Sweet electrical Jesus
We're not talking about the OP getting screwed in a divorce settlement.
We're not talking about the OP getting screwed in a used car purchase.
We're not talking about the OP getting screwed on financing for a house.
We're talking about the OP getting screwed in what's supposed to be a customer service oriented entertainment industry.
Answers like "well, he should have fully understood the 37 pages of T&C that he agreed to" are appropriate in the first three scenarios. Not this one. I'm sorry that some of you can't see the difference.
Some of you also apparently can't tell the difference between a term that is necessary for the casino to protect itself from fraud and abuse, and a term designed solely to avoid payouts and increase margins. The first may unfortunately screw over some unsuspecting players who aren't careful, but it is necessary and unavoidable. The second is predatory and should be universally shunned by all players and watchdogs. Anyone defending CasinoPlex's actions here does the entire industry a great disservice.
This is how I view it.
It certainly WORKS as a means to inflate margins, but it is not necessary to protect the casino from anything other than paying out when players win.
It also leads to a disproportionate response to a very minor mistake made by a player at 4 in the morning, who perhaps felt they wanted to go to bed rather than stay up in the hope that they would receive a quick reply.
How would the rep feel if their employer confiscated a month's pay because he arrived 10 minutes late for work, and said "tough, it's in your contract of employment, so you just have to grin and bear it".
I have now placed this casino on "Hypocracy watch". It seems their view is a strict adherence to the absolute letter of the terms, no matter how unnecessary, disproportionate, ridiculous etc it is in a particular circumstance. This should be applied fairly, so when the CASINO makes a minor mistake in designing a promo, and a hoard of advantage players give them a good hiding, but within the terms, they will all get paid with the casino eating the loss because "it's in the terms and conditions that we set and agreed to be bound by, and bind our players by".
Even more worrying is this:-
I have just checked your account with regards to the loss of your bonuses and winnings.
On the 26th of March at 14:41 you made a deposit of €500 where you received a bonus of €1000 which had had a wagering of 50 times = 50.000. After playing different games your end balance was €1.30 meaning that this bonus and its wagering were still active.
On the same day the 26th of March you made another deposit of €500 and received a bonus of €1000 which had a wagering of 50 times = 50.000. Your new balance was now €1,501.30.
Now since you didn’t finish the first bonus the wagering is still active and you have to clear the bonus wagering for the first bonus.
-
On the 26th March you stopped playing and ended with a balance of €31.30 still with the 1st bonus active since you had not yet met the wagering conditions.
On the 31st of March you started playing with the €31.30 and stopped by the time your balance was down to €2.50 still with the 1st bonus active as you had still not yet met the wagering conditions.
Hereafter you made a new deposit of €500 and received the weekend jackpot bonus of €100. Your total balance is now €602.50 (remember you didn’t finish the wagering from the 1st bonus yet)
You then played Roulette which has a low stake % contribution and by the time you decided to make a withdrawal where you had €17,007.50 you had only wagered the first bonus for €14,526.25.
You mentioned that you were only allowed to withdraw €1500 and the reason for this is that you made three deposits of €500 each. As per our terms and conditions only the sum of the original deposit/s or remaining balance of the original deposit will be withdrawable.
Had the OP declined the offer of the €100 bonus, and reached the same balance after the same play, they would STILL have had the winnings confiscated as according to the rep "you had only wagered the first bonus for €14,526.25", a WR that was being carried and added to from one deposit to the next. When withdrawing, the winnings would STILL have been confiscated due to the original issue of the €1.30 left over from the first bonus, and the fact that "terms are terms, no exceptions" is the attitude from the casino.
Having declined the bonus, the OP would not have even thought that bonus related terms were relevant, and would have had no reason to read them.
Whilst players can contact CS and ask for old WR to be removed, they have to first realise that it has been carried for the sake of €1.30 in the first place.
Given that the OP was accused of being impatient, it would be interesting to know to what degree, so exactly how long did CS take to reply to the email he sent, but then didn't hang around waiting for a reply from?
If it is a routine formality for CS to remove WR from a balance of the order of €1.30, there is surely no need to hang around for a reply in any case, as it would always be the same.
We still haven't heard why it is "impossible" for a more player oriented approach of returning the withdrawal back to the account to be adopted. How exactly have advantage players been able to exploit such a system?
Players should be equally intolerant of mistakes made by the casino, shouldn't we. "Sorry" is not enough, we need redress that really hurts, even for the most minor error. It sounds ridiculous, yet it is the standard of perfection they are holding players to.
Talking of casino mistakes, is "sorry" going to be enough for redress over the "rigged slots" episode, or should operators collectively forfeit ALL winnings ever derived from these games for having made the mistake of allowing the games to go live with an uncorrected error because they relied on the information provided by Playtech, and thus failed to do their own due diligence.
The outcome is yet to be decided, but I will be thinking "just deserts" if Playtech operators are subject to a draconian sanction at the end of it for what is after all a "human error" that even the best of us make once in a while.
I feel operators are in for a shock, as it seems the GRA and LGA have come under considerable scrutiny over how they are dealing with this issue, and this may force them into making an example over this incident for political reasons, rather than them feeling it to be a fair and proportionate response to what is after all a human error made years ago, and one which does not seem to have caused actual loss for players.
