Roxy Palace Refusing £3000 payout

[jim509]

... Based on two hands of blackjack one of which i lost!

opened an account with Roxy Palace and deposited £200 and received a bonus of £150.* I contacted support to ask them to remove the bonus but was told this was not possible as I had already made wagers.* I understood this.

I wagered on slots and blackjack until the bonus was played through.* I then continued to play wagering’s thousands on slots and blackjack. I have requested two withdrawals £1400 and £2000.* This morning I received an email saying they would not pay.

"* I phoned Roxy Palace support and was told that the transactions were on European Blackjack and the following:-
*
"On Transaction 9 you spit the hand thereby increasing the bet and therefore exceeding the bet limit."
"*"
"On Transaction 12 the bet has exceeded as well."
*
*The wagers were capped by the Casino at £37.50 maximum, by wagering this on**blackjack the casino still permitted**an additional bet by doubling if I had a total of 9, 10 or 11 in my hand.* I had no reason to believe this was breaking any rule as it was permitted by the casino.* If by doubling would have voided then entire bank balance and any subsequent winnings it should not have been permitted just as a maximum bet of over 25% of the bonus (£37.50 in my case) was not permitted until the bonus had been totally played through.


*My winnings were not dependent on doubling or splitting the hand on blackjack.* Even if I had not have doubled or not played any blackjack at all I would have exceeded the wagering requirements relating to the bonus on slots alone.


*I am a genuine player who has never engaged in bonus abuse of any kind.* It feels as though Roxy Palace**"Risk Management Team have gone through my account in desperation to try and find any reason not to pay-out to a genuine player..

What should i do next? Any input appreciated. J

P.s. Sorry for any mistakes in typing. Dodgy smartphone.

 

[bigjohn]

Did any of your bets exceed 37.50, including after doubling up? If they did then you broke the terms and you are at the casinos mercy. Also, it doesn't matter if you won on the larger bets or not, the term deals with the size of the wager not if you won or not.

As far as what you should do next...make sure that if you take any bonus that you follow the terms for that bonus and you should have no problems.

 

[Googobucs]

There is probably not much you can do if you broke the bet limit terms. Since your playing with a deposit and if your a regular customer, they may be willing to compromise with you to some degree. It never hurts to ask (politely). The worst they can say is no.

At the time of your wager that broke the terms had you already completed the WR for the bonus? If so, I might explain that you did not realize splitting and doubling of your initial wager in black jack violated the max bet rules and ask them to restore your balance to the time when you broke the term. It's better than nothing if they are agreeable.

 

[vinylweatherman]

As splitting and doubling are part of the game, and cannot be predicted until the cards have been dealt, they should not be using this against the player as in effect they are saying the player should have deliberately used a worse than optimum strategy when faced with a suitable hand.

If it's such a problem, they should not allow Blackjack with the same max bet rules as other games, but either prohibit the game, or set a lower max bet percentage to take into account the fact that the cards dealt can lead to a split or a double.

Maybe a flat £10 max chip rule should be used, which should cover doubling and splitting.

As they have a UK licence, they also have to obey UK consumer laws when it comes to dealing with a UK player. It would be worth looking at the application of this term under the "fairness to the customer" criteria in the act, as opposed to it's absolute interpretation.

 

[jim509]

Thanks. I will try the gentle approach and ask nicely. Not sure how far it will get me though.

Very frustrating to have 3000 removed as i bet £12.50 too much on two occasions out of thousands of bets.

Thanks again. J

 

[catapultaudio]

Sorry but this is scandalous, as VWM states, splitting and doubling are part of the game, and each action is effectively a seperate bet anyway!

Do Roxy have a rep here at CM this guy can contact? I really hope crap like this will not be tolerated now that casinos are regulated here in the UK, it's just outright theft in my view... as ever, you can bet your life they would not have returned his deposit if he had lost.

 

[Googobucs]

Sorry but this is scandalous, as VWM states, splitting and doubling are part of the game, and each action is effectively a seperate bet anyway!

Do Roxy have a rep here at CM this guy can contact? I really hope crap like this will not be tolerated now that casinos are regulated here in the UK, it's just outright theft in my view... as ever, you can bet your life they would not have returned his deposit if he had lost.

There is absolutely nothing "scandalous" or vague about the term. In fact they even underline the part about single round of play so that it stands out in the statement.
It's not like they hide it in the fine print of page 327.

If you want to take advantage of splitting, doubling in Black Jack or the gamble feature in video poker then it's up to YOU to bet appropriately to not break the 25% rule.

12.The maximum stake per bet will be 25% of the bonus amount on a single round of play while the wagering requirement is being met. For example if the bonus value is £100 the maximum bet permitted would be £25."

 

[vinylweatherman]

There is absolutely nothing "scandalous" or vague about the term. In fact they even underline the part about single round of play so that it stands out in the statement.
It's not like they hide it in the fine print of page 327.

If you want to take advantage of splitting, doubling in Black Jack or the gamble feature in video poker then it's up to YOU to bet appropriately to not break the 25% rule.

12.The maximum stake per bet will be 25% of the bonus amount on a single round of play while the wagering requirement is being met. For example if the bonus value is £100 the maximum bet permitted would be £25."

The problem is that whilst this term is clear, it may not also be "fair" in all circumstances, which under UK law could be a problem for them.

A player could stick to the rule, but then get dealt a pair of cards where they really HAVE to split as not doing so presents a significant disadvantage and could negatively impact their chance of winning the hand. With doubling, the outcome is not affected by the player's choice, so they may well have a case here. The player has to decide on the bet BEFORE they can know whether or not they will have to split the hand, which is where the "fairness" aspect of the UK laws comes in. Is it "fair" to expect a player to "throw" a hand because to play it properly (split) would be a breach of a term. This is not the situation when it comes to doubling, whether on a hand of Blackjack, or an outcome from Video Poker or slots.

If the term is deemed "unfair", it is struck out and all other terms remain. This is not only how the UK works, but there is even a provision for this in the casino general terms and conditions which cover what happens when an individual term is struck out due to a conflict with the consumer law of the players' country.

It's worth pursuing for £3000, and this should probably be done through the UKGC sanctioned arbitration services, rather than a third party "offshore" service like the PAB here, as the outcome would only apply to UK players. Elsewhere, it would depend upon local consumer laws and how casinos are licenced.

If this fails, £3000 is low enough for the small claims court procedure to be used, which is much less expensive than chasing a claim for a larger amount through a full court process. I would hope that UK solicitors would have begun to take an interest in this aspect of consumer protection now that we have a regime that forces such cases before UK courts, rather than requiring players and their solicitors to take action in an offshore jurisdiction.

Such cases are how the level and scope of the new UK consumer protections will be worked out in practice. What we have so far is theory, that by bringing online casinos fully within the scope of UK consumer protection laws the UK player will end up being better protected than they were under the earlier whitelist system where complaints were ultimately decided by the likes of the LGA and GRA.

 

[Googobucs]

The problem is that whilst this term is clear, it may not also be "fair" in all circumstances, which under UK law could be a problem for them.

A player could stick to the rule, but then get dealt a pair of cards where they really HAVE to split as not doing so presents a significant disadvantage and could negatively impact their chance of winning the hand. With doubling, the outcome is not affected by the player's choice, so they may well have a case here. The player has to decide on the bet BEFORE they can know whether or not they will have to split the hand, which is where the "fairness" aspect of the UK laws comes in. Is it "fair" to expect a player to "throw" a hand because to play it properly (split) would be a breach of a term. This is not the situation when it comes to doubling, whether on a hand of Blackjack, or an outcome from Video Poker or slots.

If the term is deemed "unfair", it is struck out and all other terms remain. This is not only how the UK works, but there is even a provision for this in the casino general terms and conditions which cover what happens when an individual term is struck out due to a conflict with the consumer law of the players' country.

It's worth pursuing for £3000, and this should probably be done through the UKGC sanctioned arbitration services, rather than a third party "offshore" service like the PAB here, as the outcome would only apply to UK players. Elsewhere, it would depend upon local consumer laws and how casinos are licenced.

If this fails, £3000 is low enough for the small claims court procedure to be used, which is much less expensive than chasing a claim for a larger amount through a full court process. I would hope that UK solicitors would have begun to take an interest in this aspect of consumer protection now that we have a regime that forces such cases before UK courts, rather than requiring players and their solicitors to take action in an offshore jurisdiction.

Such cases are how the level and scope of the new UK consumer protections will be worked out in practice. What we have so far is theory, that by bringing online casinos fully within the scope of UK consumer protection laws the UK player will end up being better protected than they were under the earlier whitelist system where complaints were ultimately decided by the likes of the LGA and GRA.

I don't know who told you that life is fair but you should ask for a refund.

The term is clear and IMO fair. So now lets waste the time and tax $$$'s of the people of the UK for someone to go to court over something ridiculous that is spelled out in black and white right in front of your eyes and could not be any more obvious. The OP wont win this case and will just become another statistic of people who waste the courts time.

I suggest the OP appeal to the casino; as I mentioned before and see if they are willing to show some flexibility.

 

[dunover]

DRATT - (Didn't Read All The Terms)

As has been said, you rely solely on the good will of the casino here. The max bet terms do include 'doubling up' which by splitting you do, just the same as if you gamble for example a win on a slot with the 'red-black' card choice like BDBA. As soon as that win you gamble exceeds the limit you fall foul.

Despite the constant clamouring on here for casinos to integrate 'idiot-proofing' into their games which automatically warn or prevent over-bets when under bonus rules, the onus remains with the player to remember the rules.

P.S. I use the term 'idiot-proofing' as a description of having the software nanny us all and NOT in reference to any poster on this thread or any other!

P.P.S. Before talking of laws and courts or PABs PM the rep and point out it was a mere 2 bets and see if they'll get the WR increased to reflect those bets, thus giving you another chance at their discretion.

 

[jim509]

Thanks guys. I am taking this all in. I sent a polite reasoned email to the casino stating a few points you have made and asking them to rethink. I would like to include the rep object here but doing this all via a smart phone is making it difficult.

Thanks again. J

 

[vinylweatherman]

I don't know who told you that life is fair but you should ask for a refund.

The term is clear and IMO fair. So now lets waste the time and tax $$$'s of the people of the UK for someone to go to court over something ridiculous that is spelled out in black and white right in front of your eyes and could not be any more obvious. The OP wont win this case and will just become another statistic of people who waste the courts time.

I suggest the OP appeal to the casino; as I mentioned before and see if they are willing to show some flexibility.

Maybe in the US, but over here we have consumer protection laws that recognise that there is an inherent imbalance between consumer and business from the outset, so even crystal clear terms can be struck out as being "unfair". This can even be done "after the fact", despite the defence that the customer "agreed to them". This is because there is not the usual "negotiation of a contract" as would happen between two equal parties, something you would see in a B2B contract. The business gets to write the contract, and the consumer has zero say in it's content. The law takes over to give the consumer the right to be bound to a balanced and fair contract.

Someone must live in fairy land if they think an average consumer is just going to walk away from £3000. It's peanuts to a business, but it's a hell of a lot of money for an ordinary person, so if they have an avenue for fighting it, they should go ahead.

 

[jim509]

You are right weatherman . Not sure about the US Googo but in UK you dont get far just quoting terms and conditions. You have to show that the terms have been correctly and fairly applied. Otherwise a team of lawyers could own the arse of every consumer via terms n conditions.

It would not cost a tax payer anything. For a small sum i could file a claim online. Then Roxy have to prove their terms have been fairly applied.

1) the terms are there to stop abuse of the bonus. It is clear i did not abuse the bonus, i wagered more than i needed to and even requested they remove it.

2) I did not set out to wager more than 25% bonus, the site did not let me if i wanted to, i simply split a hand that was permitted by the software.

3) Their action is not proportional. For wagering 'apparently' £12.50p too much on two occasions they remove over £3000 .

They would have hard time showing their actions are fair and reasonable.

 

[KasinoKing]

Were the "over bets" before or after you finished the WR?

If after, then I don't see how the casino can impose the bonus rules on these bets.
Even if it was during WR, it still seems more than a little harsh to confiscate all the winning in these particular circumstances.
It it were me, I would:
1. Try to get a compromise from the casino.
2. If that fails (if the wagers were after WR), Pitch-A-Bitch
3. If that fails - lodge a dispute with the UKGC and see what they say.

KK

 

[Googobucs]

You are right weatherman . Not sure about the US Googo but in UK you dont get far just quoting terms and conditions. You have to show that the terms have been correctly and fairly applied. Otherwise a team of lawyers could own the arse of every consumer via terms n conditions.

It would not cost a tax payer anything. For a small sum i could file a claim online. Then Roxy have to prove their terms have been fairly applied.

1) the terms are there to stop abuse of the bonus. It is clear i did not abuse the bonus, i wagered more than i needed to and even requested they remove it.

2) I did not set out to wager more than 25% bonus, the site did not let me if i wanted to, i simply split a hand that was permitted by the software.

3) Their action is not proportional. For wagering 'apparently' £12.50p too much on two occasions they remove over £3000 .

They would have hard time showing their actions are fair and reasonable.

The US has consumer protection laws as well. I'm just not a consumer lawyer so I would not attempt to quote consumer law to anyone.

I assume in the UK, you can get a free legal consult with an attorney? I would suggest that before filing a claim so you know what your getting yourself into. These things can get messy and costly if handled poorly.

If you do file a claim, please be sure to let us know how it goes. It will be a good learning process for others.

 

[jim509]

Kasinoking it was before the WR .

Googo Hopefuly it won't get to legal rangling. Hoping Roxy Palace will be reasonable. If not I will have to refer to refer to licensing authority first.

Thanks to you both.

 

[stokes]

I think there are two types of casinos when it comes to the payment of winnings.

1. Who check every details in T&C to find any minor deviation to be able to deny the winnings.

2. Who check the play logs against T&C and they would not reject any winnings based on minor deviations.

An example for the second type of casino (maybe not even minor deviation).

I chose a bonus for my deposit at 18bet, but I did not realize that it was only for Haloween types of slots (DRATT as dunover would put it).
So I played different slots and I was pretty lucky doubling my deposit and bonus when I was called on my mobile by the casino explaining that it was a special type of bonus and reminded me to play those games allowed.
They did not remove my winnings and playing the allowed games I was actually able to cash out 1000 USD (my deposit was 100) without any hassle. They did not start to accuse me with bonus abusing, just paid me within 48 hours (with verification).

So, I prefer to play at the second type of casino.

 

[jim509]

Just had an email from Roxy Palace basically saying .....'yeah yeah yeah whatever. We can do what we want. If you have an issue tell Ecogra'

My blood is boiling! £200 deposit and £3200 winnings wiped out because of two bets on blackjack they claim were £12.50 over the bet limit out of thousands of bets I placed. Two bets that were splitting hands which the software offered, whereas the software did not permit over-betting when first placing the bet, leading me to believe I was placing an additional bet, not over wagering.

Would Ecogra ever look at the case on a fairness bases? Or just say 'no! Terms and conditions apply' ? I really need to think how to best approach this.

Does anyone have any experience with Ecogra dispute resolution? Do I stand a chance in hell?

Thanks again for all your input. Now going to try and take some deep breaths and sleep.

 

[jim509]

Bizzar! £2000 turned up in my bank account. Roxy Palace arbitrarily* paid one casout request but not the other for £1400.

Obviously I am happy, but it is very odd. If they are going to throw the book at me and feel justified in not paying me why pay some winning but not all?

I am grateful. However to me it shows this matter is not clear cut. Roxy Palace should at worst remove bonus and winnings from the hands of blackjack in question. But i don't believe they have any business in removing legitimate winnings.

J

 

[jshort]

Bizzar! £2000 turned up in my bank account. Roxy Palace arbitrarily* paid one casout request but not the other for £1400.

Obviously I am happy, but it is very odd. If they are going to throw the book at me and feel justified in not paying me why pay some winning but not all?

I am grateful. However to me it shows this matter is not clear cut. Roxy Palace should at worst remove bonus and winnings from the hands of blackjack in question. But i don't believe they have any business in removing legitimate winnings.

J

You are one lucky lucky son-of-a-gun! I know you deserved it all, but not getting anything more than your deposit back in this scenario is the norm. Other players have done far worse in your situation!

 

[Jakestar]

Bizzar! £2000 turned up in my bank account. Roxy Palace arbitrarily* paid one casout request but not the other for £1400.

Obviously I am happy, but it is very odd. If they are going to throw the book at me and feel justified in not paying me why pay some winning but not all?

I am grateful. However to me it shows this matter is not clear cut. Roxy Palace should at worst remove bonus and winnings from the hands of blackjack in question. But i don't believe they have any business in removing legitimate winnings.

J

Very lucky! Looks to me like an administration error, take the money and run.

 

[Zabier]

Bizzar! £2000 turned up in my bank account. Roxy Palace arbitrarily* paid one casout request but not the other for £1400.

Obviously I am happy, but it is very odd. If they are going to throw the book at me and feel justified in not paying me why pay some winning but not all?

I am grateful. However to me it shows this matter is not clear cut. Roxy Palace should at worst remove bonus and winnings from the hands of blackjack in question. But i don't believe they have any business in removing legitimate winnings.

J

Is there any way that they have a legal right to withhold the one payment but not the other one? That does seem to be some very odd decision-making right there. As Jakestar said, take the money and run!

 

[jim509]

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

 

[jim509]

dead end

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.

 

[SpinUk]

Id be going for the other £1400. They are chancing their arm by keeping it back

 

[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.