Problems with Vegas Red - £1700 confiscated

[sirius]

This was a hidden term many (3+) years ago at these casinos (Swiss and Tropez groups). They are still misleading players in this way by stating two seemingly contradicting terms. This is the exact same problem here: http://mb.winneronline.com/showthread.html?t=5656

Not too long ago (2 years) they were also trying to remove winnings and bonuses for no reason at all. http://mb.winneronline.com/showthread.html?t=14259

[caruso]

Exactly the same issue, same group - larger amounts, about $12,000.

http://mb.winneronline.com/showthread.html?t=22893

[nublet]

So Brian has no leverage here or whats the deal?......is everyone just supposed to settle at this? This is a totally typical case and I'm interested in where it goes from here.

[Casinomeister]

Originally Posted by nublet

So Brian has no leverage here or whats the deal?......is everyone just supposed to settle at this? This is a totally typical case and I'm interested in where it goes from here.

Who are you referring to, me? It's BrYan - when you say Brian I tend to ignore this since that's not my name.

Anyway, I've been reeeaallly busy the past few weeks, and PABs have been dealt with sporadically.

Anyone with a problem concerning Playtech casinos needs to contact them via their disputes section. Unless of course it's a Playtech casino that is listed here. There are nine of them I think.

[caruso]

Originally Posted by nublet

So Brian has no leverage here or whats the deal?......is everyone just supposed to settle at this? This is a totally typical case and I'm interested in where it goes from here.

From the point of strict letter-of-the-law the casino has its ass covered, because the "exclusion" clause is listed. Obviously, the whole thing is specifically engineered to hoodwink even a sharp player into missing it, by listing apparently clear terms on the bonus page, and burying the vital exclusion clause deep in a practically unreadable and seemingly irrelevant "user end agreement". These are shabby, underhand tactics, obviously designed to ensure that anyone taking a bonus at the Tropez group will be unable to cash out a win, otherwise they would simply list the exclusions on the bonus page.

Playtech is basically taking the piss. They know they can do this with impunity because of the weight of affiliates listing all these clip-joints. "Casino Cautions" and Infopowa bulletins can be released, but these are nothing against the weight of the money-hungry, moral-empty affiliates. If you can hook up with casino that's found a neat way to void all winnings on a technicallity, as the Tropez group have, you're going to make a lot of easy cash.

[Pinababy69]

They know they can do this with impunity because of the weight of affiliates listing all these clip-joints. "Casino Cautions" and Infopowa bulletins can be released, but these are nothing against the weight of the money-hungry, moral-empty affiliates.

Excellent point Caruso, and unfortunately very true.

[thelawnet]

Originally Posted by caruso

From the point of strict letter-of-the-law the casino has its ass covered, because the "exclusion" clause is listed. Obviously, the whole thing is specifically engineered to hoodwink even a sharp player into missing it, by listing apparently clear terms on the bonus page, and burying the vital exclusion clause deep in a practically unreadable and seemingly irrelevant "user end agreement". These are shabby, underhand tactics, obviously designed to ensure that anyone taking a bonus at the Tropez group will be unable to cash out a win, otherwise they would simply list the exclusions on the bonus page.

They appear to have added it now, at least on Vegas Red. http://www.vegasred.com/bonus.html

This seems to be an admission that it wasn't fair to confiscate money under the old terms, otherwise they wouldn't have added it.

[caruso]

Yes it would. I hope you still have your screen copy of the old version - you can make a strong case for payment.

[rj314]

I had a conversation with a rep from Casino Partners today, and he said there was no way this was possible. He couldn't find this thread that I pointed him to, so I told him I would bump it.

[thelawnet]

Originally Posted by rj314

I had a conversation with a rep from Casino Partners today, and he said there was no way this was possible. He couldn't find this thread that I pointed him to, so I told him I would bump it.

Just FWIW, I have now been paid. I was contacted by a guy named Elad (no last name given) by telephone, whose email is elad@casinotropez.com

He said he and investigated and agreed with me completely. This was following a complain to Playtech disputes. I had complained before to Playtech about Grand Banks, and also about some silliness by Monaco Gold, and I have found the service in each case to result in full payment of the monies I have been owed. I have never used any other software provider's dispute resolution service, but from my own experience gentle polite (never abuse the casino when they owe you money!) persistence and clear elucidation of why you are right goes a long way in getting a result.

That said in this case I found out after the fact that the particular 'hidden term', which they have now publicised up front in a satisfactory manner was biting people for a long time, two years or more, before they corrected it.

See e.g., http://www.casinomeister.com/forums/...vegas-red.html

It's really difficult to tell what the true face of an organisation is when you cannot get resolution from low-level employees who are often unbending, whether by corporate policy from above or by jobsworth syndrome, as compared to the smoother types like the Elad I spoke to. However, whether they were not enforcing the term for the two years and there was no problem, it does seem like a long time for hiding away 'we can confiscate your money' clauses where the player would not expect to find them.