Resolved Ruby Fortune "confiscating" over 4000GBP in winnings

[Jasminebed]

It is extremely important that players read all the terms.

We can agree this rule sucks. We can inform each other about it.

But the real crux here is WHEN this term was added. If the term was not there when the player took the SUB, then he should not be held to it, even if the casino made a blunder. It's okay (not desirable, but should be allowed) for them to add it afterwards, so they don't get hit again.

IF indeed the casino added the term AFTER the player joined and deposited, then I think not only should the player should be paid, I think the casino should be rogued.

It's nothing but an attempt at theft and no mere misunderstanding or interpretation of terms.

 

[Simmo!]

On the surface this looks very poor. But, as a reminder to everyone, it needs to go through the PAB process and Max needs to get all the facts so please don't confuse speculation and conjecture with fact at this time.

 

[maphesto]

On the surface this looks very poor. But, as a reminder to everyone, it needs to go through the PAB process and Max needs to get all the facts so please don't confuse speculation and conjecture with fact at this time.

Does it really have to go through the PAB process? This one didn't:

https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/palace-group-warning.35465/

That was also about things the Palace Group forgot to add...

I think that the rep has to explain, or at least come online and read PM:s before we can think that Max has to do the work.

 

[vinylweatherman]

No, you were talking about COURTS i.e. legal precedent. Now you're twisting things. Betfair may have been confident of avoiding or winning any legal action, but chose to avoid any negative publicity. We simply don't know. It's speculation.

I said "some kind", not legal.

It's the same approach the banks took. They caved in to AVOID a court case setting a precedent, but if they were confident of being in the right, they would have said "bring it on", rather than just caving in. These companies have their own legal advisers, and they will outline the risks of a particular type of case going to court, and the bean counters will then decide whether they are better off caving in rather than taking that risk.

Whatever was said in these meetings, the board at Betfair decided that they would be better off caving in once they were reasonably sure that a player was not bluffing about going to court. The banks were the same, they feared that if they lost in court, they would be flooded with claims worth BILLIONS, so decided to settle cases as they came along, which would mean paying only those who took matter this far, and also allowing the damage to be spread over several years, rather than coming as one big hit.

I am sure Betfair feel the same, the risk of ANY "confiscation due to bonus abuse" cases getting to court is greater than the cost of paying out a relatively small number of players who have gone ahead with court action. The risk of course is that a widespread industry practice could end up being branded illegal in a specific case, and this then becoming the precedent that all future cases use in their arguments. It would also spur others to make claims because they will see that they CAN win after all.

As for avoiding negative publicity, Betfair are far too late, the damage had been done long before some players started taking legal action.

 

[dunover]

I said "some kind", not legal.

It's the same approach the banks took. They caved in to AVOID a court case setting a precedent, but if they were confident of being in the right, they would have said "bring it on", rather than just caving in. These companies have their own legal advisers, and they will outline the risks of a particular type of case going to court, and the bean counters will then decide whether they are better off caving in rather than taking that risk.

Whatever was said in these meetings, the board at Betfair decided that they would be better off caving in once they were reasonably sure that a player was not bluffing about going to court. The banks were the same, they feared that if they lost in court, they would be flooded with claims worth BILLIONS, so decided to settle cases as they came along, which would mean paying only those who took matter this far, and also allowing the damage to be spread over several years, rather than coming as one big hit.

I am sure Betfair feel the same, the risk of ANY "confiscation due to bonus abuse" cases getting to court is greater than the cost of paying out a relatively small number of players who have gone ahead with court action. The risk of course is that a widespread industry practice could end up being branded illegal in a specific case, and this then becoming the precedent that all future cases use in their arguments. It would also spur others to make claims because they will see that they CAN win after all.

As for avoiding negative publicity, Betfair are far too late, the damage had been done long before some players started taking legal action.

You haven't told the full story again. The banks did initially pay claimants but are now contesting a long and drawn-out court case so claimants have been put on hold until the legal wrangling is sorted out. This means all individual legal actions have been put on ice. So there is still no legally-binding precedent that the court an individual goes to can enforce. All further decisions are pending the outcome of the High Court decisions. This is a classic example (like I said in my first comment) of 'discretion' being allowed in law. The banks exercised discretion in the customers' favour and then stopped.

 

[GrandMaster]

You haven't told the full story again. The banks did initially pay claimants but are now contesting a long and drawn-out court case so claimants have been put on hold until the legal wrangling is sorted out. This means all individual legal actions have been put on ice. So there is still no legally-binding precedent that the court an individual goes to can enforce. All further decisions are pending the outcome of the High Court decisions. This is a classic example (like I said in my first comment) of 'discretion' being allowed in law. The banks exercised discretion in the customers' favour and then stopped.

Which case are you talking about?

 

[vinylweatherman]

You haven't told the full story again. The banks did initially pay claimants but are now contesting a long and drawn-out court case so claimants have been put on hold until the legal wrangling is sorted out. This means all individual legal actions have been put on ice. So there is still no legally-binding precedent that the court an individual goes to can enforce. All further decisions are pending the outcome of the High Court decisions. This is a classic example (like I said in my first comment) of 'discretion' being allowed in law. The banks exercised discretion in the customers' favour and then stopped.

Neither have you, the banks eventually WON their case, but the OFT then waded in to make sure things were fairer. The result of the victory means that the banks no longer have to refund charges purely based on the original argument. They DO however now have to refund charges and even investment losses if a product has been "miss sold" to a customer.

It turns out that the banks' fears were unfounded, but they were enough to get many people refunded. If anything, charges would be getting refunded now, because it wasn't the banks that decided to let the courts decide, it was the OFT that forced the issue to court in order to create a legal precedent that would make it easier for people to reclaim their charges. It backfired on the OFT, so was not one of their better ideas.

This is why it might work in this industry when players dispute something, even where they are in the wrong.

The problem I have is that it shouldn't take a court summons flopping on someone's desk to make a business "do the right thing", rather than hide behind the "we can do it, so we will" argument based on the complex legal status of internet consumer contracts.

 

[chayton]

Does it really have to go through the PAB process? This one didn't:

https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/palace-group-warning.35465/

That was also about things the Palace Group forgot to add...

It was probably right after that they added the term about the English terms having supremacy over the terms in other languages.

 

[maxd]

... follow the guidelines for the best chance of a resolution and so Max doesn't yell at you.

"Yell at you"? Please show me where I "yelled" at someone. Of course people who file PABs are expected to read the FAQ -- at the end of the PAB submission form it says "I have read and understand the FAQ" or whatever -- and if they don't then they're basically wasting everyone's time but other than that, where's this "yelling"?

FTR there does seem to be a bit of a disconnect at the Palace Group regarding PABs at the moment. On a recently submitted PAB I was told -- NOT by the rep (appears to be AWOL, may have left the group, can't recall for sure) -- that they don't discuss player issues. Doubless this is a case of the loop not being closed somewhere but it is a little disconcerting that they'd be that badly off-hook, change of guard or no.

Anyway, OP's PAB received and in process so we'll see what we see.

 

[The Dude]

I think this case is evidence that annual reviews of accreditation status for each operator is required.

This could be done on a staggered basis based on date of initial accreditation.

It could involve the CAG, or perhaps a BOF-type thread each year to allow feedback and to make Bryan aware of rule changes etc.

Excellent idea. I should be able to set something like this up sometime this week. It'll give you guys something to do.

As max mentioned, there seems to be some commo-disconnect between us and the palace group that needs rectifying. There is no excuse to let a rep account to go dormant in the forum. Thanks to those who have pointed this out to me.

 

[chayton]

Just curious if there are any updates on this yet? Any response from Palace group or....? No pressure, just curious.

 

[The Dude]

I've been told that a message has been sent to the highest level. I'm waiting to hear what's up.

 

[maphesto]

Palace Group rep has been logged in today! At least some progress.

 

[Jasminebed]

I'm hoping there's an update soon.

 

[maphesto]

I'm hoping there's an update soon.

Yes, this is very bad. The rep was here dec 5 and we hear nothing.

Can Max or Bryan tell us if this casino group have "lost" their act totally?

 

[chayton]

Well the Palace Group rep may have logged in, but they don't seem too interested in contributing or responding to any player issues on the forum at least. I just noticed that the last post they made was over three years ago.

I'm assuming if you have a problem and send a PM you'll get a response...?

 

[maphesto]

Well the Palace Group rep may have logged in, but they don't seem too interested in contributing or responding to any player issues on the forum at least. I just noticed that the last post they made was over three years ago.

I'm assuming if you have a problem and send a PM you'll get a response...?

I don't think that OP have gotten any response, there is a PAB filed aswell.

 

[Jasminebed]

If there's a PAB in progress, I know that neither side should be posting.

I would appreciate Maxd letting us know if the lines of communication are now open though.

 

[The Dude]

I spoke the operator over the phone last week who said they are on this. Sorry for not posting this earlier, but I forgot to get to it.

 

[maxd]

I spoke the operator over the phone last week who said they are on this. Sorry for not posting this earlier, but I forgot to get to it.

FWIW I haven't heard a peep on any of the outstanding Palace Group issues.

The OP does have a PAB on the table but there has been no progress on it because I don't have an active contact in the Palace Group to send the issue to. Feelers were sent out to the rep-on-file a few weeks ago but there was no response. Supposedly someone was supposed to step forward per Bryan's discussions with them but that hasn't happened yet AFAIK. Seems to me someone is having troubles figuring out what to do with the elephant-sized ball that is sitting in their court.

Update: just received some contact info from Bryan, I'll try them first thing tomorrow. If and when that produces some useful results I'll post back here.

 

[bigjohn]

"Yell at you"? Please show me where I "yelled" at someone. Of course people who file PABs are expected to read the FAQ -- at the end of the PAB submission form it says "I have read and understand the FAQ" or whatever -- and if they don't then they're basically wasting everyone's time but other than that, where's this "yelling"?

Really. It was kind of a joke.

You gotta admit you have 'gone off' on a few potential PABers who don't seem to get it. I'm not saying that's a bad thing. Perhaps I should have said, "So Max doesn't admonish you" but I don't think it would have worked as well.

Anyways it appears to have worked, the OP hasn't posted concerning his PAB since submitting it. So far my method of advising potential PABers has been 100% effective!

 

[maxd]

Really. It was kind of a joke.

Ah, well, as I say to my wife from time to time: a joke is supposed to be funny.

Sorry but I didn't see much humour in your original post. And the potential downside of a statement like that is significant enough that you might want to have taken a moment to be clear that you were being humourous. or , for example.

 

[bigjohn]

Duly noted.

I am not that well versed with the smileys yet.

I'll leave you with a quote from Sammy Davis Jr., "The day people stop poking fun at you is the day they don't give a damn about you."

 

[maxd]

FTR the OP reports that full payment has been received. Upgrading the thread to "Resolved".

 

[KasinoKing]

FTR the OP reports that full payment has been received. Upgrading the thread to "Resolved".

That is good news indeed!

What about the "unsavoury" term about limiting players winnings to 6 x their deposited amount - is there any news about Palace Group changing this term?
Or a least, copying it into the BONUS T&Cs where it really needs to be to ensure other players don't miss it when thinking about signing-up and taking the Welcome Bonus?

KK