Baptism by Fire Chancehill giving it a go

[maxd]

FWIW we closed the PyroclasticFlow PAB against Chance Hill over two months ago: my decision was in favour of the casino. As I read it the main thrust of the OP's complaint was that if they receive a bonus offer via email then the casino should be bound to honour it. I disagreed. The Terms & Conditions specify the casino's offer and responsibilities not an email. In the case at hand the player was from Poland and the Terms said that Poland was excluded from the offer so that player (being from Poland) was properly excluded from the offer. Full stop.

Of course it's not good when a casino spits out email offers to players who are not eligible but that is sloppiness not negligence. Tsk tsk to the casino for that sloppiness and all that but they don't owe the player because of it. They've since said they'll clean things up so ... let's hope they do.

A secondary issue of the PAB was that the player had received this bonus in the past so they believed they should receive it again (under circumstances which were finally disallowed by the casino). Again, tsk tsk to the casino for not enforcing their rules sooner but "better late than never" applies here IMO. I can't steal candies three times in a row and then cry "foul!" when I get caught doing it a forth time.

As to the settlement offer that was or was not accepted: yes, it appeared to me that the player had accepted the settlement but only grudgingly. Beside the point IMO because the offer from the casino was their kindness to the player and not something they were bound to by the Terms or reasonable conduct to the player.

If I've mis-remembered something here about the PAB in question the readership is welcome to correct me.

 

[PyroclasticFlow]

I can't steal candies three times in a row and then cry "foul!" when I get caught doing it a forth time.

I don't like the way you say it.
That's right, I've deposited 3 times in past, but bonuses were added automatically. Besides, I've lost all of it everytime, so I gained no profits.
Now there would be no problem with it, because they've got new platform and I wouldn't get bonus if I wasn't eligible.

 

[goatwack]

I'd agree that the casino's T & Cs overrule promotional emails, and the fact that they let the first mistaken bonus slide despite being a prohibited country is a nice gesture. I'd certainly count my lucky stars the first time, but knowing the bottom line is that it was a 'goodwill' bonus should tell me that it was a one-off.

Casinos should be held accountable for first-party company emails sent out wrongly and misleading customers. I'm not talking sending the FBI round to their headquarters, but the continuous sending out false promos makes the player think that they're somehow being given a special pass to carry on as before.

I fully expect casinos to honour their emails every time, there's no excusing the misleading information time and time again. At what point is the casino going to rectify their marketing emails? It does smack of 'when we feel like it'!

 

[maxd]

... I've deposited 3 times in past, but bonuses were added automatically.

Added automatically or not you were not supposed to be taking those particular bonuses in the first place. The fact that you were able to repeat the process three times before getting caught simply means the casino was being lazy and sloppy. What it does not mean is that you were properly entitled to those bonuses because the Terms specifically said you were not.

Casinos should be held accountable for first-party company emails sent out wrongly and misleading customers. ...

In theory I don't disagree but the pragmatics of it are that it is almost impossible to verify the "first party" aspect of that statement. We've been down that road a good many times and it is not a worthwhile allocation of resources. If spammy shit could be tracked down easily and reliably there would be a lot less spammy shit floating around. It can't be so we are forced to live with it and make the best of it. Hence my "Terms rule, full stop" position on these kinds of issues. Far from a good solution to the problem but the only reasonably workable one on had at this time.

 

[vinylweatherman]

I would agree in general that terms and conditions prevail, but this case is different. The email contained a specific statement that the terms had been changed and that the player's country was now eligible. In law, this is a legitimate variation of the terms and conditions because it has been notified as such to the customer. It would hold up in the UK court, although not necessarily the court of another country. It's no different to when a VIP player receives a variation in the regular terms and conditions from their host, an experience I have had on a number of occasions.

The second issue differs in that it can be interpreted as a customer knowingly taking advantage of a bug in the system or software. This would be acting in "bad faith", and in this case it's less clear cut, and there is a good chance that if "bad faith" on the part of the customer could be demonstrated, a court in the UK would rule in favour of the business. It also works the same way when a business knowingly acts in "bad faith" when dealing with customers, hence we have the PPI reclaim scandal because the banks knowingly acted in bad faith by selling unsuitable insurance products to customers that they knew would never pay out if there was a claim.

 

[RichyJ75]

Just received an e-mail asking for verification documents to be uploaded. Bit puzzled as I have already had withdrawals processed in the past and already gone through verification? I can only assume my ID was wiped when the casino upgraded at end on June, although still had a withdrawal go through earlier this month.

Oh well, better dig out docs again and upload them, then wait (up to 72 hours) for them to be approved, then for payment to be processed, etc.

Pain in the butt if this turns out to be regular with future withdrawals.

 

[geordiecolin]

Just received an e-mail asking for verification documents to be uploaded. Bit puzzled as I have already had withdrawals processed in the past and already gone through verification? I can only assume my ID was wiped when the casino upgraded at end on June, although still had a withdrawal go through earlier this month.

Oh well, better dig out docs again and upload them, then wait (up to 72 hours) for them to be approved, then for payment to be processed, etc.

Pain in the butt if this turns out to be regular with future withdrawals.

It is a one off. I too had gone through the process and had a few withdrawals prior to the upgrade. I am sure if you talk to their great CS they will do all they can to flush everything through asap as they did for me recently.

 

[maxd]

... this case is different. The email contained a specific statement that the terms had been changed and that the player's country was now eligible. ...

Since the player was from Poland the email would have had to say "Poland is now eligible ..." for your statement to be true. That was not the case therefore I don't think your exception applies. The Terms clearly contradicted what the email said and who accepts spammy email as the final word on anything. Yes, it's a f***ed up situation but the line has to be drawn somewhere and the extenuating circumstances put the player on the "no joy" side of that line. IMO. YMMV.

 

[PyroclasticFlow]

Added automatically or not you were not supposed to be taking those particular bonuses in the first place. The fact that you were able to repeat the process three times before getting caught simply means the casino was being lazy and sloppy. What it does not mean is that you were properly entitled to those bonuses because the Terms specifically said you were not.

But it isn't my fault I've received a bonus with every deposit I've made. What should have I done? Send an email to support everytime if the live chat was unactive
and ask them to delete the bonus, because it isn't available for my country, then wait a few hours for response and only then start to play? Come on...
If I do a deposit, I want to start playing instantly. You act as if I took the welcome bonuses on purpose and had benefits of it.
Moreover, from what I can see I made my first deposit in 2015 and propably my country was eligible for bonus then.

 

[dunover]

Since the player was from Poland the email would have had to say "Poland is now eligible ..." for your statement to be true. That was not the case therefore I don't think your exception applies. The Terms clearly contradicted what the email said and who accepts spammy email as the final word on anything. Yes, it's a f***ed up situation but the line has to be drawn somewhere and the extenuating circumstances put the player on the "no joy" side of that line. IMO. YMMV.

Was it spam? If so I'd agree. If, however, it was direct marketing from the casino then the player should IMO be treated with discretion.

 

[maxd]

Like I said, that PAB was closed two months ago, I've given my reasons for the decision and afaic that decision stands.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Since the player was from Poland the email would have had to say "Poland is now eligible ..." for your statement to be true. That was not the case therefore I don't think your exception applies. The Terms clearly contradicted what the email said and who accepts spammy email as the final word on anything. Yes, it's a f***ed up situation but the line has to be drawn somewhere and the extenuating circumstances put the player on the "no joy" side of that line. IMO. YMMV.

The UK consumer laws might see this differently. If a customer is sent an invitation from a business that states "your country", it would be considered reasonable for the customer to take this at face value to mean the country they were living in. UK law does not use the concept of Caveat Emptor in the case of consumer contracts because it deems there to be an unequal relationship between the consumer and the business. Unlike business to business, where a contract is negotiated between equal parties, a consumer contract is "imposed" on the "David" by the "Goliath" in the relationship. The law does not expect the consumer to have extensive knowledge of the internal workings of marketing, and so it would expect that a consumer would take an offer at face value, not try to look for subtle clues in order to judge whether or not it was true. Even more surprising for business is that even explicit terms and conditions can be struck out in law if they are deemed to be "unfair" in a consumer to business relationship. Some businesses have found this out the hard way by being rather too creative with the "smallprint" as well as being deliberately misleading during the sales process.

Whilst this is how the UK law works, it is derived from an EU consumer protection directive that all states were expected to implement, so there is likely to be an equivalent concept in Polish law.

However, someone went the extra mile to deceive by adding that line "your country is now eligible" into what was otherwise a bog standard mass mailing. If there had been no change to the eligibility criteria in the terms, why on earth was this email even created, let alone sent to the wrong players due to a marketing cockup.

On the face of it, ANY email sent to a player, such as from their VIP host, offering them a variation in the terms and conditions that is not reflected in the published terms on the website should be viewed with extreme caution lest they end up in the same position, and find that "published terms are the ones that prevail" when they get screwed over and seek mediation.

I had a similar experience many years ago with Winward casino. I discovered that UK was not in the drop down list, even though a UK facing site had them high in the list of recommendations. I sent an email, and CS replied to say that they had not been accepting UK players, but had recently changed this policy, and if I selected another country they would manually change it to UK. I had barely started out, so I took this at face value, and fortunately they HONOURED the promise, and did pay when I won. Had they reneged on the deal, they could have screwed me over by quoting the published terms, and complaining to one of the player focussed forums then might have given me a very different view of how player focussed they really were.

It was only later on that I discovered what a close shave I had experienced, as this was a casino with a far less savoury reputation than I had been lead to believe, and also I learned that many of these sites that pretended at face value to offer impartial reviews were rogue affiliates who would write whatever BS it took for players to click through and earn them some commission. The same site had Warren Cloud's Crystal palace next on it's "highly recommended" list

These marketing "dirty tricks" need to be stamped out, and blaming affiliates isn't good enough. Casinos are perfectly capable of making life very unpleasant for these affiliates, yet so many seem to be getting off lightly. They should bear in mind that this tactic would not work under UK law as the casino would be held responsible for the rogue actions of it's employees and agents. Some casinos have already found this out the hard way, and sensible casinos like 32Red pre-empted trouble by sending instructions to it's affiliates that they must abide by these laws when marketing the brand (at least within the UK), and also must no longer use unapproved marketing materials.

Casino Rewards have had their knuckles rapped a few times by the ASA for not being so strict with it's affiliates.

 

[Tirilej]

But it isn't my fault I've received a bonus with every deposit I've made. What should have I done? Send an email to support everytime if the live chat was unactive
and ask them to delete the bonus, because it isn't available for my country, then wait a few hours for response and only then start to play? Come on...
If I do a deposit, I want to start playing instantly. You act as if I took the welcome bonuses on purpose and had benefits of it.
Moreover, from what I can see I made my first deposit in 2015 and propably my country was eligible for bonus then.

So everyone that made a deposit got a bonus? Was there no way to opt out?
If it wasn't then they they should definately pay.

Like dunover say if it was spam, then fine, but it didn't look like that.
If it came from the casino it should have been something like ''you're country is still restricted for some bonuses, but here you have one you can use''.

 

[geordiecolin]

Nice new promo from Chance Hill. Get 25 wager free spins on the next 20 Euro deposit. 20 Euro requires x5 play through. I like these sort of deals

 

[Welshy88]

Seems to be a slow bank transfer.
It said on my transactions that my withdrawal is bank processing.
That was on saturday.
Still no sign of my withdrawal in the bank . Not sure how long it takes.
Had a bank transfer from casumo recently took 2 days.

 

[maxd]

The UK consumer laws might see this differently. .... so there is likely to be an equivalent concept in Polish law. ...

We're not lawyers. What may or may not be part of Polish law is pure speculation. We have neither the time nor the resources to pursue a complaint to that level.

When someone can present a simple, workable strategy to reliably trace spam back to its point of origin things might change. Until then it's a massive time suck that we can neither afford nor accommodate.

Our goal is to help as many people as best we can with a wide variety of casino-related issues. The intricacies of Polish law and hunting down spammers are beyond our scope at this time. If you or anyone else wants to volunteer to tackle these issues to that level you're welcome to it: the industry can always use another good, complaints-oriented, player-facing site.

 

[PyroclasticFlow]

Was it spam? If so I'd agree. If, however, it was direct marketing from the casino then the player should IMO be treated with discretion.

Of course, it was not spam, it was direct marketing from the casino.

So everyone that made a deposit got a bonus? Was there no way to opt out?
If it wasn't then they they should definately pay.

Like dunover say if it was spam, then fine, but it didn't look like that.
If it came from the casino it should have been something like ''you're country is still restricted for some bonuses, but here you have one you can use''.

It was the only option to choose: " I don't want to receive any Bonuses "
But, in opposite to most of casinos, you wasn't able to see available bonuses during making deposit, so you don't know what bonus you would get.

 

[rafelito]

So everyone that made a deposit got a bonus? Was there no way to opt out?
If it wasn't then they they should definately pay.

Like dunover say if it was spam, then fine, but it didn't look like that.
If it came from the casino it should have been something like ''you're country is still restricted for some bonuses, but here you have one you can use''.

Dear Tirilej,

Thank you for this point. I really do not wish to enter in this discussion on this thread, but for clarification matters, I would like to point out that in our old platform, every time you made a deposit there was the option of opting out of the bonus.

Best regards,

Rafelito

 

[vinylweatherman]

We're not lawyers. What may or may not be part of Polish law is pure speculation. We have neither the time nor the resources to pursue a complaint to that level.

When someone can present a simple, workable strategy to reliably trace spam back to its point of origin things might change. Until then it's a massive time suck that we can neither afford nor accommodate.

Our goal is to help as many people as best we can with a wide variety of casino-related issues. The intricacies of Polish law and hunting down spammers are beyond our scope at this time. If you or anyone else wants to volunteer to tackle these issues to that level you're welcome to it: the industry can always use another good, complaints-oriented, player-facing site.

This is "direct marketing", and is so regardless of whether the business does it themselves or employs a third party to do so on their behalf. The spammers would not do this if they were not getting paid by the businesses they promote. The law also does not expect consumers to be able to hunt down the difference between a third party mailshot or a direct one.

As for Polish law, this is now up to the player to consult their own lawyer who will advise on whether or not a claim is worth pursuing. It is the same under the UKGC scheme; where a player is not happy with the outcome from the ADR their next step is action in the courts.

Perhaps incidents like this actually hitting casinos in the pocket where players take court action will spur them to exert proper control over affiliates. Even Bryan had a major falling out with a major and formerly accredited group because they flatly refused to do anything about the activities of their rogue affiliates.

In the UK, the first step would be to forward the email to the ASA and make a complaint about misleading advertising. An upheld complaint on the matter from the ASA would then be useful backing for a subsequent court claim.

If it's impossible to trace spam back to it's source, then it's only an assumption that it is spam in the first place, and where one person might assume spam, another might see it as a direct mailshot from the business concerned.

 

[Tirilej]

Dear Tirilej,

Thank you for this point. I really do not wish to enter in this discussion on this thread, but for clarification matters, I would like to point out that in our old platform, every time you made a deposit there was the option of opting out of the bonus.

Best regards,

Rafelito

Thanks! Then I can understand your view of it
Still it's that email though but I have no clue how long before you sent that one out.

I accept what Max stated earlier though so I won't derail this thread more.

 

[The Viking]

Nice new promo from Chance Hill. Get 25 wager free spins on the next 20 Euro deposit. 20 Euro requires x5 play through. I like these sort of deals

so do i so i took the offer, if only the free spins were there as well still no free spins 8 hours later.

 

[maxd]

If it's impossible to trace spam back to it's source, then it's only an assumption that it is spam in the first place, and where one person might assume spam, another might see it as a direct mailshot from the business concerned.

That's not a PAB issue, as previously explained. The issue before us came down to Terms vs email and, as I've already stated, Terms rule. If the player wants to run his complaint up the legal ladder that's great and we wish him the best.

Insofar as my involvement goes I've said, and explained, my position and why the PAB failed. This talk of courts and advertising standards is well beyond the scope of the PAB process and marks the end of my useful participation in this discussion. I'll leave you to it.

If anyone wants anything further from me on this I invite you to contact me via PM or email.

 

[vinylweatherman]

That's not a PAB issue, as previously explained. The issue before us came down to Terms vs email and, as I've already stated, Terms rule. If the player wants to run his complaint up the legal ladder that's great and we wish him the best.

Well, I can't agree at all with this. If the email notifies the customer of a change in the terms, it's no less valid than publishing a change on the website and leaving it up to the player to find the change. My bank notifies me all the time by letter about changes in the terms, and also with variations of the terms specifically for small groups of customers, such as a special balance transfer offer on a credit card I have with the bank. They send the offers out by letter, they don't change the terms so that all customers can use the offer.

Come to that, CASINOS often send me special bonus offers by email and letter. These too are variations from the published terms, and I fully expect them to be honoured, and they are. I had no idea that if I was to be in the situation where I responded to such an offer, and then had my winnings voided because the terms published prevailed over anything I was offered by email from, say, my VIP host, that this would end up being upheld by an ADR leaving me no choice but to take legal action.

We are cautioned to avoid verbal offers from hosts, and to always insist on getting any such offers in writing, but here, getting it in writing was no help at all. How far do players need to go in order to protect themselves when they are sent offers by the casino by email or even letter, but which are not supported by an update to the published terms on their website?

 

[geordiecolin]

so do i so i took the offer, if only the free spins were there as well still no free spins 8 hours later.

I recall having to chat with CS about not receiving a bonus and it was dealt with pretty sharpish. Their CS staff are very personable and helpful.
I keep posting in here about positive things in order to address the balance a bit because historic events with the casino has little baring on how they approach future business or customers so I really think they deserve a bit of a break for sticking their heads on the line so publicly in CM.

 

[RichyJ75]

Just a quicky re my previous post.

I submitted ID, but my telephone bill was rejected (contract mobile phone bill dated this month) with no reason. I then upload a water rates bill dated May 2016 (so within the 3 month requirement) in my name - again this was rejected and no reason supplied in the e-mail. I have no other recent utility bills to submit as they are in my wife's name and are paperless billing. My drivers licence (which clearly shows my address) and cards were fine. I haven't had issues being verified at other MT Securetrade casinos under the same licence number and using same format of ID.

Rafelito - can I submit a PDF bank statement even though it asks for a utility bill to verify address? I have already asked support, but no reply yet and really want this clarified since my account had been fully operational for a little while now and has appeared to stumble upon this withdrawal request.

Not a moan or gripe (casino has been great for me), just a little issue needing to be sorted and perhaps clarification on why the ID is being rejected in future?