Ladbrokes "Spirit of the Promotion"

[johnsteed]

***

Casinomeister: Labrokes is not "non-responsive" and they have a fairly good relationship with the members and me.

No, they are one of the absolute worst at dealing with emails/questions.



Why is that?



- They have never promptly responded to my queries. They have stated that it'd take up to 48 hours for response time, and they weren't joking! I could fly from Canada to South Korea, disembark, go out for dinner, see a movie, update my memoirs book, go to bed, wake-up, get some breakfast, go for a work-out, maybe take a dip-in-the-pool, do some shopping, then proceed to go back to Canada. I'd be back home, call some friends, complain about how small the seats were on the flight over, then I could take a much needed shower, have a snack, check my emails, and see that my Ladbrokes 'care' response isn't there yet, and there's about 2 hours and 29 minutes to go.



- If and when they do respond, I always got the feeling that they never actually read any of the initial emails that I'd sent out. So, that means I'd have to wait an additional 48 hours in order to get an answer to the questions I had initially asked. Very frustrating.



- Whenever I received a 2nd response (another 48 hours later), another agent working in another dept. (or maybe the same dept. but just carrying a different 'title') would respond, and would ask me to forward my initial queries again, in order to get them up to speed. In a nutshell, ask one question, because that's all they're going to respond to. Also, cross your fingers that they actually read that first question correctly.



- These situations would repeat over and over and over and over and over and over again. So, a member here is left with the additional option to PM any number of people who work at Ladbrokes from this site. Thing is, they don't like getting PMs from this site (not that they dislike this site or anything), and would always point me to 'care@ladbrokes' which is about as useful as AOL stock (actually, if you can think of worse stock feel free to use it here). And I can think of SO many times where they told me that they'd forward my query to the right person/people, and I'd never hear about it. At least whenever I used the PM method, I got a response in a short amount of time.



- How many people work at Ladbrokes, and how many titles exist there? If I go through all of my emails sent to them over the years (and I still have them), I never get the same person twice (say for those I've contacted through PMs here simply b/c it's a direct method). It has to be one of the most mismanaged sites around. No continuity whatsoever. I've asked numerous times if there was one particular person to reach, instead of going through all of that mess (time and time again). I never got a response to that particular question. Odd. It's as though they don't know who's in charge, or there's no one there who's responsible for anything.



- Why use 'care@ladbrokes.com'? How about 'wedon'treallycare,atallactuallycometothinkofit@ladbrokes.com'?



They may very well be about as legit as they come, and you'll always get paid exactly 6 hours after making a withdrawal, but their CS is absolutely inept to queries (over the phone... not-so-bad), and they aren't as player-friendly as some seem to believe. How can one form a 'relationship' with a faceless entity, one which barely acknowledges its customers?



***

 

[Casinomeister]

No, they are one of the absolute worst at dealing with emails...

Well then ... we need to be given a heads up - like this

 

[rainmaker]

***







No, they are one of the absolute worst at dealing with emails.





***

Yes, I must agree.

I think they are in the same league as William Hill and Unibet when it comes to e-mail support. Just takes forever to get a reply, and when you do they often don`t answer your question. My feeling is that they frequently will use pre-written vague answers.

But of course, you will always have the opportunity to contact them by chat or phone.

 

[Zultha]

In the meantime, I had no problem in making sure that the right people saw your complaint (or any others for that matter). They called me this morning to let me know you were paid. Am I right?

A simple thank you would have sufficed.

As for the "Spirit of the Bonus", this is an unfair term and should not be used:


https://www.casinomeister.com/about-us/philosophy/

It looks like someone slept through Online Casino Management 101 - "Making Offers to Players". Some remedial training is necessary.

Bryan
I did thank you and acknowledge that I had been paid in the thread relevant to my dispute, https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/how-do-you-read-this.42033/ but again, thank you.

With regards Ladbrokes not discussing with third parties, well Im sorry they have fed you a curve ball and you have took it. I suggest you look at IBAS. Stands for Independant Betting Arbitration Service. Its that independant that 62% of its funding comes indirectly from Bookmakers.

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

So how come they will discuss disputes with them over gambling disputes but not with you? Probably because they are not pulling your strings but they are theres.

Link Removed ( Old/Invalid)

Above is a PDF regarding disclosing data to third parties. It shows how easy it is. All they have to ask if they at all doubted is for an email from the registered account allowing you to discuss it with them.

They dont want to discuss it with you because they know that they are wrong. Like you said, this only happened recently. Why?

No gripe with CM obviously but the arguement of not discussing with third parties is ballies even from their own terms.

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

Thanks for getting me my money though again.

 

[wikipiti]

Okay - to appease any misunderstandings, no matter what I or Max or any one of the moderators have said in the past or present "We accept PABs for Ladbrokes, and we process them."

/debate on this topic

The Ladbrokes reps are looking into the OP's issue at the moment.

@wikipiti - please check your PMs.

hi and sorry for not replying sooner. i have received an email from the promotions manager crediting me the bonus. they are still insisting that my betting was safebetting but on this occasion will credit me the bonus. i am obviously thankful but what if i hadnt found this site? a thankyou to the site owners for obtaining this bonus for me

 

[Webzcas]

With regards Ladbrokes not discussing with third parties, well Im sorry they have fed you a curve ball and you have took it. I suggest you look at IBAS. Stands for Independant Betting Arbitration Service. Its that independant that 62% of its funding comes indirectly from Bookmakers.

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

So how come they will discuss disputes with them over gambling disputes but not with you? Probably because they are not pulling your strings but they are theres.

Ladbrokes have always since I can remember dealt with IBAS. Being primarily sportsbook and shop facing.

When I worked for them and I was based in Gibraltar, where the Casino is physically located, along with the support staff for the casino - Ladbrokes being the large animal they are, never disclosed information concerning customer accounts to third parties - IBAS being the exception.

For smaller operators it is easier for this to happen. However for a multi BILLION pound company, like everything else, there is a lot internal politics and admin to encounter before something like this can be achieved and agreed to. I speak personally from experience having spent 5 years in their employment, whereby I managed the IT Department in Gibraltar.

However, Bryan and Max do have a very good line of communication with the people supporting the casino in Gibraltar.

 

[Deeplay]

Im glad the player was paid etc. But getting back to the issue of Ladbrokes promotion terms I just checked out the terms for the 25% cash back on Reelgems / Retro Reels. All looks good at first until you scroll down to the small print see this below :

14.As a result of bonus abuse, deposits made using Neteller and Moneybookers will be subject to a turnover requirement of 20 times the actual deposit level for all promotions. We reserve the right to recharge all banking fees on deposits, which are not turned over at this level. All other payment methods fall into the turnover requirements as specified in the rest of the terms and conditions of this promotional offer.

Now what confuses me is the part "the right to recharge all banking fees on deposits, which are not turned over at this level. All other payment methods fall into the turnover requirements as specified in the rest of the terms and conditions of this promotional offer"

If im reading correctly then you deposit with neteller thinking that if you loose on the said slots you will get 25% of your losses back upto a set level. Fine, but so long as you turn over your neteller deposit 20 TIMES (Already discussed so need to go over that very dogdy term again) but then if you are unlucky enough NOT to be wable to wager your initial Neteller deposit 20xs then they could sting you for some kind of charge related to the deposit on top of already loosing your inital deposit and NOT getting the 25% cash back due Not being able to turn over the deposit 20xs.

So this is a 3 stage gamble it seems to actually qualify for a 25% bonus :

Stage 1 : Deposit thy coin with neteller (gamble on said slots)
Stage 2 : Pray you reach 20xs playthrough in hopes of getting 25% cash back if you loose
Stage 3 : Pray you reach 20x playthrough in the hope you do not get charged any extra fees for NOT making 20s playthrough!

If that is not an unclear / unfair term then I dont know what is ? Maybe the Ladbrokes rep or somone else would care to enlighten me and other players on this ? Cuz what am i missing here ?

 

[wikipiti]

Ladbrokes have always since I can remember dealt with IBAS. Being primarily sportsbook and shop facing.

When I worked for them and I was based in Gibraltar, where the Casino is physically located, along with the support staff for the casino - Ladbrokes being the large animal they are, never disclosed information concerning customer accounts to third parties - IBAS being the exception.

For smaller operators it is easier for this to happen. However for a multi BILLION pound company, like everything else, there is a lot internal politics and admin to encounter before something like this can be achieved and agreed to. I speak personally from experience having spent 5 years in their employment, whereby I managed the IT Department in Gibraltar.

However, Bryan and Max do have a very good line of communication with the people supporting the casino in Gibraltar.

why you had the need to emahasise BILLION is beyond me. the more turnover, the bigger the budgets for departments pro rata.

 

[Webzcas]

The reason I did it was very valid. When dealing with extremely large companies, it takes a lot of smaller wheels to get the big wheel to move.

If you have worked for a large company, you will know that internal politics and administration, can mean for something to be approved can take a lot longer than it would at a smaller company.

the more turnover, the bigger the budgets for departments pro rata.

Unfortunately irrelevant. The bigger the company, the harder and more time consuming it is to get something approved and done.

 

[wikipiti]

The reason I did it was very valid. When dealing with extremely large companies, it takes a lot of smaller wheels to get the big wheel to move.

If you have worked for a large company, you will know that internal politics and administration, can mean for something to be approved can take a lot longer than it would at a smaller company.


Unfortunately irrelevant. The bigger the company, the harder and more time consuming it is to get something approved and done.

well from emails ive received th decision to not speak to CM is only recent so the above is contradictory. the position used to be TO speak to cm, but somebody decided not to. also, re the large company. maybe for a new idea but Ladbrokes have been going for ages

 

[maxd]

well from emails ive received th decision to not speak to CM is only recent so the above is contradictory. ....

Ummm, don't think that's quite true. I believe they first said "no talkie" about a year ago but promised to receive issues and handle them through their internal complaints handling service. Some time after that Bryan established his contact within this part of the organisation, AFAIK.

 

[wikipiti]

Ummm, don't think that's quite true. I believe they first said "no talkie" about a year ago but promised to receive issues and handle them through their internal complaints handling service. Some time after that Bryan established his contact within this part of the organisation, AFAIK.

Ill check as it was from a third part max.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Im glad the player was paid etc. But getting back to the issue of Ladbrokes promotion terms I just checked out the terms for the 25% cash back on Reelgems / Retro Reels. All looks good at first until you scroll down to the small print see this below :

14.As a result of bonus abuse, deposits made using Neteller and Moneybookers will be subject to a turnover requirement of 20 times the actual deposit level for all promotions. We reserve the right to recharge all banking fees on deposits, which are not turned over at this level. All other payment methods fall into the turnover requirements as specified in the rest of the terms and conditions of this promotional offer.

Now what confuses me is the part "the right to recharge all banking fees on deposits, which are not turned over at this level. All other payment methods fall into the turnover requirements as specified in the rest of the terms and conditions of this promotional offer"

If im reading correctly then you deposit with neteller thinking that if you loose on the said slots you will get 25% of your losses back upto a set level. Fine, but so long as you turn over your neteller deposit 20 TIMES (Already discussed so need to go over that very dogdy term again) but then if you are unlucky enough NOT to be wable to wager your initial Neteller deposit 20xs then they could sting you for some kind of charge related to the deposit on top of already loosing your inital deposit and NOT getting the 25% cash back due Not being able to turn over the deposit 20xs.

So this is a 3 stage gamble it seems to actually qualify for a 25% bonus :

Stage 1 : Deposit thy coin with neteller (gamble on said slots)
Stage 2 : Pray you reach 20xs playthrough in hopes of getting 25% cash back if you loose
Stage 3 : Pray you reach 20x playthrough in the hope you do not get charged any extra fees for NOT making 20s playthrough!

If that is not an unclear / unfair term then I dont know what is ? Maybe the Ladbrokes rep or somone else would care to enlighten me and other players on this ? Cuz what am i missing here ?

This is an unfair term because they have plenty of other remedies for tacking "bonus abuse", which they seem to apply REGARDLESS of the deposit method used. We have had "safe betting" and "spirit of the bonus". This is surely ALREADY more than enough defence, and there is NO need at all for this special term on Neteller/Moneybookers, because it only FURTHER punishes the RECREATIONAL player, since the "advantage" player is dealt with under "spirit of" and "safe betting" rules.

In order to eke out a Neteller deposit 20x, then "safe betting" is a must, but this means that managing to make 20x on a Neteller deposit will be called "safe betting", and the bonus denied in any case.

IBAS does NOT deal with the CASINO side (they confirmed this in the Betfair case, refusing to deal with it because it was casino related), so although this option is available for the sportsbook, there is NO Independent mediation service available for casino players, who have to rely on "contacts" and Gibraltar.

The customer service is VERY poor, and from the emails I have received to queries it seems the CS team can do very little because "everything is subcontracted". Even their scratchcards are subcontracted to a third party, who process the winners, and forward the results back to Ladbrokes. This means that CS cannot sort out errors, but have to forward the query to the subcontractor, who then takes a couple of days to get back to Ladbrokes, where nothing seems to get done with it because it is never the same person dealing with an ongoing query. I have had this problem before, and it can take a week or more to sort out a problem winning scratchcard, and they have to be prodded constantly, as no-one takes charge of managing an ongoing query. I have also been asked to resend information that has already been sent regarding a query, because there is no continuity. It seems that staff members who initially deal with a query do not properly enter it on the system, so any other CS member doing to follow up has no proper access to what the first member of staff did, promised, or didn't do.
Players get frustrated because they ASSUME their query is being dealt with in a professional manner, and then feel that Ladbrokes are being deliberately obstructive when they receive "stupid" replies during follow up, where it is obvious they have no idea what the initial query was about, and are just stringing together a few "canned responses" after having an educated guess about the cause of the problems.

It is so bad that I "threw in the towel" with them over 2 years ago, and even their attempts to win me back have been screwed up, and have made me even LESS likely to return.

I am surprised they have not gone after Kasino King, who makes no secret of the fact that he plays Ladbrokes' promotions because they are so PROFITABLE for him, so surely he is breaking every one of these vague "spirit of" terms, and he bets pretty "safe" to, usually £1 or less per spin, and rarely beyond £2.
Ladbrokes must know this, but it seems they have an additional policy of CHOOSING who will be allowed to carry on playing for profit, and who gets "the book thrown at them" for trying to do the same.

 

[GOCC]

IBAS does NOT deal with the CASINO side (they confirmed this in the Betfair case, refusing to deal with it because it was casino related), so although this option is available for the sportsbook, there is NO Independent mediation service available for casino players, who have to rely on "contacts" and Gibraltar.

The way I read it the poster was saying the Ladbrokes deal with IBAS which is a third party. Dont think there was any reference to the regulatory part of the matter. Might be wrond

 

[vinylweatherman]

The way I read it the poster was saying the Ladbrokes deal with IBAS which is a third party. Dont think there was any reference to the regulatory part of the matter. Might be wrond

So do Betfair, but it was IBAS that told a player that they could not help because his case was about that happy hour promotion, which related to the casino. IBAS would surely say the same about a Ladbrokes casino issue, because if they didn't, it would show evidence that they have colluded with Betfair to deny players embroiled in the happy hour fiasco a hearing. This would be incompatible with their position of independence from the industry.

 

[GOCC]

So do Betfair, but it was IBAS that told a player that they could not help because his case was about that happy hour promotion, which related to the casino. IBAS would surely say the same about a Ladbrokes casino issue, because if they didn't, it would show evidence that they have colluded with Betfair to deny players embroiled in the happy hour fiasco a hearing. This would be incompatible with their position of independence from the industry.

VM
Ill rephrase.
The OP, IMO, was refering to the fact that Ladbrokes "Dont Discuss" with 3rd parties. This was to CM. But they obviously do as they discuss claims with IBAS over sportsbook resolution.

 

[kombucha]

“in the christmas spiirit” is what my vip manager told me....

 

[maxd]

Bryan has written about this in the recent MEISTER MAIL, 25 February 2011:

Spirit of the Bonus is a antiquated misnomer, but there are some casino managers that never got the memo. It's 2011 and there are still some misguided casino managers who insist on using this term to confiscate players' winnings. What is alarming is that two large betting firms, Betfair and Ladbrokes, have used this "rule" to justify these confiscations. Ladbrokes reconsidered this action and resolved the issue by subsequently paying the player. Betfair stuck to their guns and were rogued last December.
(more)

 

[petro]

I have been thinking about this and I think having a 'spirit of the bonus' T&C is different to actually using it. I don't think casinos should be punished for actually having these terms but only if they use them.

Another reason why I think a lot of these casinos with sportsbooks don't deal with CM is becasue they think they are too big.
The effect of the millions of dollars that they make has given them delusions of grandeur.

 

[felicie]

I have been thinking about this and I think having a 'spirit of the bonus' T&C is different to actually using it. I don't think casinos should be punished for actually having these terms but only if they use them.

Another reason why I think a lot of these casinos with sportsbooks don't deal with CM is becasue they think they are too big.
The effect of the millions of dollars that they make has given them delusions of grandeur.

It's ok if they Have the term but only as long as they don't use it? What does that mean really? lol This all is why I don't use any bonus with the intent to win anymore.

 

[kombucha]

max, bryan ,“ my: in the spirit of the bonus was ” was from a totally different casino.I hope you still know what the case was... i don't think they belong to any group ( anyway that's what my vip manager says to me... :/ - besides playtech obv )

i did alot of research on my own, but i always get siidetracked.

do you know if they are running some weird aff program maybe? top management does not want to pay she says...

i would like to talk tho them, maybe some wizzkid quant ppl pulled some data from my screen and “came” to this conclusion. then still it makes no sense to me... i'm sorry for drifting away but cause i have to broken pc's atm i am doomed to surfing on my ps3 browser so i pick some spots here and there..

 

[felicie]

max, bryan ,“ my: in the spirit of the bonus was ” was from a totally different casino.I hope you still know what the case was... i don't think they belong to any group ( anyway that's what my vip manager says to me... :/ - besides playtech obv )

i did alot of research on my own, but i always get siidetracked.

do you know if they are running some weird aff program maybe? top management does not want to pay she says...

i would like to talk tho them, maybe some wizzkid quant ppl pulled some data from my screen and “came” to this conclusion. then still it makes no sense to me... i'm sorry for drifting away but cause i have to broken pc's atm i am doomed to surfing on my ps3 browser so i pick some spots here and there..

LOL that's ok kombucha at least you can blame the drifting on the machine. I can't. LOL

 

[vinylweatherman]

Bryan has written about this in the recent MEISTER MAIL, 25 February 2011:

Ladbrokes may have paid THAT player, but they have used this "spirit of the bonus" argument on other players, and here it seems they DID "stick to their guns".

Ladbrokes claim is that joining the casino with the intent to claim the welcome bonus is itself "abuse", even BEFORE the bonus has been credited, and any play on it has started.
As has been pointed out, they are advertising an offer where one of the conditions of that offer is that you CANNOT actually TAKE it without this being considered "not in the spirit". It seems the "spirit" is that players do NOT take the welcome bonus advertised, yet it is the advertising of this offer that draws players to register in the first place.

I expect the ASA will have something to say about this, as they did with Betfair. Those who have been given this excuse from Ladbrokes should complain to the ASA about the advert for the welcome bonus being misleading, and unfairly administered.