.jackpotcity.com/casino/en..._Us/terms.aspx

Therefore as the above information, we will not be paying out your winnings as per clause 5.6 in our terms and conditions at the Casino.

5.6. The Casino is a member of the Belle Rock Entertainment (“BRE”) group of online casinos (the “Group”). You may not claim a sign- up bonus at the Casino if (1) prior to opening an Account at the Casino, you have opened an Account at any other online casino within the Group and claimed a sign- up bonus from such other casino and (2) having claimed such sign- up bonus from the other online casino within the Group, wagered such previously claimed sign- up bonus and initial deposit less than 100 times at the online casino granting you such sign- up bonus. Under no circumstances shall you be eligible for more than one sign- up bonus at the Casino even if you are able to open multiple Accounts thereat (in, for example, different currencies or languages). If your Account at the Casino has been credited with a sign- up bonus for which you (in our sole and unfettered discretion) are ineligible, the Casino shall retrospectively void such sign- up bonus and any winnings received by you after the sign- up bonus has been credited to your relevant Accounts.

Your Casino Accounts will also remain locked as per our terms as well and we trust that this information is sufficient.

Should you require any further assistance, please feel free to contact us. We are available 24 hours a day 7 days a week for your convenience.

Kind regards,

Stacey

Senior Customer Service Representative

To respond to the criticisms that because I played in other sites in this group, I should have been aware that the terms existed, please be aware of the following:

In reviewing my Neteller transactions I deposited completed the entire wagering requirements and completed a withdrawal on December 14th and 15th. Two to three days before this term was even added! I was certain this term didn't exist at the time, because although I always play with bonuses as I find them both fun and profitable, I am very careful to review the terms and conditions of a site before playing. I couldn't have been aware of this term because it DIDN'T EXISTat the time I played as I have suspected.

The withdrawal is a lot of money to me, and considering the term not only isn't explicitly stated on their promotions page but didn't even exist at the time of my play, I would expect the casino to do the right thing and pay the remaining balance to me either by cheque or to my Neteller account.

[RobWin]

So can someone please enlighten me as to why this thread was closed as it seems to still be an ongoing issue ?

[maxd]

Originally Posted by RobWin

So can someone please enlighten me as to why this thread was closed as it seems to still be an ongoing issue ?

I don't see that the sarcastic tone is going to help this, do you?

As to your question I should think the reasons are fairly obvious from what's in the thread: player reads and agrees to terms several times in various languages then claims ignorance of terms in English. Based on this the claim would seem disingenuous at best and therefore not something we'd continue to pursue.

Something comes along later that may change the situation? Great, we review the situation and see what we see. That doesn't change the validity of the decision to Close in the first place.

Originally Posted by scrabble73

I couldn't have been aware of this term because it DIDN'T EXISTat the time I played ....

Which specific term(s) are your referring to? If there are dated copies of the terms in most or all the languages you registered in that indicate you could not have known about the clause(s) in question then I would think we'd re-open this case. Compile that information, with URLs to the relevant pre-clause archived pages, and you might be back in business here.

[RobWin]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by maxd

I don't see that the sarcastic tone is going to help this, do you?

Max, buddy you've got to lighten up a bit man...that question I asked was never intended to be a sarcastic remark but just a simple question and for the life of me I don't understand why you took it that way...what's up man ? Go look at that pic I just posted in the Winner Screenshots thread and I guarantee you that will put a smile on your face...

[maxd]

Ok, I thought there were teeth in your question and I didn't see the need for it, mea culpa, my bad.

But seriously, this issue is pretty simple as I see it:

If the player did her thing __before__ the terms excluding her from doing so were published __in any__ of the several languages she signed up in then she couldn't have known, she does indeed have a case, and we'll do what we can to help her.

BUT, if it's a situation of the terms being available on the day in some of the languages but not English then I read it as her saying "what I knew in French/German/whatever I didn't know in English" which is hogwash ... and the case stays Closed.

If we're going to go to bat for the players when they've been wronged then we also have to be willing it do the same for the casinos and that's what I think this is about: "who's the injured party here?" and we proceed accordingly.

[vinylweatherman]

None of this gets over the fact that BelleRock snuck this rule in on an arbitrary mid-month date prior to Christmas, and did nothing to alert players to the change on their main pages that CONTINUE to advertise and cross market all four sign-up bonuses.

It reminds me of Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, where the Vogons told the Earthlings who protested at the imminent demolition with "Well, the plans have been on display at Alpha Centauri for 50 years, if you can't be bothered to keep up to date with local affairs............"

While the OP is clearly an "advantage player", there will be many regular (innocent) players who will get caught out by this sneaky amendment to the terms and conditions.

Even the REP had absolutely NO IDEA when this rule was added, so how the hell can they claim that PLAYERS should be expecte to know when this rule came into effect.

Even now, there is nothing on BelleRock's own sites about this, and only this thread provides a clear warning that this term is currently active, and being enforced.