Casinos By Status
Popular Filters
By Banking Options
All Games
Popular Bonus Filters
Popular Forums
Forum User Features
Recent Forum Threads
Submit A Complaint (PAB)
PAB Rules and Guidelines
Browse PABs
Popular News Sections
Recent News
A ridiculous rule, somewhat predatory infact, The point is, it was there.
Read this!When? Two days after he signed up?
I think you may have also "skimmed over" the fact they are a CasinoMeister Accredited casino and were far from "slimy" when they were granted that prodigious status.i do apologise, i only scimmed the thread, Hmm "scratches chin" 2 days after you say? Now, knowing these slimy casinos, id wager they would have another rule, that basically states "if you sign up with us, any rules we make at any time you agree to abide by" i could be, and hope, im wrong, but i can see this being hidden somewhere in the terms.
I think you may have also "skimmed over" the fact they are a CasinoMeister Accredited casino and were far from "slimy" when they were granted that prodigious status.
They would not have been accredited if they had predatory terms at the time. Of course, that was many years ago and so IF they have now changed their terms it is only right that players "call them out" and should expect CM to review their status.
I'm not sure though, if having a low maximum win amount when playing a bonus is something which could cause them to lose accreditation.
We will have to wait and see...
KK
I thought the OP had talked to the Rep here at CM but I noticed that he hadn't been reading this thread. He has not been online since the 24th of October. That's not a good sign either.
Today. I then emailed RF support, informing them I had contacted their rep here, and c/p'ed the body of my message I sent to them here. A few hours later I was replied to, saying that their decision remained final. Hence why I started this topic.
Yes, the rule limiting the bonus winnings to 6 times deposit amount is hidden deep inside general T&C. That is a trick Palace group used to do in the past also. But, unfortunately, you don't have any chances. Because today many players are not paid based on the vague terms like "irregular play", "hedge betting" etc. Here ,at least, we have a clear term. The hidden term but still it is there (somewhere on the website).
I know it sounds quite Harsh Hakapuku but I agree you need to read all the terms and conditions I know your prolly hurtin
out there with the win being reduced trust me I been there too but best advice is "Know your Enemy" -Sun Tzu .
Also your a newbie so ill point you in the right direction and not just flame you try the PAB system mate read up on the
rules etc btw welcome.
The only page where Ruby Fortune have updated is the English version, and that was updated after OP made his withdrawal.
The Palace Group Terms and Conditions as published on the Website (and updated from time to time) are in English and it is the English version of these Terms and Conditions that form the basis of these Terms and Conditions only. Translations into other languages may be made as a service and are made in good faith. However, in the event of ambiguity between the English version and a translation, the English version has priority over any translation.
Actually Hakapuku wasn't the original poster in this thread.
Just saying....
The real problem is being missed, this isn't an actual rule that a player can stick to or break. It's a case of the casino being able to determine after the fact and at their sole discretion whether or not to pay in full, or pay only 5x the deposit.
It doesn't matter whether the rule was read or not, it is not enforceable under UK consumer laws due to it's lack of clarity.
In fact, it seems that the casino refuse point blank to "clarify" this rule when a player who has read it asks about it BEFORE making their deposit.
I am assuming that had any actual terms been broken, the casino would have cited these, not this discretionary max cashout rule.
How would operators feel if players were allowed to play on credit, and said they would only decide whether or not to honour the debt after they had played. Well, the answer came in 2007 during the consultations over the new gambling laws. It was OPERATORS that wanted to have gambling debt enforceable just like any other, so that players could no longer renege on the operator's winnings "at their sole discretion", leaving operators no legal means to pursue the debt through the civil courts. Since operators got their wish, it also means players can take action in the civil courts to recover such debts too, and this process will be much easier from December 2014 as UK players could take action in the UK, rather than have to take their chances in places like Malta, all thanks to the new UK secondary licensing regime.
This is not the first time this has happened, so it looks like this is likely to become a problem for a number of players in the future.
Oddly enough, they WOULD pay a progressive in full, which is rather odd if this rule has any legitimacy in terms of fraud or "abuse". It makes me think Microgaming have banned operators from confiscating progressive payouts under any of these vague discretionary rules, perhaps to avoid the danger of a serious PR fallout if it were to occur. Playtech operators DO confiscate progressives for vague reasons, and this has heaped plenty of bad PR on Playtech as a whole, but not so much that they can't still make a profit.
How on earth do you know? Can you refer us to a case that has set a legal precedent? If not you are guessing. For a start they wouldn't come (at present) under the jurisdiction of a UK court as a claimant unless they could also be a defendant, which never happens as they hide behind the Maltese LGA as their jurisdiction (when it suits them). To this end the Dec.2014 changes you mention are welcome. Insurance companies can use 'discretion' in their decisions and have been able to do this in court cases and by the Ombudsman/FSA in the past - so how can you be so sure a foreign online casino couldn't? Sorry VVM, this is at best conjecturous.
Gotta love the armchair lawyers.
Anything to do with online casinos in a legal sense is conjecture, as there haven't been any cases brought before the court afaik.
Still, it gives the "Us vs Them" crowd something to hang their hat on, and provides comic relief for the rest of us.
How on earth do you know? Can you refer us to a case that has set a legal precedent? If not you are guessing. For a start they wouldn't come (at present) under the jurisdiction of a UK court as a claimant unless they could also be a defendant, which never happens as they hide behind the Maltese LGA as their jurisdiction (when it suits them). To this end the Dec.2014 changes you mention are welcome. Insurance companies can use 'discretion' in their decisions and have been able to do this in court cases and by the Ombudsman/FSA in the past - so how can you be so sure a foreign online casino couldn't? Sorry VVM, this is at best conjecturous.
So basicly some of you guys are saying the casinoes have the right to just make up whatever term they want and not pay people because its in the terms? And its ok because they are accredited here? No offence but Casinomeister is basicly an affiliate website... It dossent matter if they are accredited here or not. I personally think its a disgusting business practice the way this casino operates.. When gambling you should always stick to the well known brands such as, Betsson, Betsafe, Unibet,Nordicbet and so on.
I also learned it the hard way playing a casino, a netent casino mind you, that cost me 10 000 $ because the kept stalling my W/D. Now i only play at sites i know 100% are serious and sites that i already have cashed out from.
There IS some kind of precedent. Betfair have been quietly caving in to UK players over the "happy hour" promo rather than risk have a case end up in court to set that legal precedent. It's not something they want widely known, but it was reported here last year.
In fact, many businesses reconsider when they think a customer is serious about taking legal action, and only the real rogues let it get to court because they intend to ignore the court anyway by racking up loads of CCJs and then liquidating the company to get out of paying. I doubt this casino intends to ignore valid judgements and liquidate the company to get out of paying.
It's true that currently it's a difficult path due to the licensing regime we have at present, but this is a dangerous policy to have in place and actually USE on what appears to be a regular basis given the desire to expand in the UK market. These consumer laws are derived from an EU directive, so all EU member states have to introduce laws that cover the requirements in the directive. The UK has a reputation for being rather "thorough" when it comes to implementing an EU directive, and when there are complaints, the EU is to blame, not the UK government.
One basic thing that many forget is that under UK law, a term deemed "unfair" can be struck down even if it has been read and agreed to by the customer, so this argument does not protect the casino in this case. It is also illegal for a private company to arbitrarily issue "fines", which is what got the banks into trouble over "penalty charges".
To be legal, ALL players would have to be subject to the 5x winnings cap, not just a few that the management can pick at their own discretion. What they can do is to refuse registration to any player they feel deserves being picked for the 5x cap, this is covered by the "right to refuse service", but even this can be a minefield as the clever customer could sue on the grounds of discrimination on grounds of something like race, religion, etc, and faced with such a charge, the business has to prove the discrimination was not for one of these reasons. This often happens when people don't get that plum job they were after, but discover that a white male Caucasian Christian got it instead, despite seeming to have nothing better in the way of qualifications.
So basicly some of you guys are saying the casinoes have the right to just make up whatever term they want and not pay people because its in the terms?
There IS some kind of precedent. Betfair have been quietly caving in to UK players over the "happy hour" promo rather than risk have a case end up in court to set that legal precedent. It's not something they want widely known, but it was reported here last year. In fact, many businesses reconsider when they think a customer is serious about taking legal action, and only the real rogues let it get to court because they intend to ignore the court anyway by racking up loads of CCJs and then liquidating the company to get out of paying. I doubt this casino intends to ignore valid judgements and liquidate the company to get out of paying.
It's true that currently it's a difficult path due to the licensing regime we have at present, but this is a dangerous policy to have in place and actually USE on what appears to be a regular basis given the desire to expand in the UK market. These consumer laws are derived from an EU directive, so all EU member states have to introduce laws that cover the requirements in the directive. The UK has a reputation for being rather "thorough" when it comes to implementing an EU directive, and when there are complaints, the EU is to blame, not the UK government.
One basic thing that many forget is that under UK law, a term deemed "unfair" can be struck down even if it has been read and agreed to by the customer, so this argument does not protect the casino in this case. It is also illegal for a private company to arbitrarily issue "fines", which is what got the banks into trouble over "penalty charges".
To be legal, ALL players would have to be subject to the 5x winnings cap, not just a few that the management can pick at their own discretion. What they can do is to refuse registration to any player they feel deserves being picked for the 5x cap, this is covered by the "right to refuse service", but even this can be a minefield as the clever customer could sue on the grounds of discrimination on grounds of something like race, religion, etc, and faced with such a charge, the business has to prove the discrimination was not for one of these reasons. This often happens when people don't get that plum job they were after, but discover that a white male Caucasian Christian got it instead, despite seeming to have nothing better in the way of qualifications.
