1. By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies .This website or its third-party tools use cookies, which are necessary to its functioning and required to achieve the purposes illustrated in the cookie policy.Find out more.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Dismiss Notice
  3. Follow Casinomeister on Twitter | Facebook | YouTube | Casinomeister.us US Residents Click here! |  Svenska Svenska | 
Dismiss Notice
REGISTER NOW!! Why? Because you can't do diddly squat without having been registered!

At the moment you have limited access to view most discussions: you can't make contact with thousands of fellow players, affiliates, casino reps, and all sorts of other riff-raff.

Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join Casinomeister here!

Bonus Complaint Spinson 20,000 win not paying out on technicality

Discussion in 'Casino Complaints - Bonus Issues' started by Jadie999, Oct 19, 2016.

    Oct 19, 2016
  1. Jadie999

    Jadie999 New Member

    Location:
    London
    Hey guys,

    I'm totally new to this forum but have been told it's the best place to get some advice. I'll give you the low down - I have deposited hundreds previous to this win on spinson but never won big, I played with some free spins two days ago and won a large sum something like 5k from one spin! So I checked the wagering left and it was only £80 so went onto a slot and bet £10 8 times to get through the wagering. I played for hours and hours and ended up with 20k in the kitty, yay for me. When I went to withdraw they came back and said that the maximum bet while playing with bonus funds was £5 now I must have read this at some point but had forgotten and excitement took over.

    The clause however states that if you want to play with more, to contact the customer service team and they may make an exception.

    Now I pleaded with them as of course that's a life changing sum of money for me! They've agreed to give me £500 of the winnings which is still a bit of a burn but kind nonetheless.

    It made me wonder though are they paying that out of genuine kindness or in the hope that I won't pester them any more because perhaps the fact they've made exceptions to the terms before might mean I am entitled to all my winnings? I'm just pretty upset and hoping there's some kind of loop hole here but I get it if not. I welcome any advice and I have definitely learnt a valuable lesson :(
     
  2. Oct 20, 2016
  3. hedgehok

    hedgehok Meister Member mm3

    Occupation:
    self-employed
    Location:
    Germany
    Oh wow. So you where up like 5k with 80£ left to wager and you decided to overbet. That's almost like throwing cash into the fire.

    It's somewhat kind of them to pay you £500. Usually the casinos return the deposit (if at all) so if your deposit was lower than £500 you where quite lucky but I feel with you. That whole scenario truly sucks.

    Most casinos have a maximum bet restriction when playing with bonuses (in many cases £5/spin). You have to be extra cautious whenever you take bonuses.
     
  4. Oct 20, 2016
  5. Harry_BKK

    Harry_BKK Senior Member CAG mm1

    Occupation:
    job is OK
    Location:
    Balcony
    Second thread within 1 hour from players over betting and not playing according to the rules.

    And then they come to CM in the hope that somebody with a magical wand will make their forfeited winnings reappear.

    Jadie, sit down with Jim (thread is here: http://www.casinomeister.com/forums/casino-complaints-bonus-issues/75816-big-win-redbet-nothing.html ) for the next session and maybe together you find the time to read and learn how to adhere to the rules.

    Secondly, maybe both of you can read the complaints procedure here at CM. IT IS CLEARLY DISPLAYED on top of your post.

    Spinson has a rep here, contact him by PM to have your case reviewed: http://www.casinomeister.com/forums/members/spinson.html

    Sorry, but no sympathy from me, just like i do not for Jim. :rolleyes:
     
  6. Oct 20, 2016
  7. goatwack

    goatwack Denny, two is great, but three is a crowd CAG

    Occupation:
    Stuntman
    Location:
    Londonia
    Another reason why casinos have safeguards in place, from their perspective it's like a bonus hit-and-run from ridiculous bets. What happened to the getting a bonus and playing sub-60p bets on games??

    Of course the familiar pattern of greed takes over and as a casino I'd be celebrating Christmas early. Wouldn't have even paid the £500 to be fair.
     
  8. Oct 20, 2016
  9. mimi26

    mimi26 Meister Member

    Occupation:
    nurse
    Location:
    uk
    you will have to put it down to lesson learned, you made a really really silly mistake, with ONLY £80 left to wager!! why? :confused:
     
  10. Oct 20, 2016
  11. vinylweatherman

    vinylweatherman You type well loads CAG MM

    Occupation:
    STILL At Leisure
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    As the OP is in London, there may be another way, the Consumer protection laws. Although there clearly has been a breach of the terms, consumer protection laws also have the concept that "the consumer must be treated fairly" when a company deals with them, including when dealing with a breach of contract. Another part of the law, contract law, only allows one party to recover it's reasonable costs and losses in remedying the breach, a company can't levy an arbitrary "fine" unrelated to such costs.

    In the UK, online casino gambling now falls under Consumer Contract laws, and EveryMatrix has just learned this lesson the hard way after picking up a CCJ from being sued by a player over it's Self Exclusion policy, even though this player DID actually break the term (played at another EM casino having self excluded from a different one earlier).

    However, it's early days, and many of these situations are unique to online casinos where the player in many cases has far more money at stake than the amount "paid for the service" (the deposit). In a case such as this, the player would have to set a point at which they had a legitimate balance that did not result from any breaches of the terms, and then argue from that point that the casinos actual losses and costs of remedying that breach are nowhere near the entire balance.

    I am not aware of such a case ever having gone before a judge, so there are no guarantees. However, there are a number of "no win, no fee" firms that are now showing an interest in taking on such player vs online casino cases for around 30% of what they are able to get if successful.

    With no prior cases to refer to, it's hard to predict what the outcome would be, but someone has to launch the first one, just like someone had to be the first to take the EM self exclusion farce to court.

    A victory would force casinos to implement software blocks to prevent such terms from being breached, which is what is good for players as a whole (especially newbies), albeit an unwelcome software development cost to casinos.

    If not in the UK, players have to rely on their own consumer laws, but they would be left having to take the case to court in the casino's licensing jurisdiction, which in the past has been a major deterrent to players taking casinos on in the courts.
     
  12. Oct 20, 2016
  13. chiya

    chiya Experienced Member PABnononaccred

    Location:
    Earth
    Seems kinda unfair to forfeit all winnings because you played 8x10 bets to finish wagering, when there was just £80 left. You'd have completed the wagering either way, so it wasn't a case of "hit and run" to complete bonus with big bets quickly and then withdraw. If they really wanted to be fair, they'd take away the winnings those 8 spins netted you I guess, because any bets you made after the fact were not on bonus funds so the max bet shouldn't apply anyway.

    But rules are rules .. they could not pay you anything if they wanted.
     
  14. Oct 20, 2016
  15. vinylweatherman

    vinylweatherman You type well loads CAG MM

    Occupation:
    STILL At Leisure
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    ...or they could repent at leisure when the courts remind them that they are not above consumer protection laws.

    Until this week, we felt pretty powerless to do anything about the Everymatrix BS self exclusion policy because the UKGC were not taking decisive action even though they had known that it was a serious issue for players who were being unfairly treated because of it.

    ... and then this happens.

    http://www.casinomeister.com/forums...trix-scam-update-non-payment-court-order.html
     
  16. Oct 20, 2016
  17. SlotGrinder

    SlotGrinder Senior Member

    Occupation:
    Poker Player
    Location:
    England
    Yes , they really shouldn't be allowed to have "rules" like this. Imo money in your casino account should be YOUR money the same as if it was a bank or ewallet (not sure how well regulated ewallets are though either) . If I go overdrawn at my bank then I have to pay a fee . They don't take my whole month's wages ! Right now the casino's attitude seems to be that funds held in your casino account may or may not be paid to you at the casino's discretion . It's insane but they seemingly get away with it and the main deterrent to them simply stealing all money is the risk of getting a bad reputation
     
  18. Oct 20, 2016
  19. vinylweatherman

    vinylweatherman You type well loads CAG MM

    Occupation:
    STILL At Leisure
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    The casino industry have been like this since it all started. They feel they are in the right over how they interpret the money in your account as not truly being yours until it's paid out. However, when the new UK gambling regulations were brought in, there was an important change, gambling debts became legally enforceable debts just like any other, whereas they used to be "honour" debts, where there was nothing in law to protect punters from the arbitrary voiding of their winning bets just because the bookie didn't want to pay out. Oddly enough, it was the OPERATORS who lobbied for this, they wanted the right to sue punters for THEIR winnings when they granted betting credit to punters who subsequently made losing wagers, and then decided they just weren't going to pay up. If it wasn't for this critical change, there would still be no mechanism for taking casinos or bookies to court in the UK to recover disputed winnings.

    The weakness in the casinos' case is that they issue an arbitrary charge of the entire balance for a breach of the terms of the contract, no matter how minor. This means that one customer can be charged £100, whereas another can be charged £200,000 for exactly the same breach of contract. If it is accepted that money in a casino account belongs to the player, and is merely held by the casino for the purpose of placing bets, then once winnings are added, they become the property of the player, so if a breach of contract is detected the casino would have to levy a proportionate charge to cover their identifiable losses and costs in remedying the breach, just like the banks.

    Although the banks won the right to make these charges, they lost the right to make them arbitrary amounts, they had to be amounts designed to reflect the reasonable costs to them of dealing with the breach. This is why we now have the £12 charge, rather than the £50 arbitrary charge, for dealing with a bounced payment. Of course, banks are still trying it on, they charge as many of these small charges as they can get away with, and have come up with new chargeable incidents by charging separately for incidents that are really just consequences of the initial incident, so they can still make a single bounced payment into a £100 fee by the end of the month.

    Of course, until someone takes such a case through the courts, there is no precedent, or even set of court transcripts, that can help to produce the best case arguments to use. The worry for casinos is that it's very high risk, if they win the first case, they can breath a sigh of relief, but if they lose it, then they will have to accept that their current business model is seriously flawed, and there is a risk of "opening the floodgates" to similar claims.
     
  20. Oct 20, 2016
  21. Mouche12

    Mouche12 Kitty Lover PABnononaccred PABnonaccred PABnoaccred

    Occupation:
    Translator and facilities manager
    Location:
    Amsterdam
    I just would like to add that fraudulent players would never bring a case against a casino before a court of law.

    Honest punters who feel that the T&Cs are interpreted in a way that infringes on consumer protection laws and decide to sue the casino should imo have a reasonable chance of winning their case when winnings have been confiscated due to a breach of the T&Cs, for example in this case. There are also the principles of fairness and reasonableness that courts will consider in assessing all the circumstances of such a breach.
     
  22. Oct 20, 2016
  23. SlotGrinder

    SlotGrinder Senior Member

    Occupation:
    Poker Player
    Location:
    England
    When you have to look to the banking industry as an example of how fees/charges are being handled more reasonably then you know you're in a bad place :eek:
    Imagine banks confiscating whole bank accounts because someone wrote a cheque higher than their cheque guarantee card limit
     
  24. Oct 21, 2016
  25. vinylweatherman

    vinylweatherman You type well loads CAG MM

    Occupation:
    STILL At Leisure
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    This should ensure that casinos are not a "sitting duck" for fraudsters because of consumer protection laws. If a fraudster lies in court to con their way to a payment, they could find themselves in SERIOUS trouble. However, it would not be a fair test of honesty to presume that in order to protest their innocence a player needs to take legal action before the casino is prepared to reconsider the matter.

    It certainly is poor that when comparing some of the things that happen as standard in the online casino industry to other industries, it's possible to use the banks as an example of dealing with customers more fairly.
     
  26. Oct 21, 2016
  27. Harry_BKK

    Harry_BKK Senior Member CAG mm1

    Occupation:
    job is OK
    Location:
    Balcony
    With all due respect VWM but this is plain BS!

    You know that EveryMatrix lost the case on a technicality, not on grounds that the claimant had a case! So please stop insinuating that this OP might have a case too.

    As for this OP there was a clear clause in the terms & conditions and just as clear consequences when somebody did not follow them. There is no such thing as "unfair treatment" in legal terms in this case.

    She accepted the very clear T&C's, even admitted that she read and understood them and still did not adhere to them!! Show me one judge/court or a paragraph in the consumer protection laws who/which would rule in favor of this OP in this case. :eek:



     
  28. Oct 21, 2016
  29. vinylweatherman

    vinylweatherman You type well loads CAG MM

    Occupation:
    STILL At Leisure
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    They may well have lost on a technicality, but the fact that they were going to defend on the basis that they were not "a legal entity therefore could not be sued" was doomed to failure anyway.


    The "unfair treatment" IS a legal matter, although it may be unique to the UK, perhaps the EU, and ONLY applies to business to consumer contracts, not business to business. Anything can become a "legal matter", no matter how much BS it is, if the lawmakers of a country so decide.

    We have many examples of BS enshrined in law throughout the world, and it would be laughable were it not actually true.

    One way to know whether or not a case exists is to construct one and get one of those "no win no fee" firms to look at whether it's worth them risking 30% of nothing for working on it. It's also the one way the ordinary person can bring a case without having to worry about a costly failure. These no win no fee firms vet the cases brought to them, and only take those they feel would have a reasonable chance of success. They would not touch a case doomed to fail, or where there is only a slim chance of success.

    The "treated unfairly" concept is real in the UK, and has stung a number of very big companies who thought it wasn't. The banks are by far the biggest victims of this consumer fightback, but they get little sympathy because they brought it all upon themselves by treating their customers unfairly in the first place, and relying on them being duped into agreeing to one sided terms that made them fat profits with little risk.
     
  30. Oct 21, 2016
  31. Harry_BKK

    Harry_BKK Senior Member CAG mm1

    Occupation:
    job is OK
    Location:
    Balcony
    Again VWM, with all due respect. Read what the OP in the Everymatrix case said:

    "1. The Everymatrix defence was struck out for want of compliance in that the Defendant did not serve its witness statement on the Claimant.

    2. So in effect, I won on a technicality, so we can't say this is a 100% precedent. Whether this was a deliberate ploy by Everymatrix or lack of professionalism is open to debate"


    That was the technicality, not the legal entity issue.

    I understand your point on consumer protection law and even agree. But in this Spinson case the OP admitted she read the rules, understood and accepted them and the consequences for failure to follow them yet still went ahead and broke the rules! There is NO legal case, no matter how tight those protection laws are.

    There was no hidden clause, the term itself was neither hidden nor written in lawyer language that a normal reader wouldn't understand, no singling out of just one case, the OP understood the terms etc. etc.- at which point would here the "consumer protection law" give grounds to the OP for a legal case???
     
  32. Oct 21, 2016
  33. vinylweatherman

    vinylweatherman You type well loads CAG MM

    Occupation:
    STILL At Leisure
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    You are still missing the point, they were still going to use this lame defence, they were saved from even further embarrassment by making this technical error. The fact that they lost on the technicality, rather than the lame defence, does not change the fact that the defence they were going to try was laughable. One can only wonder what even lamer defence it replaced.

    The only downside of winning on a technicality is that it is less likely to "open the floodgates", and if another player brings a similar action, EM just have to make sure that they hire a lawyer who actually knows what they are doing, and with support staff who are organised enough to adhere to the technical requirements of sending their defence, and any amended defence, to the claimant in due timeframes.

    It is even more surprising that for such a small amount EM even let it get this far, the norm is to settle out of court with a "gagging order" such that the aggrieved player is satisfied enough to drop proceedings, but also such that no precedent is set and no floodgates opened because the gagging clause makes it hard for other players to find out about the settlement.

    Having let it get this far, and then losing, EM then made matters even worse by ignoring the court order, with the result that even greater publicity of the case has made many others who may have felt aggrieved but helpless at the EM SE farce feel that there might be a way forward after all.

    You really don't understand the UK consumer protection framework, it allows for the clearest of terms to be deemed "unfair" and struck out of a consumer contract. It stems from the idea that a consumer contract is a very one sided affair. It is not negotiated between equal parties, it is a unilateral contract specified solely by the major party in the deal in order to bind the minor party. This is not a level playing field in terms of securing a mutually agreed and binding contract, so the consumer protection laws seek to level things out by providing consumers additional rights regardless of whatever terms have been signed up to.

    Whilst customers still need to read the terms, businesses also have to read the consumer protection laws before producing a set of terms for a consumer contract to ensure that all it's proposed terms are actually compliant.

    The law also has a list of certain business practices that are deemed unfair by definition, and no amount of even the clearest terms will allow a consumer to legally sign away these basic legal protections.

    The situation would be far worse for businesses if more than a handful of consumers actually knew they had these rights, as opposed to accepting defeat at the first hurdle thinking they have no real chance of beating a business in a fight.
     
  34. Oct 21, 2016
  35. lockinlove

    lockinlove Staring into the sun PABaccred

    Occupation:
    I work :D
    Location:
    Canada
    One of the worst mistakes ever. My god.

    Given the circumstances, the casino should honor the payout without question. There was 80 left to wager and the player was already in the clear, they ended up losing alot more money betting this way.

    This is a clear cut case of a casino using their term to rip a player off.

    Im also a little concerned to see some regs here actually ok with this. This is not okay.

    Was it stupid? Oh hell yes. But worthy of taking almost all the players money? Absolutely not.

    The terms are put in place so the casino doesnt lose too much by a player betting $25 and get lucky and winning $200,000. Not put in place to screw a player over.
     
  36. Oct 21, 2016
  37. ladyhawke

    ladyhawke Experienced Member

    Occupation:
    Retired
    Location:
    The other side of midnight
    I feel desperately sorry for the OP - to lose such a life-changing sum of money, when there was only 80gbp left to wager. Heartbreaking. :(

    However having said that, I'm not sure the title of this thread is entirely accurate.

    A technicality? Or rather a clear breach of the T&C's?

    A technicality tends to imply a decision that could/should be challenged.

    T&C's, if clearly stated, cannot really be disputed or challenged.
     
  38. Oct 21, 2016
  39. hhhelllo

    hhhelllo Senior Member

    Occupation:
    Modern age slavery
    Location:
    canada
    I totally agree with you. Total BS. We all know that 80 dollars left to wager... Theres no way you can loose more than 80 right? It's a stupid mistake and that's all. The op had nearly 5k!!! F off with your terms.
     

Share This Page