Resolved Ruby Fortune "confiscating" over 4000GBP in winnings

[slottymcslot]

Hello all,

I will try keep this short, sweet and factual. I apologise that so soon into my membership here, I am posting a "complaint". On November 20th, I signed up to Ruby Fortune after seeing an advert on Google. I deposited 150gbp, and received 150gbp bonus. I had a big win on slots, circa 5000gbp, and asked live chat what I should do from there. They informed me of the "wagering requirements", which I completed playing only slots.

I then asked live chat, if I could withdraw my whole balance, they said yes, so I did. No rules were broken, nothing was done wrong, I played slots, won on slots, and withdrew.

Ruby Fortune then requested my ID documents via email, which I provided. After some back and forth about what ID was required to process the withdrawal, I sent them a scan of my passport, along with some other documents. On November 25th, they then emailed to inform me that they would now require "certified copies" of my ID to process my withdrawal. This is currently in the process of being acquired. Then, on November 26th, I received this email:

"Hi there "X",

Account: "XX"

Following a review of your account, we have identified that you are in breach of the casino’s standard Terms.

Please refer specifically to the following clause:

7.6

...

Where a Sign-Up Bonus has been granted to you, subject to you being required to have met all wagering requirements, you will be limited to a maximum withdrawal value of 6 times your first deposit amount and any remaining balance will be forfeited. This clause will only be applied at the discretion of casino management. All progressive wins are exempt from this clause.

Please be advised that a withdrawal of 900.00 will be released upon approval of the requested documents. The remaining balance will be confiscated.

The Casino’s standard Terms can be viewed in full at: rubyfortune.com

Regards,
Operations Department"

First, the term which was identified (7.6, is the only term in their Ts and Cs that has no sub heading (I've taken a print screen as proof, should it be changed at any point) and is not in the bonus section where it surely belongs. Furthermore, I read the Ts and Cs before signing up (to avoid this kindof thing) and I did not see it. I recently looked into signing up at Lucky Nugget casino, and the same clause was in their Ts and Cs, so I asked their live chat, they gave a spluttering answer and I opted not to play. My point is: I read Ts and Cs specifically to find clauses like this, and I did not see it before playing. Second, not once did anyone their company mention this, and I was told I could withdraw the whole balance. They stalled on accepting my ID, then demanded certified copies, THEN sent the above email.

(On a side note, are clauses like this legal? "This clause will only be applied at the discretion of casino management." - This is a casino that advertises quite aggressively everywhere, including UK TV. I have never heard, or seen, any mention of this clause ANYWHERE, even after searching many resources on the internet (such as CasinoMeister) since receiving this email)

I have already contacted Ruby Fortune via live chat and email to try to sort this "internally" in a calm, respectful manner, but I have been told on several occasions the matter is final, and upon receipt of my certified copies of ID they will pay me 900GBP. I have contacted RF via email, live chat, and via their rep on here (who hasn't been active for 4 weeks) with either no response or a flat out "stonewall" that the matter is final and I have "breached" their terms. I informed RF of my plans to take this matter further, including bringing this to casinomeister for advice, and was told that that was my right and I was entitled to do so, as per their live chat rep. He told me the decision was final, but would send the request through to management again. I explained to him in full, that I would seek the help of such outlets as casinomeister in this matter, and would do everything in my power to settle my account, in full, in a mature, respectful and professional manner. I have since been informed, again, the matter is final.

Basically, I am looking for help/advice of any kind, this is just kindof a "cliffnotes", I have attempted to leave all subjectivity possible out of the matter. I have further things to add, should CasinoMeister be so gracious as to assist me. There are more details to this story, but I just want to put the "barebones" out there to discuss my options.

Sincerely
SMcS

See Related Threads:

• Ruby Fortune Casino - Can't Connect, Anyone Else?
• Late Self Exclusion
• Ruby Fortune 70k + Withdrawals
• Sinister?
• They Confiscated My Luck (Ruby Fortune Tale)

 

[hakapuku]

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).

 

[bigjohn]

Hello all,

I will try keep this short, sweet and factual. I apologise that so soon into my membership here, I am posting a "complaint". On November 20th, I signed up to Ruby Fortune after seeing an advert on Google. I deposited 150gbp, and received 150gbp bonus. I had a big win on slots, circa 5000gbp, and asked live chat what I should do from there. They informed me of the "wagering requirements", which I completed playing only slots.

I then asked live chat, if I could withdraw my whole balance, they said yes, so I did. No rules were broken, nothing was done wrong, I played slots, won on slots, and withdrew.

Ruby Fortune then requested my ID documents via email, which I provided. After some back and forth about what ID was required to process the withdrawal, I sent them a scan of my passport, along with some other documents. On November 25th, they then emailed to inform me that they would now require "certified copies" of my ID to process my withdrawal. This is currently in the process of being acquired. Then, on November 26th, I received this email:

"Hi there "X",

Account: "XX"

Following a review of your account, we have identified that you are in breach of the casino’s standard Terms.

Please refer specifically to the following clause:

7.6

...

Where a Sign-Up Bonus has been granted to you, subject to you being required to have met all wagering requirements, you will be limited to a maximum withdrawal value of 6 times your first deposit amount and any remaining balance will be forfeited. This clause will only be applied at the discretion of casino management. All progressive wins are exempt from this clause.

Please be advised that a withdrawal of 900.00 will be released upon approval of the requested documents. The remaining balance will be confiscated.

The Casino’s standard Terms can be viewed in full at: rubyfortune.com/en/terms-and-conditions/

Regards,
Operations Department"

First, the term which was identified (7.6, ) is the only term in their Ts and Cs that has no sub heading (I've taken a print screen as proof, should it be changed at any point) and is not in the bonus section where it surely belongs. Furthermore, I read the Ts and Cs before signing up (to avoid this kindof thing) and I did not see it. I recently looked into signing up at Lucky Nugget casino, and the same clause was in their Ts and Cs, so I asked their live chat, they gave a spluttering answer and I opted not to play. My point is: I read Ts and Cs specifically to find clauses like this, and I did not see it before playing. Second, not once did anyone their company mention this, and I was told I could withdraw the whole balance. They stalled on accepting my ID, then demanded certified copies, THEN sent the above email.

(On a side note, are clauses like this legal? "This clause will only be applied at the discretion of casino management." - This is a casino that advertises quite aggressively everywhere, including UK TV. I have never heard, or seen, any mention of this clause ANYWHERE, even after searching many resources on the internet (such as CasinoMeister) since receiving this email)

I have already contacted Ruby Fortune via live chat and email to try to sort this "internally" in a calm, respectful manner, but I have been told on several occasions the matter is final, and upon receipt of my certified copies of ID they will pay me 900GBP. I have contacted RF via email, live chat, and via their rep on here (who hasn't been active for 4 weeks) with either no response or a flat out "stonewall" that the matter is final and I have "breached" their terms. I informed RF of my plans to take this matter further, including bringing this to casinomeister for advice, and was told that that was my right and I was entitled to do so, as per their live chat rep. He told me the decision was final, but would send the request through to management again. I explained to him in full, that I would seek the help of such outlets as casinomeister in this matter, and would do everything in my power to settle my account, in full, in a mature, respectful and professional manner. I have since been informed, again, the matter is final.

Basically, I am looking for help/advice of any kind, this is just kindof a "cliffnotes", I have attempted to leave all subjectivity possible out of the matter. I have further things to add, should CasinoMeister be so gracious as to assist me. There are more details to this story, but I just want to put the "barebones" out there to discuss my options.

Sincerely
SMcS

All this is not necessary and you will get nowhere by publicizing your case.

Ruby Fortune are accredited here, you tried support, you tried contacting the rep. and you got no joy. Next step, if you want a resolution, is probably to file a PAB. I have never done a PAB but I have looked over the guidelines and I don't believe I ever saw where it said you were required to bring it up in the forums first.

I think the best bet would be to go here Player Arbitration Policies and Procedures read and understand how the process works and let Max do his thing.

If you decide to do that try to follow the guidelines for the best chance of a resolution and so Max doesn't yell at you.

 

[davos11]

And this from an accredited casino !

So yes they had it in there T's and C's , But if it was hidden away in a section it didn't really belong in then thats not fair ,
Also apart from these RTG casinos with 3/4/500% match bonuses i don't think i have come accross a casino before with a 100% match with a max cashout rule , especially at 6x , That is quite frankly disgusting !

I'm sure as others have said there completely within there rights to take your money and there is nothing you can do about it ,Just another case of underhanded tactics ,

Take your winnings and run and avoid them in the future , Based on what you have told me i won't play there again myself either !

 

[slottymcslot]

All this is not necessary and you will get nowhere by publicizing your case.

...

Hi, thank you so much for responding, it is much appreciated. I am new to this, read the guidelines and fell in line with the protocol as best as I felt I could. I was not sure what to do, whether I could filed a PAB, so I came here with "barebones" details to try and get some advice. I certainly don't want to be breaking any CM rules, or get yelled at by people that may be in a position to help me. If I have broken any rules, I am willing to remove whatever material is asked to be removed by CM admin. I am merely trying to ascertain what my position is in this situation.

 

[Tirilej]

That was the worst sign up bonus rule I've seen from an accredited casino.
Thanks for letting me know it even exist so I can avoid all the casinos in that group.

Please do a PAB and even if you can't get them to change their mind at least they maybe maybe can get to remove that rule.
Horrible

 

[dunover]

Agreed, it is a shockingly bad term but it IS there. You are being paid according to it, with the usual delaying tactics about docs hoping you'll reverse the 900. Not good behaviour from ANY casino IMO but especially not an accredited one. I won't say more because you allude to other bits of the story not present which may affect our opinions. Unfortunately they are playing the 'discretion' card and inevitably where there's 'discretion' there is discrimination. But, even if there is a 'cross' term in one part of the T&C's that affects another criteria like bonuses, you could have read them all and cleared it up with CS before playing. Now before you accuse me of being hard on this, I have some sympathy here because the term is to be frank, bollocks and is not one I would expect from a supposedly reputable group.
A PAB would be unlikely to get a better result as they are following terms, BUT it may establish WHY this 'discretion' wasn't applied in your favour, unless you already know or suspect from the bits you haven't related.

 

[hakapuku]

That was the worst sign up bonus rule I've seen from an accredited casino.
Thanks for letting me know it even exist so I can avoid all the casinos in that group.

Please do a PAB and even if you can't get them to change their mind at least they maybe maybe can get to remove that rule.
Horrible

There is one more accredited group applying this rule to bonuses: Jackpotcity,Luckynugget, RiverBelle etc. Actually , I think that Palace group copied it from them (word in word). So when playing slots with these bonuses one should pray God not to win too much. And if you try to play any other games than slots at those casinos- you will be called a professional gambler (or advantage player) and will not be paid anyway.

 

[slottymcslot]

Agreed, it is a shockingly bad term but it IS there. You are being paid according to it, with the usual delaying tactics about docs hoping you'll reverse the 900. Not good behaviour from ANY casino IMO but especially not an accredited one. I won't say more because you allude to other bits of the story not present which may affect our opinions. Unfortunately they are playing the 'discretion' card and inevitably where there's 'discretion' there is discrimination. But, even if there is a 'cross' term in one part of the T&C's that affects another criteria like bonuses, you could have read them all and cleared it up with CS before playing. Now before you accuse me of being hard on this, I have some sympathy here because the term is to be frank, bollocks and is not one I would expect from a supposedly reputable group.
A PAB would be unlikely to get a better result as they are following terms, BUT it may establish WHY this 'discretion' wasn't applied in your favour, unless you already know or suspect from the bits you haven't related.

Thank you for your very balanced, unbias response. What I allude to, and I guess I was purposefully unclear on this, was that I read the Ts and Cs in full BEFORE signing up and playing, and I did not see this 6x clause, hence why I mentioned Lucky Nugget, as I read their Ts and Cs, and saw this EXACT clause and for that reason did not signup to play there. Furthermore, this is the ONLY clause in their Ts and Cs that is not headed. I am trying to talks in pure facts and not subjectivity. I am not holding anything "back" per se, I am just trying to be careful and respectful of the situation as I want to resolve this with Ruby Fortune. They have told me several times the matter is final, so I have no choice but to seek other avenues. May I further add, if I have broken/stretched any rules by anything I've psoted in this thread, if a CM admin would inform me of what that is I will do so immediately.

Thank you again

 

[maphesto]

Just to let you know, in the swedish version of T&C:s the text about maximum withdrawal is gone.

Compare for yourself, I will bolden the text in the English version which os gone in the swedish one:

English version:

7.6

Players who withdraw a sum of money that is 5 times or more greater than their lifetime deposits across all The Palace Group casinos will only be able to withdraw their winnings at a sum of €4,000 per week. The remaining amount will be placed back in the player's account until such time that they are eligible for a further withdrawal. This clause will only be applied at the discretion of casino management. All progressive wins are exempt from this clause.

Where a Sign-Up Bonus has been granted to you, subject to you being required to have met all wagering requirements, you will be limited to a maximum withdrawal value of 6 times your first deposit amount and any remaining balance will be forfeited. This clause will only be applied at the discretion of casino management. All progressive wins are exempt from this clause.

Swedish version:

7.6

Spelare som tar ut en summa pengar som är 5 gånger större än deras sammanlagda insättninger på alla casinon inom The Palace Group kommer endast att kunna ta ut deras vinster i omgångar om 4,000€ per vecka. Eventuell återstående summa kommer att återföras till spelarens konto för att invänta att denna uttagsgräns nollställs. Denna regel kommer endast att tillämpas efter beslut av casinoledningen. Alla progressiva vinster är undantag ifrån denna regel.

And now to the interesting part folks, according to wayback machine, this is how rule 7.6 looked like in the English version aug this year:

7.6

Players who withdraw a sum of money that is 5 times or more greater than their lifetime deposits across all The Palace Group casinos will only be able to withdraw their winnings at a sum of €4,000 per week. The remaining amount will be placed back in the player's account until such time that they are eligible for a further withdrawal. This clause will only be applied at the discretion of casino management. All progressive wins are exempt from this clause.

Rules changed nov 22... two days after OP signed up! They've added the thing about maximum withdrawal AFTER OP signed up!

 

[hakapuku]

Thank you for your very balanced, unbias response. What I allude to, and I guess I was purposefully unclear on this, was that I read the Ts and Cs in full BEFORE signing up and playing, and I did not see this 6x clause, hence why I mentioned Lucky Nugget, as I read their Ts and Cs, and saw this EXACT clause and for that reason did not signup to play there. Furthermore, this is the ONLY clause in their Ts and Cs that is not headed. I am trying to talks in pure facts and not subjectivity. I am not holding anything "back" per se, I am just trying to be careful and respectful of the situation as I want to resolve this with Ruby Fortune. They have told me several times the matter is final, so I have no choice but to seek other avenues. May I further add, if I have broken/stretched any rules by anything I've psoted in this thread, if a CM admin would inform me of what that is I will do so immediately.

Thank you again

I now checked the "wayback machine" website for the older version of the websites. I checked Rubyfortune first. The most recent version is dated August and the rule was NOT there at that time. But there is a bad news. I checked the same for Spin Palace casino (which is Ruby Fortune 's sister casinos and have same exact terms and conditions). And the version of Spin Palace website dated 2 of November DOES contain that rule.
You can check this information yourself at web.archive.org


Looking for info on Spin Palace? Check here!

 

[maphesto]

I now checked the "wayback machine" website for the older version of the websites. I checked Rubyfortune first. The most recent version is dated August and the rule was NOT there at that time. But there is a bad news. I checked the same for Spin Palace casino (which is Ruby Fortune 's sister casinos and have same exact terms and conditions). And the version of Spin Palace website dated 2 of November DOES contain that rule.
You can check this information yourself at web.archive.org

Spin Palace changed their rules in oct 28, Ruby Fortune changed them in nov 22...two days after OP signed up.

 

[hakapuku]

Spin Palace changed their rules in oct 28, Ruby Fortune changed them in nov 22...two days after OP signed up.

you could be right

 

[maphesto]

you could be right

Let's hope so! It's a discusting rule.

@OP

When did you send your message to their rep here?

 

[slottymcslot]

Spin Palace changed their rules in oct 28, Ruby Fortune changed them in nov 22...two days after OP signed up.

As I said, I wanted to avoid subjectivity, but I alluded to the fact I read the Ts and Cs before signing up and playing, and did not see this term. I confirm that I requested my withdrawal before November 22nd. I really want to remain respectful to reach an amicable conclusion, but I must admit I am biting my lip right now. THANK YOU maphesto so much.

 

[slottymcslot]

Let's hope so! It's a discusting rule.

@OP

When did you send your message to their rep here?

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.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Apart from the obvious (PAB), the OP could raise this issue with their local Trading Standards. This rule could fall foul of UK consumer protection legislation, and as this term is now spreading widely among unconnected casino operators, it could be a "public interest" issue, rather than a case of individual vs business.

The weakness is that it's not a hard and fast term, but something the casino can decide to implement after the fact at their own discretion. Such terms are highly likely to be illegal under UK law as it is impossible for the terms to be "clear" to the consumer from the outset.

The earlier version was better, as it only implemented payment schedule rather than a one off payment. In this form, there would be much less chance of the term falling foul of UK consumer protection laws as in the end, full payment is made.

It is also a matter for the ASA, as there is a requirement for such a critical restriction to be drawn to the attention of the prospective customer in an up front manner, rather than buried in pages of "smallprint".

Unfortunately, complaints need to come from a victim in order to get the best response. Others could make Trading Standards and the ASA aware of the matter, with the ASA at least being able to issue a "change the ad" notice to the casino concerned. With the ASA, it would be the TV ad, or other internal UK promotion, rather than the Google ad, that would be judged for compliance. The ASA could not make them pay up, and Trading Standards could only ask them to reconsider, not force them to pay by any legal instrument.

In more general terms, online operators could be told this clause is not allowed under UK consumer protection laws, which would pave the way for players to take their own steps to recover the monies.

From December 2014, it will also be possible to complain to the UKGC. Currently, they would not be able to do anything, and would refer the player to the relevant licensing body.

 

[Cleveland]

As I said, I wanted to avoid subjectivity, but I alluded to the fact I read the Ts and Cs before signing up and playing, and did not see this term. I confirm that I requested my withdrawal before November 22nd. I really want to remain respectful to reach an amicable conclusion, but I must admit I am biting my lip right now. THANK YOU maphesto so much.

At this point follow bigjohn's advice and proceed with a PAB. Stop speaking on the topic in the open forums. Maphesto (or whoever I forgot that quick) gave you some solid ammo to move forward with. Use it, but stop speaking on it here. Since they are accredited, and you now know about the PAB process, don't risk hurting your case by continuing to discuss it in the open forums. Once you are aware of the PAB process it is part of the rules that you decide how you wish to proceed. If you need help clearing up any of the details concerning the info given to you by other members in this thread, send them a PM (private message).

Point is PAB -- **assuming you contacted the rep first** **and read the PAB rules / FAQ**

That's a good amount of money, and I will be the first to lol at you if one of the reasons your PAB fails or you're not allowed to PAB is because you chose to continue speaking about it in the open forums....even after multiple members told you not to or how to proceed. Just sayin

 

[slottymcslot]

At this point follow bigjohn's advice and proceed with a PAB. Stop speaking on the topic in the open forums. Maphesto (or whoever I forgot that quick) gave you some solid ammo to move forward with. Use it, but stop speaking on it here. Since they are accredited, and you now know about the PAB process, don't risk hurting your case by continuing to discuss it in the open forums. Once you are aware of the PAB process it is part of the rules that you decide how you wish to proceed. If you need help clearing up any of the details concerning the info given to you by other members in this thread, send them a PM (private message).

Point is PAB -- **assuming you contacted the rep first** **and read the PAB rules / FAQ**

That's a good amount of money, and I will be the first to lol at you if one of the reasons your PAB fails or you're not allowed to PAB is because you chose to continue speaking about it in the open forums....even after multiple members told you not to or how to proceed. Just sayin

Thank you so much for your advice/asistance in this matter, and everyone in this thread. I have now submitted a PAB and will comment no further on the situation. Any details pertaining to this situation that CM officials/admin would like/advise me to remove/delete, I will do so.

TY once more

 

[KasinoKing]

I have to agree with everyone else - this is a ridiculous rule and predatory as it does NOT appear in the T&Cs of the First Welcome Bonus, where it clearly belongs (if anywhere).

I'm pretty disgusted that an accredited casino would add such a rule and I only hope they wake up and remove this rule ASAP.

KK

 

[SlotsLover]

max withdrawal on deposit match bonuses

Once again, I would like to propose that a rule for accreditation is that there is no max withdrawal on a deposit match bonus. It's just not fair (on top of being hidden in the terms and conditions). As previously discussed, such a rule can drastically lower the RTP, maybe even into the 40s or 50s depending upon the variance of the machine. This is akin to a brick and mortar casino offering 15 -1 on a single number at roulette or a blackjack game where dealer wins on ties.

I'd like to start a poll on this, do I need special permission to do this and how is this done?

Happy Thanksgiving!

 

[KasinoKing]

I'd like to start a poll on this, do I need special permission to do this and how is this done?

Nope!
Just start a new thread, but before posting look below the text box at the "Additional Options".
Select "Post a Poll" and away you go!
Please make sure you think out exactly which questions you want to ask before you start your post.

KK

 

[slottymcslot]

May I add, there doesn't appear to be an EDIT POST for me here. CM have my full permission to delete/remove anything I have posted in this thread that breaks any CM rules.

 

[rena35]

If you PAB im sure anything you wrote prior will not harm your case. GL

 

[lotusch]

Defo not a casinogroup I would EVER spend a dime.
What a bunch of clowns.

In what day and ago do they live?

 

[dunover]

Well if they changed the rules retrospectively after the OP signed up AND FAILED TO INFORM HIM VIA E-MAIL like say Paypal/eBay/banks do after they change any of your T&C's then that is underhand and rogue in my opinion. The OP should be paid in full and the rep should come on here forthwith to clarify things for their players' and their benefit.

 

[sigothx1]

A ridiculous rule, somewhat predatory infact, The point is, it was there.

And thats where i fear your never going to get the outcome you want, Yes its buried, yes its a terrible rule, and yes, i do feel after reading your story you should be paid in full and the rule abolished, the rep will most likely just point to the rule on the site and say you signed up and played, and they were not to know you hadnt seen it, I like others will be avoiding this site like the plague, tommorw ill be looking for a new casino to try, and it might well have been me in this prediciment so for the little its worth, thanks for the warning.

i wish you the best of luck in this.

 

[maphesto]

A ridiculous rule, somewhat predatory infact, The point is, it was there.

When? Two days after he signed up? Read this!

 

[sigothx1]

When? Two days after he signed up? Read this!

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.

 

[chayton]

I think that the OP will win this PAB - if the rule wasn't there at the casino that they deposited and played at WHEN they deposited and played, then the rule doesn't apply to them. "The rule was there but we forgot to add it to the website" is stupidity on their part and it's not the player's fault. Having it on the Spin Palace page is moot - how is any player supposed to know that a rule on another casino website is supposed to apply to the casino they're playing?

 

[KasinoKing]

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

 

[Tirilej]

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.

 

[Nifty29]

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 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.

 

[chayton]

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.

On page 2 somebody said "when did you contact the rep?" and the OP said:

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.

At first I thought that it was the rep who had replied, but on reading it again, I think that the OP meant that they'd been replied to by casino support.

 

[Firehawk]

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 slottymcslot 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.

edited :

 

[chayton]

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.

Actually Hakapuku wasn't the original poster in this thread.

Just saying....

 

[Firehawk]

Noobish editing aside here's your basic's for happy gaming :

1. Have your Verification Documents Prepared in Advance (In Good Quality 1200dpi if possible).

2. Google the Site check reviews in particular feedback , Payout Times , RTP's if there's any , see if their e-cogra approved ,
, check if their accredited on Casinomeister , run them by thepogg , run them by askthegamblers , basically put them through the washing machine.

3. Check ALL their T&C's I mean everything Bonuses , and General T&C's : enquire with live support and ask about anything you cant understand , take regular screenshots if you feel the need to e.g (Live support conversations regarding deals if offered a bonus ask them the conditions wgr, maximum bet , maximum cashout , is it a cashable bonus , ask if there are game exclusions and basically go to town with questions.

4. If you strike casinos that you suddenly have problems with technical difficulty with games or disconnections ironically when your "winning" cashout , stay out , and if you make it out.

5. Don't touch anything in Costa Rica or any kind of Shady Country where the law cant touch em use common sense.

6. When in Doubt Cash out.

Over and Owt !

 

[maphesto]

I checked The Palace Group casinos in other languages and the strange part is that this particular casino, Ruby Fortune, seem to update their T&C:s later than the others.

Where Spin Palace have updated T&C:s with the new maximum cashout rule on the first deposit bonus at all languages, Ruby Fortune have not.

The only page where Ruby Fortune have updated is the English version, and that was updated after OP made his withdrawal.

At the swedish, french, finnish, german and spanish versions of the T&C:s the maximum cashout rule isn't there.

Why do they care less of updating T&C:s at Ruby Fortune than the other casinos? The updated version in english was of course made when they realized that a player had won and they had forgotten to update T&C:s. I can see no other explanation.

I have notified Bryan and Max about this thread and that the rep of Palace Group has to come online and read.

 

[chayton]

The only page where Ruby Fortune have updated is the English version, and that was updated after OP made his withdrawal.

Well they've covered their butts as far as only changing the English version:

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.

I've actually seen this rule about the English version of the terms superseding other languages on several sites but it always seemed a little sloppy to me. If you're a player that doesn't speak or read English what are you supposed to do? But I digress....again.

If the casino didn't have that term in place on the website when the player deposited, there's no way they can hold him to it - and if it wasn't on the website until AFTER the withdrawal, they need to pony up with a big fat apology for trying to be sneaky buggers on top of it. IMO.

 

[Nifty29]

Actually Hakapuku wasn't the original poster in this thread.

Just saying....

In that case, it really IS harsh!

 

[vinylweatherman]

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.

 

[dunover]

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.

 

[Nifty29]

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.

 

[Firehawk]

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.

It really is the wild west out there you have to admit Nifty I mean outside of A Gambling Commission , CDS , PAB , and etc what Legal Solidarity is there when it comes to it : I've read a good majority of T&C's basically all pointing to "we the casino will have the final say".
I remember when I studied commercial law and I remember those immortal words from one of my Law Lecturers "Anybody can make rules But Its up to Courts to Determine which are Legal Binding" I think there needs to be a Legal Body Created by the United Nations in Order to Deal with Disputes on an International Level as the World of E-Commerce is Ever Expanding and there needs to be something in place to help deal with this madness this goes beyond just Casino's.

Wild Wild West !

 

[vinylweatherman]

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.

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.

 

[whodatrec]

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.

 

[bsilva028]

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.

no, CM is not like a basic affiliate site
the called "acredited casinos" have to met a lot of fair rules to be listed there
also, as an acredited casino, they have a rep here, if the op already contacted the rep and did not got answer, then, the op should PAB.

pab faq´s can be read here: Player Arbitration Policies and Procedures

 

[Nifty29]

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.

Just a reminder readers....

Nobody here is a lawyer.

Nobody here knows what Betfair or any other company is "thinking", unless they have been present at the board meetings etc on a daily basis.

As such, nobody can say with ANY credibility whether any term is "legal" or not.

It's 100% pure speculation and nothing more.

Whodatrec....how did some casino "cost" you $10k? Did you breach their terms or something?

 

[chayton]

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?

As much as it sucks, that's actually true - that's why it's so important to read the terms when you sign up. If a casino has a term that they'll only pay you $50 a month no matter how much you deposit, you agree to that term when you sign up - and if you win and are only getting paid $50 a month there's really sweet FA you can do about it.

 

[dunover]

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.

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.