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

Jadie999

Registered
Joined
Oct 19, 2016
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 :(
 

hedgehok

Meister Member
mm3
Joined
Jul 30, 2014
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.
 

Harry_BKK

Dormant account
Joined
Dec 18, 2014
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: https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/big-win-on-redbet-for-nothing.75816/ ) 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: https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/members/

Sorry, but no sympathy from me, just like i do not for Jim. :rolleyes:
 

goatwack

Get dunked, big buns!
Joined
Aug 29, 2012
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.
 

mimi26

Meister Member
Joined
May 17, 2012
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:
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
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.
 

chiya

Senior Member
PABnononaccred
Joined
Nov 7, 2012
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.
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
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.

...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.

https://www.casinomeister.com/forum...scam-update-non-payment-of-court-order.75766/
 

SlotGrinder

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2016
Location
England
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.

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
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
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

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.
 

Mouche12

Kitty Lover
PABnonaccred
PABnoaccred
PABnononaccred
Joined
Jul 25, 2007
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.
 

SlotGrinder

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2016
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
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
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.

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.
 

Harry_BKK

Dormant account
Joined
Dec 18, 2014
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:



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.

...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.

https://www.casinomeister.com/forum...scam-update-non-payment-of-court-order.75766/
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
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:

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.
 

Harry_BKK

Dormant account
Joined
Dec 18, 2014
Location
Balcony
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.

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???
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
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???

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.
 

lockinlove

Staring into the sun
PABaccred
PABnonaccred
Joined
Jan 17, 2014
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.
 

ladyhawke

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2016
Location
Here, There, Everywhere.
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.
 

hhhelllo

Not really here
PABnonaccred
MM
Joined
May 31, 2015
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.

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.
 

ladyhawke

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2016
Location
Here, There, Everywhere.
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.


Do I think the casino is being very hardline over this issue? Yes, I do. But if you read the T&C's, understand them, and then agree to them, are you not then bound by them? And in this instance, however much I wish I didn't have to say this, the casino is legally in the right.

Or are T&C's meant to be adhered to, but then tossed aside as inconsequential when it doesn't suit the player to follow the contract they have agreed with the casino?

In fact, what is the point in even having T&C's if players feel they should be broken/overridden so easily?
 

Jasminebed

Game old gal
Joined
Mar 13, 2008
Location
Ontario
Some casinos adhere strictly to terms at all times, no exceptions. They cannot be faulted for this.

Some casinos do make exceptions in some cases, and I know they are appreciated and should be praised.

I want to weep for the OP in this case.

Bad enough to learn a $200 or $600 lesson.

But I do think Spinion values the customer by offering $500.

Since the wins were from a free spins, many casinos limit the amount to you can win on a free to chip to something like 10x bonus amount or such, and a few I play limit free spins winnings, but not necessarily what you can win from the amount you win from free spins.

I bet when the OP started to play, they would have been happy to win $500.

Hopefully the rep can appeal to management and see they receive something a little more fair.

I know that what I would consider fair and well done on the part of the casino would be the $5K plus a bit they had, minus the $80 remaining wagering they had when they began to break terms. It's not ideal for either party, but given the clear breach of terms, I think it would be a much more equitable resolution.
 

lockinlove

Staring into the sun
PABaccred
PABnonaccred
Joined
Jan 17, 2014
Location
Canada
Do I think the casino is being very hardline over this issue? Yes, I do. But if you read the T&C's, understand them, and then agree to them, are you not then bound by them? And in this instance, however much I wish I didn't have to say this, the casino is legally in the right.

Or are T&C's meant to be adhered to, but then tossed aside as inconsequential when it doesn't suit the player to follow the contract they have agreed with the casino?

In fact, what is the point in even having T&C's if players feel they should be broken/overridden so easily?

So you are saying if someone accidentally breaches the max bet rule by hitting max bet, too bad so sad?

T&C's are put in place to protect the casino from fraud or losses. They are put there so a player cannot bet $100 per spin and win and raise them to $1000 per spin and win a million dollars and bust the casino. It is not supposed to be put in place to wiggle out of paying a player. If the player won with the bets, obviously dont pay the winnings. But when it is a special case such as this, exceptions should be made.

After reading their terms I believe even more so, the player should now be paid. It states that if a player would like to exceed the max bet rule, ask support they may allow it.

So yes, its obvious this casino makes exceptions.
 

ladyhawke

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2016
Location
Here, There, Everywhere.
So you are saying if someone accidentally breaches the max bet rule by hitting max bet, too bad so sad?

T&C's are put in place to protect the casino from fraud or losses. They are put there so a player cannot bet $100 per spin and win and raise them to $1000 per spin and win a million dollars and bust the casino. It is not supposed to be put in place to wiggle out of paying a player. If the player won with the bets, obviously dont pay the winnings. But when it is a special case such as this, exceptions should be made.

After reading their terms I believe even more so, the player should now be paid. It states that if a player would like to exceed the max bet rule, ask support they may allow it.
So yes, its obvious this casino makes exceptions.

It's really complicated, isn't it? When to allow a T&C breach, and when not to.

Of course, if someone accidentally breaches the max bet rule, sometimes that accidental breach won't necessarily be accidental, and sometimes it really is. How is a casino to decide which is what? Could be why casinos are now strictly enforcing their T&Cs.

Re...'their terms state...that if a player would like to exceed the max bet rule, ask support they may allow it..." How many times have I read on here that Support cannot be trusted, and that what they say...or allow...is not necessarily the Casino line?

As I said, it's really complicated, isn't it.
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
Is it a "material breach" though, in that the casino suffered a significant loss. In this case, 8 spins of £10 just so that the final £80 of WR could be got rid of in order to withdraw is hardly a "material breach". It could just as easily have been 16 spins at £5.

Casinos make these kinds of inconsequential mistakes all the time, and are often resistant when all the player wants is for them to say "sorry". Front line CS make the most mistakes, but for the most part they are minor, much like the player who makes 8 spins at £10 instead of 16 spins at £5. No casino would accept that being dumped in the rogue pit was a proportionate response to an error made by front line CS, yet it seems many people, not just casino reps, think it OK to strip an ordinary player of £5000 for a similarly minor mistake that should be dealt with by something more in line with the severity of the mistake, say deduct £100 from the account as a "charge", and ask the player to admit they made a mistake, say sorry, and learn lessons from the experience. In effect, how casinos ask to be treated by the player community when they screw up.
 
Top