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

 

[maxd]

What about the "unsavoury" term about limiting players winnings to 6 x their deposited amount ....

That would be a Bryan-and-them thing and afaik he's just coming to the end of his holiday season hibernation.

 

[maphesto]

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

Most important thing is that op got paid!

I still wonder what happened over at the Palace Group, what kind of explanation came from them? Or did they pay the player without talking about the issue?

Also, an active rep would have explained it here in the thread, they are accredited.

 

[chayton]

Yes, good news for the OP! And a big to Max and Bryan - without whose involvement the player would have been SOL.

Between the non-response of the rep and the retroactive term, this case didn't put the Palace Group in a very good light. IMO.

 

[zreb]

Definitely great that Max was able to help the player get paid.

To echo the sentiment of others here, the behavior of the casino still looks pretty atrocious, aside from their willingness to resolve the issue with the PAB. If this weren't for an amount of money which should be small for any fiscally sound casino, it would almost look like the casino created this term specifically to try to steal away the player's winnings. Most likely of course, it is just a case of incompetence, disorganization, and poor service.

But the treatment of the player by the casino is still reprehensible. Even if there had been a maximum withdrawal term in place before the deposit, and it weren't a ridiculously small multiple of the deposit, the player is treated like a criminal. Rather than "Sorry, but there is a maximum withdrawal of 900 on the bonus you received, but we welcome you to keep playing to win some more" the player is effectively told, "You have breached our terms. This decision is final. Don't waste our time with complaints. You're lucky we're giving you anything at all." All for the heinous sin of winning too much. While playing slots. Who would want to play at a casino like this?

 

[maxd]

I still wonder what happened over at the Palace Group, what kind of explanation came from them? Or did they pay the player without talking about the issue?

Sorry, I have no knowledge of what the problem was. I simply received word from the player that payment had been received.

 

[The Dude]

Sorry for the delay in getting back to this. One of the problems that we are having is that the Palace group is adamant that they do not participate in an public forum. They are will to have a rep here who will discuss things privately, but they won't be posting at all. I've always felt that this was acceptable if only they maintain communications and monitor an account here.

I spoke to one of the top administrators over the phone about the OPs case last month, and he said that they were still looking into this. I mentioned that I needed someone who would be more active in monitoring the forum and forum account, and he said that this would be done. For any complaints or PABs, these should all be handled swiftly just like any other issue with an accred casino.

 

[slottymcslot]

Hello all, sorry for my delay it has been a crazy Christmas and New Year, but nothing is an excuse for not posting before now. My apologies.

First, and most important: I am happy to report that I received my winnings, in full from Ruby Fortune.

I sent them an email with my certified documents as requested & furthermore demanded, again, full payment of my circa 5k GBP balance. I was paid the 6x deposit, as aforementioned in this thread, whilst being "reinformed" why this was the case. Several more back and forth emails continued, with the (again) aforementioned stonewalling.

I got another response, and was just going to ignore it, but thought one last time, why not? Well tickle my bum and call my Roy Rodgers, I got a response that agreed the term was added after I had joined, deposited, played and attempted to be withdrawn, and it would be investigated. A short term later it was accepted and I was paid in full.

I am just kindof shocked and have no clue what the 180 was caused by.. and TBH I still don't know what to think about it all. Whether it was Max/PAB, this thread, and/or getting lucky getting the right person to read my email (or a combo of the aforementioned), but nonetheless, my winnings have been paid and I am a very happy camper. Or maybe that's relieved, whatever.

One thing that is FACT, and that is I would not be 4k GBP+ richer right now if it wasn't for CM, and in particular forum member Maphesto, who discovered the fact they changed their Ts and Cs and enforced them on me after I signed up etc., so THANK YOU, and as promised, I will send you a nice bottle of something to drink (whenever you reply to my email with your address/choice of tipple )

Casinomeister is a MUST for anyone who wagers regularly online. Just an FYI, the monies CM helped me to restore, paid my rent for the year, you guys make a difference to peoples lives.

Best regards,
slottymcslot

 

[maphesto]

I got another response, and was just going to ignore it, but thought one last time, why not? Well tickle my bum and call my Roy Rodgers, I got a response that agreed the term was added after I had joined, deposited, played and attempted to be withdrawn, and it would be investigated. A short term later it was accepted and I was paid in full.

That they agreed the term was added after you played is good, that they afterwards were honest. Of course, the best part is that you were paid in full.

One thing that is FACT, and that is I would not be 4k GBP+ richer right now if it wasn't for CM, and in particular forum member Maphesto, who discovered the fact they changed their Ts and Cs and enforced them on me after I signed up etc., so THANK YOU, and as promised, I will send you a nice bottle of something to drink (whenever you reply to my email with your address/choice of tipple )

I will reply, I wanted to know if their response to you had something to do with the late added term. I've asked Max,Casinomeister and Palace Group rep about your issue and you were the first to write that they admitted that they added the term after your withdrawal.

To Palace Group:

STILL, the term is not changed on all your languages. You have a history of bad updated T&C:s. Even if you add a term that states that English is the main language and that text is the rule, you have to update the other languages in reasonable time. You have not done this. It's several months now. It's better with only an English site than a Swedish with old T&C:s.