Ladbrokes simple don't want to pay

[frida427]

Dear Mrs L

Username:

Thank you for your previous emails and documents verifying your identity and address.

The deposit, bonus and wagering history of your Ladbrokes account has been reviewed from the date of registration, 2013-08-12.

You made three separate deposits of €500.00, €200.00 and €100.00 within the first 25 minutes of your account being created and bonuses of €750.00 were awarded to your account which you then used to wager.

It is clear from the transaction and wagering history that your sole intention was to take advantage of the generous bonus scheme introducing the new Vegas casino and not in the spirit of the promotion itself.

You transferred €9889.00 from the Vegas casino to your main sports account and then withdrew €5000.00 to your registered payment method. Your profit from the bonus is therefore €4200.00. However, Ladbrokes will not be seeking to recover these funds.

Having taken everything into consideration, Ladbrokes have decided that your business is no longer welcome and therefore your account has been permanently suspended.

Please use the following link to review Ladbrokes Terms and Conditions:

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

15. Termination of Account

Please also see the following link for your review and any further action you may wish to consider:

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

Thank you for your understanding in this matter.

Kind regards,

See Related Threads:

• Ladbrokes - Need Info!
• Ladbrokes and The Spirit of the Promotion Condition....
• Entain Could Use Their License
• Akimobalola vs. Ladbrokes
• Ladbrokes.com Suspended My Account....

 

[vinylweatherman]

Very funny.

They have absolutely no legal grounds to recover what they have paid already (unless there has been fraud involved), as no terms were broken, and they are pulling "the spirit of the bonus" stunt.

If anything, YOU have legal grounds under UK law to recover the rest.

They are of course within their rights to close the account, but only after anything owing has been paid.

It's this kind of thing that serves to weaken the cases of Gibraltar and Malta that the new UK regime has nothing to do with protecting consumers, and is solely a tax raising move.

Casinos get away with things that are against UK consumer protection laws because they operate from other EU countries. The new UK regime would require them to hold a UK secondary license, and bind them to UK law when it comes to their dealings with UK players.

Ladbrokes have a history of occasionally pulling this "spirit of the bonus" excuse for non payment.

They are however back in the accredited list, so a PAB would be the way forward for this.

They also have a rep, so contact the rep asking for a more detailed explanation of what actual terms you broke, as the reasoning you have received is in violation of the standards for accreditation.

Operational Standards
•Must pay winnings in a timely manner.*
•Must not disqualify any player from a payout if terms & conditions are met, except for situations of fraud (multiple-accounts, bogus ID documents, chargebacks, etc.,).
•Must not confiscate winnings for vague & unclear reasons, such as "irregular playing patterns" or "bonus abuse", without specific T&C violations.
•Must not implement terms that can be construed as "unfair" towards the player.
•No player shall be involuntarily placed into a situation which breaches the terms and conditions during the course of play.
•Must pay out progressive jackpot wins in full or in reasonable chunks, regardless of any terms and conditions limiting payouts.**
•Must remove any bonus and associated playthrough requirements at the request of the player if play has not commenced.
•Will not entice players to reverse cash withdrawals with bonuses or other incentives.
•Will not use outsourced support. Player support must be in-house.

 

[chris87]

Shocking. In my view Ladbrokes should not be accredited here if what the OP says is correct.
My experience with them has been less than acceptable, poor customer service and a reluctance to provide details of my RTP, and when they eventually did it was awful and they said there was "nothing they could do" Ok, but other casinos don't say this and will throw you a few free spins if your luck is particularly poor.

They didn't say I was acting "outside the spirit of the bonus" when I lost hundreds of pounds of my own money. It works both ways, we take the risk and so should they. I hope the OP submits a PAB and Max follows up accordingly.

 

[Nifty29]

How much do they owe you?

 

[frida427]

I am in process of contacting the Manager through Private Messaging they owe 4989

 

[LaHutti]

You should PAB this immediately, if the rep is unable/unwilling to solve it.

 

[KasinoKing]

You should PAB this immediately, if the rep is unable/unwilling to solve it.

You should also tell the forum exactly HOW you turned €1,500 into €9,889...?
I want to know the secret goddamnit! :sob:

KK

 

[mimi26]

wow, how on earth did you manage to meet the WR, Ladbrokes Vegas you have to wager the bonus plus deposit 30x (I think this is unacceptable BTW), I would never take a bonus on the vegas casino.

Does anyone else think that these WR are ludicrous

 

[LaHutti]

Just out of curiosity, do you ask because you think it's impossible, or just because you want to try the same technique ?

I've turned $100 deposits with 100% bonuses into $10K withdrawals a couple of times, even with insane playthrough, so it is indeed possible (though very rare), which, I guess, is why a lot of casinos now have max bet rules attached to their promos....You know what they say ...Don't Gamble With Scared Money (I'm thinknig you have the "secret" right there)

You should also tell the forum exactly HOW you turned €1,500 into €9,889...?
I want to know the secret goddamnit! :sob:

KK

 

[Przecinek]

Last deposit was $100 so WR was significantly smaller than 1500$ x 60.

Anyway I'm guessing Ladbrokes will sort that out and we might not hear from OP ever again. Still this post is a warning shot as I always considered Ladbrokes to almost rock solid.

Making three deposits in short space of time as a proof? Please... this is what they want you to do when you start chasing loses, hence multiple deposit offers.

 

[albrco123]

This is one of those threads where you would really like to hear an explanation of the Casino's POV from a rep.

I hope the OP gets a satisfactory outcome.

Al

 

[dunover]

Hang on a minute - Ladbrokes are usually very good so I think there's more to this. The inference in the first post suggests the depositor/OP made a series of deposits to accrue all the bonuses at once, as they were made in a few minutes. This would give him more balance to play with than the bonus intended, so I can understand their CS e-mail. This however, shouldn't be right as the bonuses would have to be spent first and not stacked up. So, the other alternative is that the OP deposited, played high stakes and lost in a few minutes and re-deposited taking bonuses and so-on and got lucky on the final deposit. This pattern DOES suggest AP/bonus abuse and possibly the OP was fortunate that if he breached their terms that he actually received the first 5k/4200 profit.
AP/abuse is a grey area and it seems Ladbrokes would have not paid the first 5k had they spotted it sooner. PAB possibly....?

 

[Andy Walker]

Hang on a minute - Ladbrokes are usually very good so I think there's more to this. The inference in the first post suggests the depositor/OP made a series of deposits to accrue all the bonuses at once, as they were made in a few minutes. This would give him more balance to play with than the bonus intended, so I can understand their CS e-mail. This however, shouldn't be right as the bonuses would have to be spent first and not stacked up. So, the other alternative is that the OP deposited, played high stakes and lost in a few minutes and re-deposited taking bonuses and so-on and got lucky on the final deposit. This pattern DOES suggest AP/bonus abuse and possibly the OP was fortunate that if he breached their terms that he actually received the first 5k/4200 profit.
AP/abuse is a grey area and it seems Ladbrokes would have not paid the first 5k had they spotted it sooner. PAB possibly....?

It’s the same ole same ole thing really, put a system in place that has the potential to be gamed and it will.

How do you write terms and conditions that cover luck, judgement and intent?

 

[chuchu59]

I am in process of contacting the Manager through Private Messaging they owe 4989

So if I am reading this correctly you were able to get the $5k you withdrew initially and they locked your account with the remaining $4989 in it. That means the balance includes your $4200 in winnings and $789 of your deposits. So how the heck can they say they wont be recovering the $4200 winnings? I can see no wrong in them not wanting your business but not when there is still a withdrawable balance in it. The decent thing for them to do is transfer the remaining $4989 to your preferred method of payment and you can then call it quits.

 

[Przecinek]

Hang on a minute - Ladbrokes are usually very good so I think there's more to this. The inference in the first post suggests the depositor/OP made a series of deposits to accrue all the bonuses at once, as they were made in a few minutes. This would give him more balance to play with than the bonus intended, so I can understand their CS e-mail. This however, shouldn't be right as the bonuses would have to be spent first and not stacked up. So, the other alternative is that the OP deposited, played high stakes and lost in a few minutes and re-deposited taking bonuses and so-on and got lucky on the final deposit. This pattern DOES suggest AP/bonus abuse and possibly the OP was fortunate that if he breached their terms that he actually received the first 5k/4200 profit.
AP/abuse is a grey area and it seems Ladbrokes would have not paid the first 5k had they spotted it sooner. PAB possibly....?

I would lean towards your second suggestion (deposit- bust - deposit -bust). No smoke and mirrors just regular advantage play. If there is no max bet in place then this is plain spirit of the promotion nonsense - and we can safely assume there is none since Ladbrokes didn't mention anything. I can be a highroller and play with 10k deposits, but first want to deposit 1.5k to take advantage of their bonus. Does that mean I also will get my winnings confiscated. Casinos have to learn that they need clear rules or they will chase players away. I'm afraid Ladbrokes dropped the ball on this one, and will just sweep this under the carpet, rather than challenge community.

 

[hakapuku]

I remember William Hill casino was great once. Until it merged with Playtech. Then the problems started. Since new Vegas Ladbrokes casino is now using Playtech, I think this is where we should look for the answers.

 

[chuchu59]

I remember William Hill casino was great once. Until it merged with Playtech. Then the problems started. Since new Vegas Ladbrokes casino is now using Playtech, I think this is where we should look for the answers.

WH was not that great even when powered by Cryptologic. They never got back to me on issues I raised. I agree, however, that some casinos/groups go downhill abruptly after joining Playtech. One that used to be good was Mapau but then they joined PT and then migrated to some lesser software and was finally rogued. Yes, many casinos using the PT platform are poor but Playtech, to my knowledge, doesn't lift a finger to help. Its bizarre as I understand they are listed in the UK stock market.

 

[vinylweatherman]

However, the player was NOT told they had broken the terms, but that their game play was reviewed and it was deemed they had not played within the spirit of the bonus, not that any terms violations had slipped through the net due to incompetent audits.

Given the "insane" WR, and the fact that no terms were broken, it looks like a player that was just lucky enough to beat these "insane" odds, and instead of playing on, knew when to quit whilst ahead and managed to find the cashout button. They call it breaking the spirit of the bonus, I call it responsible gambling.

Stacking bonus offers is actually a BAD move for advantage players, as although it increases the bankroll, it also increases the WR. Playing each bonus separately is a better AP tactic as the session with all the luck is not dragged down by the WR from the unlucky deposits.

The WR and other terms should be enough to ensure that the bonus is +EV over the long term for the casino, but they have to expect that occasionally they will get stung by a very lucky player who will make a substantial win from their first few sessions. In the longer term though, such players tend to give it all back, and can only win consistently by being better at maths than the casino manager (as Enzo puts it).

Knowing just how the OP achieved this would help to understand what Ladbrokes mean by "spirit of the bonus" in this case. We can then see whether this was just a player being lucky and cashing out responsibly, or a screw up in the production of the terms that are now being addressed retrospectively by invoking "spirit of the bonus".

An accredited casino should have no place for "spirit of the bonus" terminology, but I remember this term being pointed out when they became accredited, and a discussion surrounding them having this term that could not actually be used, and us being assured by Ladbrokes that it was not a term they would use, but equally not a term they seemed prepared to remove altogether.

It seems now that they DID intend to use it on some occasions, seemingly as an "F U Clause" to cover their asses if they were to screw up in making up the explicit terms for a given promotion, as appears to be the case here.

 

[questa]

WH was not that great even when powered by Cryptologic. They never got back to me on issues I raised. I agree, however, that some casinos/groups go downhill abruptly after joining Playtech. One that used to be good was Mapau but then they joined PT and then migrated to some lesser software and was finally rogued. Yes, many casinos using the PT platform are poor but Playtech, to my knowledge, doesn't lift a finger to help. Its bizarre as I understand they are listed in the UK stock market.

Actually when ladbrokes launched their playtech, they employed sixty playtech staff to work with them on site for a few months to oversee the launch, I am told. One of the roles is to monitor game play style....

 

[frida427]

Ladbrokes paid in full thank you all for your support and advice

 

[GrandMaster]

Yes, many casinos using the PT platform are poor but Playtech, to my knowledge, doesn't lift a finger to help. Its bizarre as I understand they are listed in the UK stock market.

Being listed on the stock market does not mean much, the main difference is that the company has to publish more information about itself, but it does not mean that it has to treat its customers any better than a non-listed company. In this case, the players are not even Playtech's customers.

 

[mimi26]

Ladbrokes paid in full thank you all for your support and advice

How did it get solved

 

[vinylweatherman]

How did it get solved

Thankfully it has. Maybe they became aware of this thread and decided it was good business practice to adhere to the accreditation standards, rather than argue their case with Max during a PAB. They are now free to boot the OP under these standards as they have paid in full.

Others may decide to walk, rather than suffer the indignity of being booted out, after having read this thread. This may not be such a good business move as it leaves us thinking that they have lowered their standards to suit their new software, rather than trying to prove that Playtech doesn't have to mean "dodgy".

If it takes this long to audit gameplay, then it appears they have gone on a "fishing expedition" determined to haul in a reason for this outcome not simply being an unusual run of luck. It's impossible to determine where they have drawn the line, but in other cases at other casinos there have been some wonderful excuses. Rival were famed for having the excuse that players who did not play at least 30% over the set WR were "abusing the bonus", with the reply from members being that if this is the level of play they expected, they should just make the WR 30% higher.


I quit Ladbrokes years ago when they decided that players who deposited via Neteller had to wager their deposits TWENTY TIMES MORE than other players to even QUALIFY for any promotion, and this was on top of any WR due on said promotion. It even appeared to apply to Neteller deposits where no promotion was claimed. On the other hand, they were promoting UKash as the best alternative to cards that the banks were increasingly blocking gambling transactions on. UKash in, Cheque out, is a good idea if you want to launder £7000 per month, as you can justify this as being the requirement to gain and maintain VIP status there. Saves the awkward questions when you deposit this amount of cash at the bank on a regular basis. UKash has limits, but it's per transaction and per store, so easy to overcome to get £7000 or more of UKash vouchers. It's the store selling the UKash that is responsible for the KYC, and this is done by the average storekeeper, not usually trained to spot anything subtly dodgy going on.

 

[chris87]

Interesting that they had a change of heart and decided to pay. I'm sure this thread had an influence, especially as they have a rep on here I believe. I guess they didn't want the bad press.

Nevertheless, I don't think this behaviour is good enough for an accredited casino. Do they still charge an "inactivity fee" every month for customers who don't log on?

 

[redsfan]

I know im new here but surly the fact that they have the term in their T&Cs regarding "Spirit of the Bonus" should mean they are not accredited.

Also, they are using the term in an attempt to take peoples winnings. OK, on this occasion the OP found Casinomeister probably like me, googling complain ladbrokes casino, and posted their situation but what if they hadnt. Do you think some email tennis would have changed their mind? It was, imo, solely the fact it was on here that made them pay and in my opinion, that is wrong.

Like being a shoplifter and if your caught, you give the goods back but if you dont, happy days.