Platinum Play booby-trap

MeganSpot

Dormant account
Joined
Sep 4, 2004
Location
a land down under
Hi Stanford

Regretably not. Platinum Play have decided to wear this like a crown of thorns.

So be it. Since we last corresponded PP sent me another $70 bonus offer which ended up in exactly the same place as the others - in the garbage.
 

Dirk Diggler

Dormant account
Joined
Mar 21, 2004
Location
UK
I can't believe Fortune Lounge haven't sorted this - they were in breach of their own terms and conditions when they removed this bonus (term was at the time, "Wagering counts towards bonus requirements in the order that each bonus offer is taken up")

Clearly the signup bonus was added first and the player met the wagering for the signup bonus, so it is the Neteller bonus that should have been removed NOT the signup.

Come on FL - this is complete rogue behaviour (not following your own T&Cs).
 

KasinoKing

WebMeister & Slotaholic..
webmeister
PABnonaccred
CAG
MM
Joined
Aug 25, 2004
Location
Bexhill on sea, England
Dirk Diggler said:
Come on FL - this is complete rogue behavior (not following your own T&Cs).
Quite agree! FL posts here being all 'friendly' and 'goody-goody' but as soon as anyone asks a serious question about the way they operate or 'abuse' their own T&C's, they bugger off!

Not the behavior of a 'reputable & honest' casino group. :(
 

arbster

Dormant account
Joined
Nov 16, 2004
Location
UK
I'm so pleased I've discovered this forum. I'll be exercising my right not to play at any of the Fortune Lounge casinos in future. There are plenty of operators out there willing to be crystal clear in their T&Cs, or at least accept and rectify their mistakes. I'm sure my few thousand a year won't make a dent in FL's profits, but I'll at least be able to gamble knowing it's just the odds I'm up against.
 

GrandMaster

Ueber Meister
CAG
Joined
Jan 21, 2004
Location
UK
Dirk Diggler said:
Clearly the signup bonus was added first and the player met the wagering for the signup bonus, so it is the Neteller bonus that should have been removed NOT the signup.
Unfortunately, it is not clear, and we have no way of knowing, so FL may be technically right, but certainly morally wrong. This bad publicity must cost them more than $100.
 

Dirk Diggler

Dormant account
Joined
Mar 21, 2004
Location
UK
GrandMaster said:
Unfortunately, it is not clear, and we have no way of knowing, so FL may be technically right, but certainly morally wrong. This bad publicity must cost them more than $100.
MeganSpot stated over at WOL back on the 7th of September that:

"For the record the 200% bonus was indeed the original bonus to be applied to my account and therefore the first on which wagering requirements were (are) met."

Unless she's not telling the truth (which I doubt considering every time I signed upto a FL casino the signup bonus was added within a couple of hours, where as the Neteller was not added till the next day) then its pretty clear.
 

Stanford

Dormant account
Joined
Feb 22, 2004
Location
USA
GrandMaster said:
Unfortunately, it is not clear, and we have no way of knowing, so FL may be technically right, but certainly morally wrong. This bad publicity must cost them more than $100.
I think this is acknowledged. The Ts/Cs says the bonus is resolved in order received. The policy according to the CSR is that the biggest bonus is always forfeit. Policy is obviously at odds with the Ts/Cs.

Fortune Lounge acknowledges the problems and pledges to examine it - then disappears from the discussion.

VPOPS says: "As a result of Megan's posting we are looking at our T & Cs again. There is always room for improvement."

This is pretty clear. Megen should forfeit the Neteller bonus - not the sign on bonus.

I suppose we should just keep the thread bumped till there is some resolution.

Stanford.
 

arbster

Dormant account
Joined
Nov 16, 2004
Location
UK
Aren't there other casinos on the Not Recommended list for having misleading terms? I recognise this would be a bold move for CM with a group like FL, but surely no one is big enough to just get away with things like this? Unless it really isn't universally agreed that they are misleading...?
 

Stanford

Dormant account
Joined
Feb 22, 2004
Location
USA
arbster said:
Aren't there other casinos on the Not Recommended list for having misleading terms? I recognise this would be a bold move for CM with a group like FL, but surely no one is big enough to just get away with things like this? Unless it really isn't universally agreed that they are misleading...?
There was one that was removed for not honoring their own bonus terms. This is still an area that FL needs to address. I don't understand why they don't do it in a forthright manner. Bump.

Stanford.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top