Baptism by Fire Chancehill giving it a go

[dunover]

Mmmmm...

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

I have to say I have some grave concerns about this.

If I ever I saw a 'vague FU term' then the "Review of player's account before accepting further bonuses.." part is it.

23k is a lot of bread to lose, especially considering accredited casinos on here would have declared the breach of max bet in the FIRST deposit irrelevant because the player lost it all anyway, and made his big win on the second deposit whereby he bet 100% within limits.

And yes, before you ask the banana-republic Cup-o'-cocoa 'licensing authority' backed the casino in this case (hardly surprising when you consider Cup-o'-cocoa don't even sanction bent/fraudulent software casinos) but you can bet your a$$ that the eCogra wouldn't have or any court in the UK.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Mmmmm...

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

I have to say I have some grave concerns about this.

If I ever I saw a 'vague FU term' then the "Review of player's account before accepting further bonuses.." part is it.

23k is a lot of bread to lose, especially considering accredited casinos on here would have declared the breach of max bet in the FIRST deposit irrelevant because the player lost it all anyway, and made his big win on the second deposit whereby he bet 100% within limits.

And yes, before you ask the banana-republic Cup-o'-cocoa 'licensing authority' backed the casino in this case (hardly surprising when you consider Cup-o'-cocoa don't even sanction bent/fraudulent software casinos) but you can bet your a$$ that the eCogra wouldn't have or any court in the UK.

That's not good, this was a single bet due to accidentally pressing the max bet button, which is a design problem that many platforms simply refuse to address despite a significant number of complaints from players that the close proximity of max bet to spin leads to misclicks. The casino then go even further to extend the scope of the minor violation to a completely fresh deposit after having zeroed out on the first.

On top of all this, they were clearly rolling out all sorts of stalling and no pay tactics by making impossible demands during KYC that they would know would be very difficult for ANY player to comply with because of the very nature of how Paysafe vouchers work, there is no record from which the player can get a statement from the bank for example in order to prove it's their account, and these are vouchers that are intended to be used only once, and having been accepted can be thrown away as they no longer have any value.

From that complaint, it looks like the max bet violation isn't the issue, but it's what they are using as a means of choosing not to pay this player because they are suspicious, but they can't actually find any evidence to back it up by finding fault with KYC procedures.

A UK player would see them in court over this, and should easily win on the grounds that the max bet violation is irrelevant to a new deposit and thus new bonus contract, provided the player could also satisfy the court that the player was who they claimed to be, and that on balance of probability they owned the money and the voucher. At risk would be their UK licence.

The problem is that this player is from Cyprus, a "grey market", where the risk of court action from a player is much less, and may not even take place if the player might draw unwelcome attention from the authorities to themselves. However, it seems he has taken the decision to pursue the legal route, but we may never know how it turned out.

We also have the situation where the casino initially agreed to work with askgamblers, but decided not to honour their eventual determination because it wasn't the result they had expected or liked. This would not be an option in the UK where an officially recognised ADR was involved.

This may well have been an issue from the "previous platform", but surely past issues need to be properly addressed as part of the accreditation process.

 

[dunover]

That's not good, this was a single bet due to accidentally pressing the max bet button, which is a design problem that many platforms simply refuse to address despite a significant number of complaints from players that the close proximity of max bet to spin leads to misclicks. The casino then go even further to extend the scope of the minor violation to a completely fresh deposit after having zeroed out on the first.

On top of all this, they were clearly rolling out all sorts of stalling and no pay tactics by making impossible demands during KYC that they would know would be very difficult for ANY player to comply with because of the very nature of how Paysafe vouchers work, there is no record from which the player can get a statement from the bank for example in order to prove it's their account, and these are vouchers that are intended to be used only once, and having been accepted can be thrown away as they no longer have any value.

From that complaint, it looks like the max bet violation isn't the issue, but it's what they are using as a means of choosing not to pay this player because they are suspicious, but they can't actually find any evidence to back it up by finding fault with KYC procedures.

A UK player would see them in court over this, and should easily win on the grounds that the max bet violation is irrelevant to a new deposit and thus new bonus contract, provided the player could also satisfy the court that the player was who they claimed to be, and that on balance of probability they owned the money and the voucher. At risk would be their UK licence.

The problem is that this player is from Cyprus, a "grey market", where the risk of court action from a player is much less, and may not even take place if the player might draw unwelcome attention from the authorities to themselves. However, it seems he has taken the decision to pursue the legal route, but we may never know how it turned out.

We also have the situation where the casino initially agreed to work with askgamblers, but decided not to honour their eventual determination because it wasn't the result they had expected or liked. This would not be an option in the UK where an officially recognised ADR was involved. This may well have been an issue from the "previous platform", but surely past issues need to be properly addressed as part of the accreditation process.

Actually no, because the ADR's ruling is not legally binding. It would however greatly prejudice the casino's case if the player then took legal recourse because an industry-recognized arbitrator had already backed the customer.

This dispute is a great example of the failings of shithouse licensing authorities just in it to get licensing fees and with little or no knowledge of the businesses they license.

I mean, Cup-o'-cocoa is world renowned as a country with a fully developed courts and legal system and comprehensive consumer protection laws, isn't it?

This demonstrates why casinos are given extra score-points here for having a decent LA.

 

[Casinomeister]

This is also a PAB that is being processed. So I'm not making a comment about this at the moment until we have more information.

 

[Casinomeister]

Just to add that the PAB was incomplete - the PABer hadn't read the PAB FAQs, and we have just sent him a second reminder to complete it so that we can move forward. The first reminder was sent on June 21st. He has visited the forum since then, but he has not finished completing the PAB. Second reminder went out today.

 

[curremon]

Im really surprised about this kind of stuff.... there must be something why they act like this or maybe that was just too big win and they went apeshit mode... shame

 

[maxd]

Actually no, because the ADR's ruling is not legally binding. ...

FYI in the UK an approved ADR's ruling IS considered binding if the monies in question are less than £10,000.

Later: this seems to have been changed. See post #62 below.

 

[Tirilej]

Im really surprised about this kind of stuff.... there must be something why they act like this or maybe that was just too big win and they went apeshit mode... shame

No, I believe they were struck with more fraud and bonus abusers than they thought they could manage. So in a way of protecting themselves they put up rules over rules over rules, so they hardly knew what they did. It's not that easy to fight against I suppose.

I hope the guy who have pab'ed will come back. Maybe there is a chance that the casino see things clearer now.

Edit: The complaints in there also shows that no rules sent in an email are binding and neither what anyone in support says.
The have changed their bonus rules at least twice the last couple of weeks, so always read the rules in the casino before you take any bonus.

 

[PyroclasticFlow]

Good afternoon!



The issue with the Polish player was calmly discussed with Max at the time and an agreement was reached, which the player quickly accepted. The full case hasn’t been posted in the thread, so I believe the full picture isn’t being truly discussed. But since a settlement between player and casino was reached, I believe this case to be closed.

As I said: "agreement" - that's an exaggeration. I have agreed for the deposits refund before even submitting my PaB. I posted it later, because I hoped it would help to get my winnings, which to my mind, I deserve.
Moreover, after 2 months I got a respond informing me that my PaB has failed. I had no choice so I wouldn't call it settlement.

Besides, this case is to be closed. Next time I'll check all the terms and conditions more carefully. This will be my lesson for the future.
I know I can do no more, so let's forget about it.
Best wishes

 

[dunover]

FYI in the UK an approved ADR's ruling IS considered binding if the monies in question are less than £10,000.

Which in this case they aren't.

Considered binding by whom?

From The POGG's UKGC ADR Rules:

Cost for use of ADR services

"This service is free to use for both the complainant and operator, however if the complaint is deemed legitimate the operator will be expected to ensure that any incorrectly withheld funds are returned to the complainant.

While the rulings of ThePOGG.com are not currently legally enforceable, where a UKGC licensed operator takes a position of non-compliance with respect to a complaint ruling ThePOGG.com will report the operator’s behaviour to the UKGC licensing board for further review."

ALSO:

from the UKGC ADR Advice:

"If you are unhappy with the resolution, it may be escalated to an Alternative Dispute Resolution party. The group that hears disputes depends on the segment of betting. A list may be found on the UK Gambling Commission’s site. Any unsatisfactory ruling after this point must go into the civil court system."

Which implies the losing participant can challenge it therefore it cannot be legally enforceable at the point of ADR resolution.

P.S. Not challenging your knowledge of this ADR system as you will have looked into it in far greater depth than me, but different people seem to be singing from different hymn sheets here??

 

[geordiecolin]

I have been pondering this thread all day. As a relative newbie compared to so many learned members( in the nicest possible term) to online gambling and a gambling forum.
I am swayed to supporting all things that are prepared to put their head on the block so publicly and take the slings and arrows.That is how I live my life too.
To that end I will continue to give an honest assessment to my experiences when I choose to invest my funds in these new sites.
As a gambler I will continue to trust my instincts and my own experiences with new sites who are prepared to be open to scrutiny. Especially when they are up against a congested market.
This is not a post protesting for ChanceHill Casino itself. But a one in support for those who are prepared to put there trust in us here in giving very strong feedback.
Or am I just green behind the ears? I suspect that very many posters use Casinomeister as a crutch rather than trust their own judgement.

 

[maxd]

... from the UKGC ADR Advice:

"If you are unhappy with the resolution, it may be escalated to an Alternative Dispute Resolution party. The group that hears disputes depends on the segment of betting. A list may be found on the UK Gambling Commission’s site. Any unsatisfactory ruling after this point must go into the civil court system."

Which implies the losing participant can challenge it therefore it cannot be legally enforceable at the point of ADR resolution.

P.S. Not challenging your knowledge of this ADR system as you will have looked into it in far greater depth than me, but different people seem to be singing from different hymn sheets here??

The UKGC's guidelines are an ever-evolving thing so they may have changed their position on this since I last read through. I'll have to dig into them in detail to know for sure.

Later: Yeah, looks like that £10k limit has been scratched from the UKGC's LCCP (Licence Conditions and Codes of Practice) or I read it somewhere else. In any case it's not there now, afaict. What the LCCP currently says is that the ADR's decision is binding if the parties to the dispute agree that it will be.

 

[rafelito]

Unfortunately, it seems the player wasn't as accepting as you and Max thought, as they later came back and said that all they got was their deposit returned, and it wasn't something they accepted, rather something they grudgingly put up with.

However, this is more than a case of a player not reading the terms, the player was sent an email SPECIFICALLY telling him that his country was now eligible for bonuses, and this must have come from the casino as it contained some of his personal details. On the strength of this email, the player later used a bonus offer that was emailed to him, and it was this that the casino reneged upon. The initial "your country is now eligible for bonuses" makes a considerable difference to how this case is being viewed. Had this email not been sent, it would have been an issue of the player claiming a bonus despite being in a banned country. Even this isn't acceptable where the offers are being emailed directly to the player by marketing, as opposed to them searching the fora for codes posted by other players in the hope of tricking the cashier into giving him a bonus he wasn't offered.

The weekend chaos could have been mitigated by informing players in advance that the usual and expected level of CS would not be available this weekend, rather than have players queued by the software for agents that were never there, or told "all our agents are busy, try again later" when the department was actually closed.

Dear Vinynlweatherman,

- The issue with the Polish player is still an on going PAB. I would prefer for Max to clear anything that might be going on with this, as not all of the details of the case have been explained on this thread, and I can't explain them here either as you will understand.

- Regarding the weekend issue, when our chat is offline players get the option of sending a ticket. Our chat box will automatically change from a chat option to a message option. When clicking on it, players will be informed that they're leaving a ticket. However, it will never state:"all our agents are busy, try again later" or have players queuing. Regardless, we will be sure to notify our players if there's ever another scheduled chat downtime.

Best,

rafelito

 

[rafelito]

No, I believe they were struck with more fraud and bonus abusers than they thought they could manage. So in a way of protecting themselves they put up rules over rules over rules, so they hardly knew what they did. It's not that easy to fight against I suppose.

I hope the guy who have pab'ed will come back. Maybe there is a chance that the casino see things clearer now.

Edit: The complaints in there also shows that no rules sent in an email are binding and neither what anyone in support says.
The have changed their bonus rules at least twice the last couple of weeks, so always read the rules in the casino before you take any bonus.

Dear Tirilej,

Just to put everyone in context, I've had the opportunity of conversing back and forth with Tirilej over the last couple of months regarding several suggestions and comments she had on different aspects of our site. Following her advise, we have reviewed and updated some of our terms.

As you mention, we had quite a bit of bonus abuse in our last months at Softswiss. Unfortunately, this forced us to become stricter with some of our terms. This came as a necessary measure. However, following migration, our terms have been reviewed. The new platform includes many of the previously missing features which forced us to add more and more terms (no automatic max bet limit, no country restrictions for bonuses, etc). Therefore, we have been able to make our terms clearer and simpler. The experience is also much improved, since players do not have to worry about breaching a term, as now they're automatic: you won't be able to play a restricted game, you won't be able to bet more than the max bet, etc.

Best,

Rafelito

 

[rafelito]

I have been pondering this thread all day. As a relative newbie compared to so many learned members( in the nicest possible term) to online gambling and a gambling forum.
I am swayed to supporting all things that are prepared to put their head on the block so publicly and take the slings and arrows.That is how I live my life too.
To that end I will continue to give an honest assessment to my experiences when I choose to invest my funds in these new sites.
As a gambler I will continue to trust my instincts and my own experiences with new sites who are prepared to be open to scrutiny. Especially when they are up against a congested market.
This is not a post protesting for ChanceHill Casino itself. But a one in support for those who are prepared to put there trust in us here in giving very strong feedback.
Or am I just green behind the ears? I suspect that very many posters use Casinomeister as a crutch rather than trust their own judgement.

Dear geordiecolin,

I would like to take the opportunity to thank you for all the suggestions and feedback you have offered over the last few weeks.

We're open to criticism and to feedback, that's why we are here. We are happy to reply to any doubt or comment, regardless if it's from the current or past platform. We migrated platforms as we noticed our ambitions as a casino were frequently limited by the platform, and players ended up paying for it. This change has been done with our players into mind, and we believe it has added security and easiness to the experience. So again, if there's anything to be improved, please let us know. We will actually fix it. That's why we're here after all, to listen to our players and actually improve the product.

Best,

rafelito

 

[rafelito]

Game issues

Would like to update that all game issues have been solved and all should be running smoothly now

Best,

Rafelito

 

[wamphyri]

Would like to update that all game issues have been solved and all should be running smoothly now

Best,

Rafelito

So the guy you stitched up for 25k+ Euro when you didn't fancy paying out his legitimately won money has been paid to him then?

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

 

[rafelito]

So the guy you stitched up for 25k+ Euro when you didn't fancy paying out his legitimately won money has been paid to him then?

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

Dear Wamphyri,

It seems like this thread has turned into 3rd hand opinions instead of actual experiences from members of Casinomeister on our site!

Anyhow if you wish to discuss Askgamblers' decisions you may PM me and I may give you as many details about this case or any other case you are interested in, as I am allowed to.

Best,

Rafelito

 

[aceking123]

hi signed up & tried the site last night to be fair didn't run into any problems with lag or things , mind you i think chance hill had forgotten to activate a winning reels on immortal romance £220 quid down to zero @ £3 per spin one win @ 10 quid , 119 spins bust out(

As for the current issues i shall sit on the fence until Maxd has spoken

 

[vinylweatherman]

Dear Vinynlweatherman,

- The issue with the Polish player is still an on going PAB. I would prefer for Max to clear anything that might be going on with this, as not all of the details of the case have been explained on this thread, and I can't explain them here either as you will understand.

- Regarding the weekend issue, when our chat is offline players get the option of sending a ticket. Our chat box will automatically change from a chat option to a message option. When clicking on it, players will be informed that they're leaving a ticket. However, it will never state:"all our agents are busy, try again later" or have players queuing. Regardless, we will be sure to notify our players if there's ever another scheduled chat downtime.

Best,

rafelito

I was going to suggest that this player PAB here as well as at AskGamblers, but it seems this is already underway, and of course under PAB rules you would not be able to comment, and neither should the player.

Certainly, the way AskGamblers have summarised the matter looks as though the casino has just fired of a whole bunch of excuses hoping one will stick, rather than being able to prove to AskGamblers that they should side with the casino.

Careless marketing and sloppy terms and conditions can often lead to incidents like this. One has to remember that there is no such thing as "bonus abuse", just sloppy marketing or a blatant breach of terms and conditions. Anything that looks like a casino has utilised "spirit of the bonus" to avoid paying a player does not go down too well with the player community.

Making impossible demands of players is also seen as a tactic for non payment, such as asking them for a copy of a card that has expired long ago and obviously been cut across the chip and thrown away as per bank terms and conditions, or even for a copy of a throwaway one-use gift card of voucher long after it has been confirmed and accepted as valid payment, with there being no way for the most innocent player to get a back copy or even a statement.

The way Ask Gamblers have written this up, along with their statement that after looking at both sides they felt the player should be paid, does look very bad, particularly as the reader would assume that the casino "cooperated fully" and Ask Gamblers had access to all the necessary evidence from both sides in order to come to an informed conclusion.

This is also not the only negative experience players have been reporting, so it's far from being an exceptional "one off". Instead, it can be seen as "this is how we operate, take it or leave it", and of course if what is being reported scares players away, it means fewer sign ups.

Players who read the fora often give considerable weight to the experiences of others when thinking of trying somewhere new, so there needs to be plenty of positive, and any negative needs to be properly understood so that it can be put into context.

 

[colinsunderland]

Dear Wamphyri,

It seems like this thread has turned into 3rd hand opinions instead of actual experiences from members of Casinomeister on our site!

Anyhow if you wish to discuss Askgamblers' decisions you may PM me and I may give you as many details about this case or any other case you are interested in, as I am allowed to.

Best,

Rafelito

If you don't pay a customer 25k in winnings, unfairly unless you are going to say the askgamblers report is flawed, then I don't think its unreasonable for new customers to have concerns. Avoiding the question when put directly to you will also add to suspicion, and reading through this whole thread would put a lot off too. You do yourselves no favours.

 

[Tirilej]

I changed my mind, and I guess that's for the best so no post.

 

[hedgehok]

I would extract the posts regarding the £25k issue in a separate thread for further discussion (if necessary) to keep the BBF thread nice and clean.

 

[colinsunderland]

I would extract the posts regarding the £25k issue in a separate thread for further discussion (if necessary) to keep the BBF thread nice and clean.

I think it should stay as long as the thread doesn't become over run with posts about it (ie no more ). Its a fairly recent complaint, and could have happened to anyone here, well except me as I never win big like that
There are other complaints at AG and cause for concern in this thread too so think the whole picture should be looked at.

 

[hedgehok]

I think it should stay as long as the thread doesn't become over run with posts about it (ie no more ). Its a fairly recent complaint, and could have happened to anyone here, well except me as I never win big like that
There are other complaints at AG and cause for concern in this thread too so think the whole picture should be looked at.

Oh don't get me wrong - I'm very interested about the outcome of the PAB myself but I only suggested to keep the BBF process with the current experiences of the testing members separated from the ongoing and very justified PAB discussion.