Casinos

Casinos By Status

Popular Filters

By Banking Options

Games

All Games

Bonuses

Popular Bonus Filters

Forums

Popular Forums

Forum User Features

Complaints

Submit A Complaint (PAB)

PAB Rules and Guidelines

Browse PABs

Gambling News

Popular News Sections

About Us

About Us

Resolved 32Red vs Joseph3 - expensive mistake

Status
Not open for further replies.
Playwithrob said:
Yes. But the FACT is that the OP didn't just get given the extra 'free' £1000 bonus, he managed to wager a very challenging 30 times wager attached to it. It's very tough to make a win from this -EV situation.

It's nothing like he just got given this as cash as such, but he has almost 'earnt' the bonus funds through fulfilling the wagering requirement.
Click to expand...

So you mean that if someone is lucky, then they should get rewarded for it? Please;)

Hard work playing slots...
 
Read the full 32Red casino review
32Red is a well-established online casino reviewed by Casinomeister
If interested, check out the "Big Bankroll Bonus" offer for yourself:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.


The OP said he noticed the bonus he received for his 1000 deposit was 200% (2000), not 100% (1000) as shown in the offer. Further, OP just figured 32Red gave him 200% because that was what 32Red wanted to give him.

OP began play with the 2000 bonus even though it would have been easy to go on chat to verify the 200% bonus he received was correct.

Is there any question in your mind that this bonus was 100% up to 1000? If you received twice the bonus you were expecting would you check it out before you began play?

IMO this is the crux of this dispute which basically boils down to honesty vs greed. Just my take.
 
The second the bonus was added to the account and the player began wagering the contract was formed. Does anyone think 32 red would have given the deposit back had the op lost?
 
Saw a 32Red advert on TV this week other - it specifically mentions Casinomeister by name as it cites the "Casino of the Decade". How embarrassing/damaging for them a thread such as this on their biggest endorsement vehicle.

I just don't get why you would make a decision to offer such an EV negative offer as an alternative to paying the player - in fact this would go AGAINST them they went to court as further evidence of unreasonable/sharp practise. Surely they have a inhouse PR/legal team that could come up with something better than that.

Still, as I said previously I strongly predict the OP will get paid a reasonable sum for this without recourse.
 
@ suzecat this is the 7th paragraph of OPs 1st post
Joseph3 said:
My argument is, why am I being penalised for their 'mistake'? Surely it's down to them to credit the correct bonus? Also, how was I supposed to know the bonus was incorrect? I've signed up to a few casinos and a lot of the time live chat just give you whatever bonus they give you. Based on 32Red's logic, no casino would ever have to pay out players who win with a bonus, they could just claim it was a 'mistake' and take your winnings. It's absurd.
Click to expand...

suzecat said:
The OP said he noticed the bonus he received for his 1000 deposit was 200% (2000), not 100% (1000) as shown in the offer. Further, OP just figured 32Red gave him 200% because that was what 32Red wanted to give him.
Click to expand...

I can't see where OP says that he knew the 200% bonus was a mistake.
 
petro said:
Can you quote OP?
Click to expand...

I don't think the OP ever actually states that he knew what the bonus was.

PaaskeDKnowUK said:
But on other hand you did accept a bonus which was incorrect and should had acted honestly here. Why would you not had asked them you have just credited me £2000 bonus it should only be £1000?
Click to expand...

Since he keeps ignoring questions like this from the beginning, I seriously question his honesty in this matter.
IMO his dishonesty should not be rewarded. He should not be paid and 32 Red should stick to their T & C.

If he had come forward right away and questioned this, I'm sure the outcome would be quite different.
 
pfff, when i made deposit, i do not care about how much bonus i get, i never check. Just start playing, and if doing good i am then check how much WR left. Not very clever, but it is proves for me that it is not so easy to notice that bonus was credited incorrectly.
OP should get paid, since he clear received bonus. Nothing else. If he lose, 32red never return him this 1k.
But hey, they have rules.....
luckily OP did not win 1kk progressive.
Will not play at 32red again.
 
I wish we all could agree to disagree, and leave this thread to Monday.

Nothing will happen anyway, and people screaming that he should get paid will not make anything different.

I'm on noone's side until I have the facts. I hate to have to regret what I've said because I didn't know better.
Maybe some of you should start thinking the same way.
 
Everyone keeps posting about the OP knowing how much bonus he had etc. I don't know the facts but from his original post he says LIVE CHAT awarded his bonus. So lets say you sign up to a new casino and instead of claiming the bonus you go to live chat and ask what bonus you will get if you make first deposit of £1000. If live chat says we will give you £2000 or if they just say we will credit your sign up bonus but give you the wrong amount how are you to know. Ive signed up to casinos before that had maybe a 100% bonus but in order to get me to deposit they have offered me more. No way to know for sure what happened but if it is the casinos fault and not the players then voiding the win is really harsh.
 
A quick read of the "Big Bonus Offer" says many times in many places the max bonus was 100% for 1000 max deposit. That's how the OP should have known there was a problem with the 200% 2000 bonus put in his account.

The bonus could be taken by redeeming a coupon or by requesting the bonus from live chat. To my knowledge, whatever method the OP used is unknown as of yet.
 
paul7388 said:
Everyone keeps posting about the OP knowing how much bonus he had etc. I don't know the facts but from his original post he says LIVE CHAT awarded his bonus. So lets say you sign up to a new casino and instead of claiming the bonus you go to live chat and ask what bonus you will get if you make first deposit of £1000. If live chat says we will give you £2000 or if they just say we will credit your sign up bonus but give you the wrong amount how are you to know. Ive signed up to casinos before that had maybe a 100% bonus but in order to get me to deposit they have offered me more. No way to know for sure what happened but if it is the casinos fault and not the players then voiding the win is really harsh.
Click to expand...

Agreed, It would be really nice to get the actual chat session, 32red cs are not new and seem to no more than alot of others do, If the chat said we will give you 200% on a deposit up to 1000 than case closed, As many cs do indeed offer you diffident bonus than what's on offer, Alow the terms are clear for high rollers bonus and set out at 100% but if chat was telling op that there was a 200% and nothing else than to me it really does come down to that chat sesion
 
I do not play at 32 Red being from the USA. This being said reading through this thread as I drink my coffee here are my thoughts.

The player received bonus through a live chat agent.

There have been many times I have received a bonus this way. Actually when playing at a new casino that is how I like to get a bonus. I can test out their customer service at the same time and get many questions answered. There have been many times I received a different promotion amount by going through a live chat rep. They have the most current info compared to some websites.

Everyone keeps asking if player is being honest?

Well 32 RED emails tells me that what he is saying does have some truth to it. They admitted mistake.

32 Red made an offer to player.

Let's think about this offer for a moment and if this was you or your mother and how you would feel?

You receive a bonus you play you win and for some a life changing amount. your excited and telling everyone OMG look what I did It took me 3 days of spinning but look--(for example)

Then 32 Red says yes you won however we screwed up sorry have to start over -- we will give you the amount you won but you gonna have to earn the money by making a 750 thousand play thru..... WHAT! You know like I know you would be pissed and screaming R u Kidding me. Now I really think this was a good intention on 32 reds part however they are thinking like a casino not like a player.

We as players know when we take bonuses to begin with we have a job cut out for us if we want to win. We need that luck to hit us and hit us hard.

32 red admitted mistake and if this was any other kind of business they would be liable for that amount.

Things happen when playing online however this was a live chat person not a player that made the mistake. Why should he have reason to question the amount given when support is the one giving it to him?

32 red you are a top casino and have done wonderful things in the past for your players. Your reputation could be on the line here is it really worth the 24 grand? I say pay the player and make it a customer service commercial put a good spin on it like :

we made a mistake were not proud of but we love out players - customer service comes first for us - use this to your advantage and then in the end you will make more then the 24 grand you lost.

Then I would retrain your agent and get a stronger coffee because I think she may have been tired to do a mistake like that.

Some times admitting an error is a better option even if it cost -- in the long run people will talk about this and they can remember how 32 red screwed someone or how 32 red is so cool that they paid this guy even tho they made a mistake--

your choice plain and simple --

just n outsiders opinion.
 
I think that this is the key difference and it does not take much to see it. OP got the bonus from a support agent and not from a page. If this is correct then how do you figure he should have known that the amount the CSR put in was incorrect:confused: A bank yes you would know that more is in your account then what should be. An online casino is not that easy to know that they put the wrong amount in your account. The CSR made a mistake.
 
Casinomeister said:
There seems to be some confusion and misinformation going on in this thread.

I criticized the OP for starting off this thread as a catalyst for mob action (which seems to be under way by a select few :rolleyes:). He also consciously left out a crucial piece of information - the part that 32Red had made an offer - this oversight in my opinion is suspect. But nonetheless, he explained that wasn't important since he turned the offer down. We have also explained that if he's serious about going to court with this, then fine, he can knock himself out with that. That's one less PAB Max needs to do. He also made a comment that he mistrusts the PAB service since this site is casino related. I'm assuming that he is not aware of the success rate of the PAB, but that's water under the bridge for me.

So in short, he is free to submit a complaint here via the PAB service and we will do what we can to come to a fair resolution.
Click to expand...

OP - LISTEN to what's been said in the quoted message from CM. Despite your negative and suspicious views of the CM PAB process Bryan has offered you a lifeline here to a relatively quick and stress-free means of resolution - quite forgiving of your scorn if you ask me. I recommend you to snap his hand off.

Bryan has recognized that you have stated you actually haven't started any legal proceedings. Keep it that way and use the offer wisely. There is far too much conjecture around here and barrack-room lawyering.

The facts:

1. You both made a mistake, whether you realized it before or after making the 25k is unprovable. No point in speculating.
2. You were given the deposit back and stripped of the winnings. They are quite entitled to do so under the terms you played under.
3. You complained, and subsequently they offered the 25k back as a bonus with 750K WR. As I pointed out ages ago, an EV- proposition and I repeat the figures some obviously missed here: MG slots average just over 96% RTP, you would likely lose £1000 per £25000 played (4%) so £30,000 overall. You would bust out with 125k to go. Balthazar calls it an 'FU offer' I would call it a 'better than what you are entitled to' in the terms offer.
4. As you obviously played and ground out this 25k for ages you feel you are deserving of better than a shot-to-nothing 25k bonus. Many here have agreed with you. Herein lies the dispute.
5. You've established no legal impediment presently exists to the PAB process.

Use your savvy and take the chance CM/Max are offering, which involves doing a lot of free spadework on your behalf. It costs you nothing, and you have nothing to lose. It can't really make you worse-off, can it? The majority of posters already think you are due more than a 25k EV- bonus. Maybe 32red will too if all this badmouthing stops and things are resolved behind the scenes in the appropriate PAB manner.

And if it makes you feel better, some poor 32red CS rep is probably walking like John Wayne and this weekend shoving handfuls if ice cubes down the back of their underwear.
 
suzecat said:
A quick read of the "Big Bonus Offer" says many times in many places the max bonus was 100% for 1000 max deposit. That's how the OP should have known there was a problem with the 200% 2000 bonus put in his account.

The bonus could be taken by redeeming a coupon or by requesting the bonus from live chat. To my knowledge, whatever method the OP used is unknown as of yet.
Click to expand...

It's also how the CS agent should have known, and they are the "expert", not the player.

Much is made of the fact that the player didn't notice the mistake, but neither did the CS agent. In fact, no one from the casino noticed the mistake until the withdrawal was made. This implies that such mistakes could have happened before, but never come to light because they didn't result in a withdrawal. Such players could never have won had they completed WR, and would have had their deposit refunded instead. This would mean that the rule regarding CS mistakes should be applied consistently, so an audit should be done to ensure that all players who ended up in a similar no win position receive their deposits back.

The actual amount that was given in error was £1000, not £24000. Had the player not had the extra £1000 he would have had to deposit another £1000 of his own, which would have given him an equal chance of coming up with the same result. It's this £1000 that he benefitted from without having deposited it, so his offer to return the £1000 received in error is a good one to have made as his starting point. He can (if it goes that far) show the court that he accepts that £1000 of what he cashed out was given in error, and that he agreed to return it. He can then show that the counter offer was really a non offer due to it being mathematically highly improbable that he would get anything back, not even his own deposit.

This would be judged as a consumer contract, not a business contract, and this is the key to the OP winning his case. Consumer contract law caters for the fact that it's a lone customer with only "man in the street" knowledge and limited legal resources vs a business with it's own legal teams, experts in marketing, and that they control everything in the contract (in contrast to a business to business contract which is negotiated between parties who have roughly equal levels of expertise). This is why we see outcomes such as banks losing cases when they try to recover monies credited in error to a customer's account. If THEY didn't notice for months, then the customer can't be expected to have known more than the bank's own staff. I recall one case where the customer DID spot the error, but was patronised by his bank for daring to suggest he knew better than his bank manager. After having his attempts to remedy the error brushed aside, and constantly being told it was his money and to "go and spend it", he did. Months later, the bank realised they had been wrong, and asked for the money back. The customer refused, the bank went to court, and LOST! This must have been a shock to them and their legal team, else they would not have pursued the case in court.

This was BEFORE the new set of consumer laws were enacted, which serves to STRENGTHEN consumer's rights when fighting battles with businesses.

I hope 32Red's legal team know what they are doing in believing they are almost certain to win in court. To make the wrong call, and lose this case in the UK courts, would be a disaster. Even a victory won't be a perfect outcome, because it will show that the 32Red we thought we knew isn't the 32Red we have today.
 
Here is an article on consumer law that deals with retail examples not too dissimilar to this case. For "goods", we have "entertainment" involved here.


In stores:

If an item is priced incorrectly on the shelf, or scans at the wrong price at the till, retailers are under no obligation to honour it, under the Sale of Goods Act. They can offer the item at the correct price or refuse your money and withdraw the product from sale.

If a pricing mistake is not noticed and the customer pays for an item at the reduced cost, the purchase is considered a legally binding contract between the retailer and the customer. The shop has no legal right to claw back any money if it later realises there has been an error.

In this case, it's pretty clear. Once the opportunity has passed for staff to spot the error, it is lost for good once the transaction has been completed and the customer has the product.
Online:


The situation is not as clear-cut online.

The legally binding contract is complete when a retailer accepts an order. However, acceptance does not necessarily happen at the point of order. Even the confirmation email may not be an acceptance. Some retailers reserve the right to cancel an order up to the point of delivery. It is therefore important to carefully check the retailer’s terms and conditions (which must be available on their website) and emails – if a retailer simply acknowledges an order, there may be no contract at that point.

According to Screwfix’s terms and conditions on its website this week, it only accepts orders once it has delivered the goods. It says the processing of a payment and acknowledgement of an order does not constitute a legally binding contract.

As with in-store purchases, once a customer has received their order a retailer generally has no right to claw back any money.

In this case, it can be argued that the contract was struck when the player deposited and the agent for the company credited the bonus. Having been struck at this point, so long as the player wagers according to the rules attached, such as bet amounts and games played, the contract remains valid.
32Red might argue that the contract is only struck once the player either loses the balance of succeeds in making WR and withdraws. This will be where the court has to decide which of these two points represents the creation of the legally binding contract, or in other words, the point where "the purchase was completed". The "purchase" in this case is a play bonus priced at £1000, but where the "cashier" screwed up when processing the transaction, effectively giving a "buy one, get one free" offer in error, but didn't notice before finalising the transaction.

The catch:

One essential element of a contract is an intention to create legal relations. If an item has been very heavily discounted and it is clear that an error has occurred, the trader could say that it was obvious that they had no intention to form a contract at that price.

Now, this is pretty much the argument presented by 32Red after the error was spotted when a withdrawal was submitted. 32Red say it was "obvious" that this was an error, and that they had no intention of forming the contract at that price.

In the Screwfix case for example, the company could argue that a ride-on mower that normally costs £1,599.99 would not ever be on sale for £34.99 – and the consumer must have been aware this was a mistake.

Now, will this "must have been aware" argument hold sway when the difference is smaller, such as two "items" of entertainment for the price of one being an error that is "obvious to the customer".

Where an item could feasibly be priced at £34.99, something normally priced at £40 for instance, Screwfix would probably have to rely solely on its terms and conditions.

This is what 32Red are doing in this case, but consumers have a legal weapon against this in the consumer protection laws.

Stuart Helmer, of law firm CMS, said: “The growth of e-commerce creates huge potential for a computer glitch to lead to widespread pricing errors. Screwfix are just the latest in a long line of retailers to be caught out in this way.

Not just retailers, but glitches are happening in the online casino industry, as is the case here (albeit a human glitch, not a computer).

“However, if the retailer has drafted its terms and conditions carefully – which Screwfix appears to have done – then, unless it has deliberately misled customers, it will usually be legally entitled to cancel the order right up to the point of delivery. Whether it chooses to do so is a question of public relations, not legal rights.”

This is the key, what is the "point of delivery" in this case, the application of the bonus, or the payment of the withdrawal. If this "point of delivery" is judged to have passed before the error was spotted, then no amount of terms and conditions are going to help the company.
Click to expand...

We are in somewhat untested legal waters here, but this seems to illustrate why the OP's solicitor told him he had "a strong case".



Now, we have been here before, the Betfair "happy hour" fiasco where players followed the terms, but a mistake by marketing had lead to the promotion being a very good one for players. Betfair used the argument that all payouts were void because they had made a mistake in setting the parameters of the promotion. Where they could, they stopped the payments, or pulled them back. They then threatened other players with legal action if they didn't voluntarily return the winnings. Some said "no", calling their bluff - they got to keep the money, Betfair WERE bluffing. A few others then took Betfair to court after all possible alternatives had been tried, and failed. It appears that not a single case was actually heard, but there were reports that as soon as papers were served, Betfair settled out of court, presumably with a confidentiality agreement because there is very little information about this anywhere.
 
vinylweatherman said:
Here is an article on consumer law that deals with retail examples not too dissimilar to this case. For "goods", we have "entertainment" involved here.




We are in somewhat untested legal waters here, but this seems to illustrate why the OP's solicitor told him he had "a strong case".



Now, we have been here before, the Betfair "happy hour" fiasco where players followed the terms, but a mistake by marketing had lead to the promotion being a very good one for players. Betfair used the argument that all payouts were void because they had made a mistake in setting the parameters of the promotion. Where they could, they stopped the payments, or pulled them back. They then threatened other players with legal action if they didn't voluntarily return the winnings. Some said "no", calling their bluff - they got to keep the money, Betfair WERE bluffing. A few others then took Betfair to court after all possible alternatives had been tried, and failed. It appears that not a single case was actually heard, but there were reports that as soon as papers were served, Betfair settled out of court, presumably with a confidentiality agreement because there is very little information about this anywhere.
Click to expand...

there is a few more different rules which I no feck all about as so many, I do no if a retail shop (fresco lets say) charges you twice for 1 item than they have to refund all the money and you get keep item, I cannot rember the exact rule but I will defiantly try to find the rules as its here somewhere, (tested )

Bluffing is a good word, Look what al the news papers are saying about banks which they admit sending fake solicitors emails out to customers that was in a bad situation, Anyway I had snail mail non stop from solicitors about some unpaid debts, there was no debts & any thing I did owe I bungled them of as they riped me off, Nether the less I receive nothing for months after letters after letters, I have kept them all,
Companys do try any think to bypass the real rules, But what are the rules?
And you said:
(it is lost for good once the transaction has been completed and the customer has the product)
Im no expert on this but wall I can say is I would love to see the transcript from live help
 
spintee said:
there is a few more different rules which I no feck all about as so many, I do no if a retail shop (fresco lets say) charges you twice for 1 item than they have to refund all the money and you get keep item, I cannot rember the exact rule but I will defiantly try to find the rules as its here somewhere, (tested )

Bluffing is a good word, Look what al the news papers are saying about banks which they admit sending fake solicitors emails out to customers that was in a bad situation, Anyway I had snail mail non stop from solicitors about some unpaid debts, there was no debts & any thing I did owe I bungled them of as they riped me off, Nether the less I receive nothing for months after letters after letters, I have kept them all,
Companys do try any think to bypass the real rules, But what are the rules?
And you said:
(it is lost for good once the transaction has been completed and the customer has the product)
Im no expert on this but wall I can say is I would love to see the transcript from live help
Click to expand...

That's not law, it's a rule they have in order to generate positive PR. Tesco used to have the "double the difference" scheme for when checkout double scanned items, or failed to honour "reduced" stickers. In the end, Tesco ditched the scheme because it got too expensive. The reason it got too expensive was their fault, their checkouts were just making so many mistakes!!

Wonga now face a criminal investigation for their bluffing campaign. The mistake they made is not realising it is actually a criminal offence to impersonate a solicitor. They probably thought it would merely be a civil matter, and that if a customer didn't fall for it, it would still be just a civil matter, but the hope was that some customers would fall for it, and be pressured into paying up and taking their bad debt elsewhere (obvious really, because they would have had to borrow from one of Wonga's competitors in order to pay the full sum "on demand" to avoid what was being threatened).

It seems that bluffing in itself isn't illegal, nor even morally wrong, provided you don't lie, and you steer clear of doing something that breaks the law, like pretending to be a qualified member of a profession that is protected in law. There are a number of professions where it is a criminal offence to pretend to be a member, and solicitor is one of them. Pretending to be a medical doctor is another. There is nothing wrong with buying a Doctorate off the internet and calling yourself "Dr" of whatever academic subject you choose, nor buying a title off eBay and calling yourself "Lord, or Baron". It's up to the others to check out the quality of your "Doctorate", or how much of a "Lord" you really are.
 
homerbert said:
pfff, when i made deposit, i do not care about how much bonus i get, i never check. Just start playing, and if doing good i am then check how much WR left. Not very clever, but it is proves for me that it is not so easy to notice that bonus was credited incorrectly.
Click to expand...

I was about to comment the same but as I was writing I was thinking, "but i don't go and seek out a bonus in chat".

I think the OP should be paid, I don't question their integrity.
 
vinylweatherman said:
There is nothing wrong with buying a Doctorate off the internet and calling yourself "Dr" of whatever academic subject you choose, nor buying a title off eBay and calling yourself "Lord, or Baron". It's up to the others to check out the quality of your "Doctorate", or how much of a "Lord" you really are.
Click to expand...

LOL, "slight" detail for sure, but I remember back in 1995 when the net was in its super-infancy, i grabbed myself a certificate online making me a reverend of the universal life church of california, then proceeded to marry several of my classmates. Good times :)
 
paul7388 said:
Everyone keeps posting about the OP knowing how much bonus he had etc. I don't know the facts but from his original post he says LIVE CHAT awarded his bonus. So lets say you sign up to a new casino and instead of claiming the bonus you go to live chat and ask what bonus you will get if you make first deposit of £1000. If live chat says we will give you £2000 or if they just say we will credit your sign up bonus but give you the wrong amount how are you to know.
Click to expand...

Quite. Would you take the bonus from chat then start reading reams of T&C's or just start playing? I know what I'd do.
 
citizenx said:
Quite. Would you take the bonus from chat then start reading reams of T&C's or just start playing? I know what I'd do.
Click to expand...

Ignoring the t and c for a specific bonus is stupidity, especially in the current bonus climate. But if the only term that differs from those stated is the amount of the bonus, and that higher amount is granted via CS from live chat, that, IMO, creates a situation where the player can quite rightfully claim to be unaware they were in breach.
 
catapultaudio said:
Ignoring the t and c for a specific bonus is stupidity, especially in the current bonus climate. But if the only term that differs from those stated is the amount of the bonus, and that higher amount is granted via CS from live chat, that, IMO, creates a situation where the player can quite rightfully claim to be unaware they were in breach.
Click to expand...

To be honest, that is why I tend to try and avoid them. They generally seem like a poisoned chalice to me. I understand them from a casino point of view but struggle to see the benefit to the player. Better off playing lower stakes or depositing twice the amount - then you've only got verification to deal with.

As a more general point - am I alone in this thinking or am I missing a trick?
 
citizenx said:
To be honest, that is why I tend to try and avoid them. They generally seem like a poisoned chalice to me. I understand them from a casino point of view but struggle to see the benefit to the player. Better off playing lower stakes or depositing twice the amount - then you've only got verification to deal with.

As a more general point - am I alone in this thinking or am I missing a trick?
Click to expand...

I am with you on that, unless it's a new casino where I might be tempted to take on the welcome bonus. When I can afford to deposit 1K, I would never ever take on a bonus, too risky IMO.

As to the OP's issue, I tend to be on his side and I think that a UK court would be in his favour too (also taking into account, as VWM rightly pointed out, his more vulnerable position as a consumer). I also don't understand why 32Red is making such a big issue of this, their counter-offer is of course to the detriment to the player and should never be considered.
 
Last edited:
Im glad you can write an read quicker than me :), Yes it was not of wonger but there conter parts, I did not even need money as was a test, and beggers belive alow money was paid not just by 1 bank but 3, under diffrent names,
And it was also little woods, which I name believe had a bingo site which vernons took over that still scamed alot of people,
If people was short of cash than fair enought help them out, sell them things at x10 there moneys worth is taking the piss, Than threaten them with fake court case ect, If they canot pay its simple, If its a scam than the scammers no the score, why fright people to death? And it has been on news that people have kiled them selfs due to theses lettes and lies,

Ive my self personaly no need to worry but I live on ends, If was ask to go on a holiday tomoorow than I probs could not do it
vinylweatherman said:
That's not law, it's a rule they have in order to generate positive PR. Tesco used to have the "double the difference" scheme for when checkout double scanned items, or failed to honour "reduced" stickers. In the end, Tesco ditched the scheme because it got too expensive. The reason it got too expensive was their fault, their checkouts were just making so many mistakes!!



Wonga now face a criminal investigation for their bluffing campaign. The mistake they made is not realising it is actually a criminal offence to impersonate a solicitor. They probably thought it would merely be a civil matter, and that if a customer didn't fall for it, it would still be just a civil matter, but the hope was that some customers would fall for it, and be pressured into paying up and taking their bad debt elsewhere (obvious really, because they would have had to borrow from one of Wonga's competitors in order to pay the full sum "on demand" to avoid what was being threatened).

It seems that bluffing in itself isn't illegal, nor even morally wrong, provided you don't lie, and you steer clear of doing something that breaks the law, like pretending to be a qualified member of a profession that is protected in law. There are a number of professions where it is a criminal offence to pretend to be a member, and solicitor is one of them. Pretending to be a medical doctor is another. There is nothing wrong with buying a Doctorate off the internet and calling yourself "Dr" of whatever academic subject you choose, nor buying a title off eBay and calling yourself "Lord, or Baron". It's up to the others to check out the quality of your "Doctorate", or how much of a "Lord" you really are.
Click to expand...
 
Ladies and gentlemen, I ask you to stop diverting this thread and especially inflaming the situation and the OP with all this legal speculation. It will NOT go near a courtroom. I refer you back to Chayton? earlier in the thread who compared the scenario with being given too much change in a shop error then spending it. That is exactly how any honest solicitor would see it. None of us are consumer lawyers.
If you want to be constructive (and yes we're all entitled to our opinion) why not encourage him to use the PAB he's been offered, or do you all have so little faith in it that you'd see him forgo the professional dialogue between the casino and Max and instead waste his time and money on a highly tenuous and possibly vexatious course of legal action??
This thread is rapidly dissolving into a pool of farmyard slurry.
 
I agree with dunover. Let's await monday when the OP apparently will receive advise. If it's good advise we will see a PAB for Max to handle.
I must say I'm curious of the result. Something tells me we don't have all the facts. Sofar we just heard one side of this.
 
dunover said:
Ladies and gentlemen, I ask you to stop diverting this thread and especially inflaming the situation and the OP with all this legal speculation. It will NOT go near a courtroom. I refer you back to Chayton? earlier in the thread who compared the scenario with being given too much change in a shop error then spending it. That is exactly how any honest solicitor would see it. None of us are consumer lawyers.
If you want to be constructive (and yes we're all entitled to our opinion) why not encourage him to use the PAB he's been offered, or do you all have so little faith in it that you'd see him forgo the professional dialogue between the casino and Max and instead waste his time and money on a highly tenuous and possibly vexatious course of legal action??
This thread is rapidly dissolving into a pool of farmyard slurry.
Click to expand...

The reason I mentioned the UK court, is that the OP seems pretty determined to follow this course. Also, "possibly vexatious" is entirely your opinion. I believe there are sufficient grounds and the OP certainly does not want to cause annoyance to 32Red, he just wants his winnings and not the piss-poor offer by 32Red which is only advantageous to 32Red and not the player.

Secondly, I was under the - apparently mistaken - impression that the OP was no longer entitled to submit a PAB. Good to hear this option is still available to him. A PAB is obviously preferable and I am eagerly awaiting its outcome.
 
No no no, locking this thread would set a VERY BAD impression IMO, this is an issue the community is obviously very interested in, lets face it - there can't be many people who use casinomeister regularly who have not also played at 32red (obviously apart from those unable due to location), many of us play there regularly and/or as our primary MG casino.

I understand that speculation is bubbling over but still, isn't this what forums are all about? There has been many valid opinions given so far and many points of view each with their own merits which I am keen to continue following. Saying we have only heard one side of this, it appears that is all we are going to get - I'm sure Mark would have responded on Friday if he was going to. All indications are that we have the facts this time, and despite the OPs poor choice of words, it is possible that our opinions may have some effect on 32red's decision with how to proceed in the matter - you can be certain they are reading this thread, that is what the OP wanted, and I respect his right to gather opinions on the issue, whether for or against him, here at CM.

I also hope that the OP will choose a PAB as the next step, when that happens, I'd guess the thread will die a death on its own for a little while whilst the appropriate actions are taken.
 
dunover said:
compared the scenario with being given too much change in a shop error then spending it.
Click to expand...

Not the same. If you get too much money back at the store, you know that they made a mistake and keeping it is basically stealing. In this case this isn't black or white like the example above.

Sometimes you Old URL (this is just like the store example) but getting a bonus through live chat, and then realizing that it's 200% instead of 100% doesn't mean that you'd instantly think "mistake". I honestly don't know how I'd have reacted. Maybe I'd have thought "cool, the bonus is 200% and I thought it was 100%" and then proceeded to play?

It all comes down to one thing: 32Red made a mistake they should live with it. If I want to deposit $1000 in my account tonight, but deposit $2000 by mistake and I lose it I won't get my money back. Same rule should apply to the casino.
 
Balthazar said:
Not the same. If you get too much money back at the store, you know that they made a mistake and keeping it is basically stealing. In this case this isn't black or white like the example above.

Sometimes you Old URL (this is just like the store example) but getting a bonus through live chat, and then realizing that it's 200% instead of 100% doesn't mean that you'd instantly think "mistake". I honestly don't know how I'd have reacted. Maybe I'd have thought "cool, the bonus is 200% and I thought it was 100%" and then proceeded to play?

It all comes down to one thing: 32Red made a mistake they should live with it. If I want to deposit $1000 in my account tonight, but deposit $2000 by mistake and I lose it I won't get my money back. Same rule should apply to the casino.
Click to expand...

If you did you'd immediately see your cash balance was twice what you intended and you would contact CS and w/d the excess 1k before playing it. Unlike the OP. In other words YOU had the means to remedy your mistake. Exactly like 32red did when they realised, using a term they have to cover such an eventuality.
 
dunover said:
If you did you'd immediately see your cash balance was twice what you intended and you would contact CS and w/d the excess 1k before playing it. Unlike the OP. In other words YOU had the means to remedy your mistake. Exactly like 32red did when they realised, using a term they have to cover such an eventuality.
Click to expand...

No, like Balthazar said/implied, this situation is open to multiple interpretations. You cannot compare Balthazar's story to this one. So it turned out it was 32Red's fault and it also turned out that the onus is on the player when 32Red staff makes a mistake - and that's what this boils down to: is the player in the end responsible for the casino's mistakes, should he have understood rightaway that the casino made a mistake to begin with (this is not clear yet, because we don't know all the details of this case)?

If the player makes a mistake, he is supposed to bear full responsibility for his actions (like exceeding the max bet size, etc.). Now the casino makes a mistake and the player is supposed to bear full responsibility as well. Truly a win-win situation for the casino and the player is left on his own.
 
Like others have said, the main problem is that we don't have the initial chat transcript, it's all speculation until we get to see that chat.

I've had many experiences with live chat offering bonuses that aren't visible anywhere. Take Go Wild for example (when you had to contact live chat to get any bonus), you would tell them you got an offer in an email, and they often offered better bonuses for bigger deposits.

If the rep said "Deposit $1000 and we'll give you $2000" there would be absolutely no reason for the OP to think it was a mistake. If they said it was 100% and he got 200%, then we could say he should have known better.
 
Mouche12 said:
No, like Balthazar said/implied, this situation is open to multiple interpretations. You cannot compare Balthazar's story to this one. So it turned out it was 32Red's fault and it also turned out that the onus is on the player when 32Red staff makes a mistake - and that's what this boils down to: is the player in the end responsible for the casino's mistakes, should he have understood rightaway that the casino made a mistake to begin with (this is not clear yet, because we don't know all the details of this case)?

If the player makes a mistake, he is supposed to bear full responsibility for his actions (like exceeding the max bet size, etc.). Now the casino makes a mistake and the player is supposed to bear full responsibility as well. Truly a win-win situation for the casino and the player is left on his own.
Click to expand...

I highly doubt that 32Red is going to pay nothing and return the players deposit and that's all.
 
If the player with 100% bonus busted (32red claims that the balance was below 1000 GBP at some point) - he could have easily deposited another 1000 GBP and continue playing. The casino should pay the winnings in full. JMO.
 
dunover said:
If you did you'd immediately see your cash balance was twice what you intended and you would contact CS and w/d the excess 1k before playing it. Unlike the OP. In other words YOU had the means to remedy your mistake. Exactly like 32red did when they realised, using a term they have to cover such an eventuality.
Click to expand...

32 red didnt only after the facts, and as people have pointed out what if he did lose, and how do we no what he was offerd? Only way we can be 100% about all this is to see the transcript from chat, As we all no cs do offer diffrent bonus, If there was a bonus for 100% plasterd all over the site and I went to live help and they give me 150% bonus and lost, Than am I entitled to my 50 back because the site saids 100% and they give me 150%
 
We should stop. Nothing more can be said here. We don't have all the facts, we can't have it all, and we (most of us) don't have the means to properly authenticate and evaluate them.

After the PAB, or court, or they come to a settlement, we can learn more, and we can continue.

Right now, the OP has more than enough info, has taken tons of advices. He mast act now!
We can wait untill he takes action, see the results, and then we have more info to go on.
 
Read the full 32Red casino review
32Red is a well-established online casino reviewed by Casinomeister
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Krogilasi
  • Locked
VivatBet - issue
Replies
2
Views
947
maxd
maxd
J
jackbit.com (Ryker B.V.) - Withholding $75k
Replies
2
Views
896
maxd
maxd
A
2,700 in winnings withheld due to non-consensual bonus
Replies
6
Views
1K
maxd
maxd
H
MonkeyTilt Refusing to Pay $100,000 Withdrawal – Baseless T&C Accusations, No Evidence
Replies
49
Views
4K
Hoke1996
H
D
Unfinished bonus round wont load at Jackpotcity
Replies
2
Views
1K
drgirthy
D

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Accredited Casinos

Read about our rating system and how it's done.
Back
Top