Roxy Palace Refusing £3000 payout

[cncas123]

I think it must be an admin error. A little thick really. Still, I now have an ipad and no credit card debt so I am not complaining.

I am still going to refer to Ecogra as a dispute as Roxy still owes me over £1000 as far as I am concerned. Though apparently Ecogra are just a mediation service with no teeth

Not sure if I should use the fact that they paid a partial refund as ammunition that I should be paid the full amount.

Not quite sure about any legal action that can be taken. Seems Roxy Palace are governed by Law of the courts in Malta, there is some UK jurestiction but not sure how much.

Thanks everyone, J

eCOGRA = No balls and will always side with the casinos.

 

[vinylweatherman]

So Ecogra finaly got back to me. The famous Tex Rees said Roxy Palace had acted within their terms and conditions by refusing my £1400 payout as i had exceeded the 25% bet limit on two occasions.

Fustrating and extremely mean spirited of Roxy Palace (in my opinion) but you live and learn. And I do see their reasoning however unfair I feel it is. I am now using the more player friendly betat and videoslots, it seems their terms and conditions would have simply voided the two offending bets, not used it as a convenient reason to void the entire payout.

They don't have the last say, they are merely a mediation service. Whilst you could take them to court, you would have to argue for the max bet term to be deemed unfair under consumer contract laws. Failing that, you could argue that the amount they have charged to your account exceeds the actual cost of them pursuing you to remedy the breach. An interesting case is going ahead over whether this can be used to scupper the private parking companies that slap arbitrary charges for breaking even minor terms. If this succeeds, the same argument would clearly be useful in cases such as yours. If it fails however, it will curtail the scope of this part of consumer contract law.

As it's only £1400, it's not really worth spending any more money pursuing it.

Although the max bet term might seem to be an "obvious" case of an unfair and predatory practice, it has become almost universal in online casinos, and largely accepted by players as fair and proportionate. The percentage varies widely from site to site, and 25% is pretty generous compared to the limits seen at some sites.

Betat and Videoslots may not be much better. Even if they only void the offending bets, they are probably only going to do it when you win, so you could never gain an advantage, but could lose the bet and be at a disadvantage.

To be on the safe side, games such as this should be avoided when using a bonus, even if the terms allow play under heavily restricted conditions (such as 10% down to 2% WR contribution).

 

[jim509]

Yeah...... I can see Ecogra is just a yes man for the casinos. Unless the casino 'reguated' by Ecogra actualy driectly breaks it's own carefuly worded t&c Ecogra will side with the casino however unfair or generally worded the t&c are implemented.

I am interested in the court action but I have to be realistic. If I could do the court claim simply and online without it being too expensive or having the potential to escalate in cost I would. I am sure I have a chance at arguing the case using uk consumer rights. I would argue that betting over 25% on two occasions does not warrent confiscation of £1400, at best it meens they can void the offending bets. Given the two bets that were over the 25% threshold only netted me £50 and were not needed to complete the WR they should void the two bets and permit the £1350 payout. If I get some time over the weekend I will look into it.

Cheers J

 

[dunover]

Yeah...... I can see Ecogra is just a yes man for the casinos. Unless the casino 'reguated' by Ecogra actualy driectly breaks it's own carefuly worded t&c Ecogra will side with the casino however unfair or generally worded the t&c are implemented.

I am interested in the court action but I have to be realistic. If I could do the court claim simply and online without it being too expensive or having the potential to escalate in cost I would. I am sure I have a chance at arguing the case using uk consumer rights. I would argue that betting over 25% on two occasions does not warrent confiscation of £1400, at best it meens they can void the offending bets. Given the two bets that were over the 25% threshold only netted me £50 and were not needed to complete the WR they should void the two bets and permit the £1350 payout. If I get some time over the weekend I will look into it.

Cheers J

Yes, but the Court would be essentially deciding if it's an 'unfair term' or not. It isn't. All casinos have it.

Should they do so (unlikely as the accepted industry adjudicator has found against you) the Casino would simply appeal it in order to protect their right to offer bonuses and the corresponding terms that go with them.

You rely solely on the casinos' discretion in cases like this, you have little or no comeback should this be not in your favour.

Let me tell you, technically if they followed their terms with no empathy you'd have got sweet FA. They didn't have to give you a penny. I wouldn't push your luck. Had I made the same mistake as you, I'd have expected deposit back and not a penny of the £3400. I think you've done well.

To have the casinos let the player off every time this happens, the whole system will then be chaos and open to abuse.

But I recommend (as even Vinyl did) you let it go.

 

[SlotsLover]

absurd

To employ this rule to blackjack is absurd. In a given hand, it is very possible to have SIX wagers (three doubles and three splits). The nature of the game is splitting. This rule needs to be expunged as UNFAIR. I understand disqualifying on slots due to "doubling" as doubling is not a normal part of slots.

We need some fairness and common sense being applied to casino bonus rules. I don't buy at all that this casino is within their rules.

 

[dunover]

To employ this rule to blackjack is absurd. In a given hand, it is very possible to have SIX wagers (three doubles and three splits). The nature of the game is splitting. This rule needs to be expunged as UNFAIR. I understand disqualifying on slots due to "doubling" as doubling is not a normal part of slots.

We need some fairness and common sense being applied to casino bonus rules. I don't buy at all that this casino is within their rules.

The bonus is casino money, which can be cashed out should you meet WR. The Casino has every right to place terms on this, as unlike your cash-only play where YOU decide the stakes the Casino places safeguards, naturally.

To make an exception for BJ would simply direct players to that game, and attract AP's who would realize that occasional splits in the game add a few % to their chances of burning through WR.

I can appreciate if the player is playing BJ at max bonus stake they could easily and automatically play the split without thinking as it's natural behaviour, unlike doubling slot wins as you say. Maybe (for once!) I agree that in the case of splits a warning could pop-up when bonus is in play in the BJ software to check your stake. Personally triple-splits are so rare I would simply play the game at 50% of max allowable stake anyway, knowing a split could be safely played.

 

[vinylweatherman]

The bonus is casino money, which can be cashed out should you meet WR. The Casino has every right to place terms on this, as unlike your cash-only play where YOU decide the stakes the Casino places safeguards, naturally.

To make an exception for BJ would simply direct players to that game, and attract AP's who would realize that occasional splits in the game add a few % to their chances of burning through WR.

I can appreciate if the player is playing BJ at max bonus stake they could easily and automatically play the split without thinking as it's natural behaviour, unlike doubling slot wins as you say. Maybe (for once!) I agree that in the case of splits a warning could pop-up when bonus is in play in the BJ software to check your stake. Personally triple-splits are so rare I would simply play the game at 50% of max allowable stake anyway, knowing a split could be safely played.

This is a situation where a court case of "unfair term" might have some traction as the player cannot complete the game "properly" because of the term, and it would be unfair for a term to require a player to "deliberately throw" the game. However, there is the option for the player to simply leave the game unfinished as they are unable to finish it due to the constraints imposed by the terms, and then go back to complete the game once the term has lapsed, usually once WR has been completed.

The problem at present is a lack of case history when it comes to online casinos. This makes it hard to look back at past cases to estimate the likelihood of success, and thus whether it's worth pursuing. However, this can also be favourable for the player as the casino would want to avoid a first court case going against them and setting a precedent that could then be cited in future cases. This fear can lead to out of court settlements even when the business involved has a good chance of winning. This happened with the UK banks, they were anxious to avoid a court case over charges so would settle up if they felt the customer was prepared to take it all the way. In the end, it was forced before the courts by the OFT in a "super complaint", and the banks unexpectedly WON. This did prompt a change in regulation, but it also showed that the banks needn't have paid out on all those claims through fear of losing the case.

In this case, it's a "game of chicken" between players and casinos to see who flinches first. It will need a player bold enough to take them on and go all the way, but also bold enough to accept that they might lose, and be far worse off than had they simply "let it go". The casino of course has the most expensive legal team, so starts off with a significant advantage. It is when their expensive legal team, along with their risk team, decide that it's too risky to allow the case to go before a judge, that the player will be offered an out of court settlement. Their position is also strengthened by the possibility that they can claim their legal expenses from the player should they win, and given the size and expense of their team, this is a very big risk for a player to take on.

 

[daenyboi]

I would be happy to get more then half of all the money you had for pending withdraw, since you broke the rules, you broke the rules, no matter how stupid the rules are you agreed upon them whilst signing up.

And that folks is why you never use any freakin bonuses at all, unless its Real Money on free spins, bonuses without wagering.

 

[jim509]

Thanks for your posts.

I understand and respect the Roxy Palace right to use terms and conditions to protect themselves from player gaining too much of an advantage over the casino when using bonuses. However the Casino should implement their T&Cs fairly.

In my case I never placed one bet with the bonus funds, I only ever used my cash account. The two offending bets I made did not ensure I met the wagering requirements. The two offending bets did not yield winnings that ensured I went on to win further from the casino. (My bank balance stood at around £600 when I won the £50 from the two 'over max' bets and my balance never dropped below £500 from then on).

In voiding the £1400 payment Roxy Palace are not protecting themselves from player abusing their terms and conditions, they are using the terms and conditions to void legitimate winnings.

I could have deposited £1000 and received £150 bonus. If I then went on to meet the WR but on the last spin exceeded the max bet by £0.01p Roxy Palace could void the entire winnings. Is this a fair implementation of T&C?

Some may say it does not matter if the T&C are broken once by 1p or thousands of times by £100’s it is a break of the T&Cs and Roxy palace have a right to take all the winnings they see fit. However bear in mind that Roxy regulated by UK authority. The UK has the highest respect for a jurisdiction that is responsible for gambling licenses and as such Roxy attracts players by being regulated by the UK authority.

UK law states that:-
5.1 It is unfair to impose disproportionate sanctions for breach of contract. A requirement to pay more in compensation for a breach than a reasonable pre-estimate of the loss caused to the supplier is one kind of excessive penalty. Such a requirement will, in any case, normally be void to the extent that it amounts to a penalty under English common law. Other types of disproportionate sanction are considered below – Part III, Group 18(c).

So ‘A requirement to pay more in compensation for a breach than a reasonable pre-estimate of the loss caused to the supplier is one kind of excessive penalty.’ A loss to the casino of £50 for a breach of contract resulted in a penalty of £1400*could be challenged? Possibly?Whether that rule can apply to a casino, I do not know.

Vinylweatherman, as you say it rings the same bells as the Bank Charges court case.

Yep daenyboi, I am happy to get some of the payment and I did break the rules, but the implementation of rules can be challenged.

Thanks again, J

 

[Przecinek]

True. Roxy was acting in bad faith here. If you put things into perspective, see the amount of money wagered, volume of bets, both on slots and table games etc and then factor in that infraction happened due to mid-game splitting (which is a suggested manouver in the help file that Roxy and other MG's provide) I would say that casino was indeed acting in bad faith. They can take the winnings, but I don't think they should. Not in this case, no.

But if they indeed deliberately paid OP out 2000 pounds, that would be phenomenal. If I were OP I would gladly take those money as a goodwill gesture. In this case "disproportionate sanctions" that OP mentioned would not apply anymore, case closed etc

 

[jim509]

Agreed! I do thank the stars that I got the second payout of £2000 (though I have the impression this was a mistake by Roxy).
But really it does not matter that the payout was £20 or £2000 they have chosen to refuse a payout of £1400 based on a minor infraction.

 

[catapultaudio]

I cant help but think those who say this is "Obviously" against the terms and conditions and suchlike don't play Blackjack much. If you play the game in a land based casino, any split or double down is treated as a seperate bet - I can't imagine how an advantage player could abuse a blackjack game if this rule was not implemented in this horribly unfair way because the percentage return never changes, you have to bet more to win more, the RTP is not altered in any way ...

Quality casinos such as 32red where the size of your bet is limited whilst playing with their welcome bonus, still allow you to double and split without stealing your winnings, because its an essential part of the game, and these optional actions require a SEPERATE additional bet! ... I will not deposit a penny to a casino that doesn't understand this.