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!

Your Input Please We reserve the right to change the T&C's of this promotion....

Discussion in 'Online Casinos' started by QueenBee, Mar 13, 2016.

    Mar 13, 2016
  1. QueenBee

    QueenBee Experienced Member

    Occupation:
    Retired, used to be a translator
    Location:
    Denmark
    Dear Meisters

    Can a(n accredited) casino change promotion T&C's whenever they want, and for whatever reason?
    Can they do it in the middle, or even after customers have deposited and played?
    If so, how can we ever trust a promo again?

    The long story:

    Last week I was tempted by this promotion, run by the .dk version of a large accredited casino:

    Deposit on Monday or Tuesday to earn free spins on Wednesday. Spins can be played on: Starburst, Guns'n roses, Twinspin or Pixie Gold. A max deposit of $80 (800DKR) earns you 100 spins.

    So I took up the offer, played the money and waited for my 100 spins.

    Wednesday came, and the spins were added to three slots, but not Pixie gold.
    CS tells me that this was technically not possible, so I would have to play them on one of the other slots.

    I did the math for them and explained that the spins were different in value. 100 spins on Pixie Gold has a value of $50 (equivalent to a 63% bonus on the deposit of $80). Even if I chose the best possible of the 3 available slots, Twin Spin, the value would be cut in half.

    CS said at first that they were not aware of this difference in value, and that it was merely a technical problem with Pixie. But they were not willing to add more spins on one of the cheaper slots, to make up for the value.

    When I said that this effectively cut the value in half, a substantial change, CS replied that they can change the T&C's for a promotion whenever they want.

    I asked CS to escalate the matter, still expecting a positive outcome, as I knew that I was only one of many dissatisfied customers.

    I also sent a pm to the rep here, still thinking that it was possible to reach an agreement with the casino that would apply to all affected customers. The rep has not replied.

    After two days and a gentle email reminder I finally received a short email from the casino, saying that “it is not technically possible to add FS on Pixie Gold” and that 30 extra spins on Guns'n'roses would be added in compensation.

    100 spins TwinSpin value $25 + 30 spins GnR value $6 = $31 (38% bonus value) (as opposed to the 63% bonus value originally offered).

    I replied that I did not accept the compensation, and asked them to remove the spins from my account....

    Apparently, I should have considered myself lucky instead. I know from a Danish forum that most customers were offered nothing. Others were offered the same as me, but with completely different explanations.

    My husband was not as patient as me, and spent days writing emails. In the end he received an email saying that Pixie Gold should not have been part of the campaign, that it was an obvious error because of the difference in spin values, and because of PG not being a Netent slot. It was even suggested that we as customers should have known better than believing in the offer......

    Now, whereas I agree that the casinos should be able to change T&C's where an obvious error has occurred, eg. a typo where it says 1000 spins instead of 100, I do not agree that this is the case here.

    There is no obvious error here, the slots all have different values (0.10 – 0.20 – 0.25 and 0.50), so why should the most expensive be an orror, and not the cheapest? After all, we are only talking about a 63% bonus when spins are used on Pixie Gold. So I dont see the obvious error. The fact that PG is not a Netent slot is not something that the customer is expected to know or see as a problem.

    For me it is not a matter of a personal compensation anymore, even if I got fully compensated I would feel that others had been cheated.

    Instead I am bringing up the case here, as I think it is of general interest.

    What do you guys think...

    After reading the above, do you think that the term “We reserve the right to change the T&C's” can be applied to this case, when there is no obvious errors in the campaign and no unfair advantage to the player?
     
  2. Mar 13, 2016
  3. Tirilej

    Tirilej On a Break

    Occupation:
    Breathing
    Location:
    Sweden
    Whenever I see that kind of promotion where one game is included that has a much higher value than the other games, I actually expect it to be an error.
    This time it was both a game that they couldn't include since it was from another provider, and of a higher value.

    It's for these kind of errors in offering promotions that the rules are there for, not to trick any customers.
    I can understand your feeling of disappointment but I do agree with the casino on this.
     
  4. Mar 13, 2016
  5. Harry_BKK

    Harry_BKK Senior Member CAG mm1

    Occupation:
    job is OK
    Location:
    Balcony
    Can't fully agree with Tirilej, sorry.

    The casino made a few blunders with this promo:

    1. A marketing campaign is proof read at least 2 x by different people before it is released.

    - hence, they would have seen the mistake if it was a mistake

    2. Once a marketing campaign is released and players have deposited you have to give them the expected value

    - unless there is a huge mistake, like 1000 instead of 10, this kind of mistake must be honored in favor of the customer as he/she deposited in the expectation of receiving a certain value in FS

    3. offering FS on slots with varying paylines, 0.10, 0.20, 0.25 and 0.50.

    - when you do that you know that 98% of the players will take the FS on the slot with most paylines.
    - paddling then backwards once the players claim the FS on the 50-liners is pathetic.

    4. offering compensation

    - if you do offer compensation, you do it to the expected value
    - giving 30FS on GnR is taking the "p**s"

    5. by accepting the offer of FS the player and casino enter a legal contract

    - the player honored the contract by making the deposit
    - the casino DID not.

    5. any half decent casino would have done the right thing
     
    12 people like this.
  6. Mar 13, 2016
  7. dunover

    dunover Unofficial T&C's Editor Staff Member CAG PABnononaccred PABnonaccred PABinit mm3 webmeister

    Occupation:
    International Money Launderer
    Location:
    the bus shelter, opposite GCHQ Benhall
    Basically all casinos' terms give them carte blanche to do whatever they like. It will be covered under 'errors'. The real issue is how a site handles such errors, how it responds to complaints and satisfactory recompense.

    Given that honouring the promo only amounted to effectively a 63% bonus, I think they could have done so.
     
    3 people like this.
  8. Mar 13, 2016
  9. Tirilej

    Tirilej On a Break

    Occupation:
    Breathing
    Location:
    Sweden
    Just quoting this part and ask where you got that information from?

    I know casinos where only one person are dealing with both promotions and support by themselves. We of course want bigger casinos like this one was, to have more staff but that isn't always the case.

    No need to say you're sorry for not agreing with me. I know many don't:D
     
    1 person likes this.
  10. Mar 13, 2016
  11. Harry_BKK

    Harry_BKK Senior Member CAG mm1

    Occupation:
    job is OK
    Location:
    Balcony
    Directly from staff/managers at a few casinos.

    I do agree with you... sometimes :D :D :p
     
  12. Mar 13, 2016
  13. Tirilej

    Tirilej On a Break

    Occupation:
    Breathing
    Location:
    Sweden
    I know you are:p

    Anyway, just because a few have told you that then it's not sure it goes for every place. I do know many who works in this business and there is all kind of staff's. It's just one place where I knew the guy who was handling the whole casino by himself, but some have started with just being two and getting bigger by time. Others are starting big, and if they are lucky they are staying that way :)
     
  14. Mar 13, 2016
  15. goatwack

    goatwack Praise the Sun! CAG

    Occupation:
    Stuntman
    Location:
    Londonia
    I love how it's 'impossible' to add the free spins on Pixie Gold but they've managed to magically pluck 30 spins on Guns 'n Roses :what:

    Just shows that casinos can add free spins whenever they want but choose to hide behind lame excuses
     
    2 people like this.
  16. Mar 15, 2016
  17. QueenBee

    QueenBee Experienced Member

    Occupation:
    Retired, used to be a translator
    Location:
    Denmark
    Thanks for your inputs.

    I still have not heard anything from the rep.

    I understand that casinos need to have this rule, of course. An that errors happen. But I had absolutely no reason to expect that an offer for a 63% bonus would not be honoured, even if there was a technical issue.

    This issue has left me kind of sad and disappointed. I have lost my faith, and I feel like a fool. And I dont know how I can protect myself from this happening again, as the usual advice would be "Stick to accredited casinos".

    /Queenbee
     
    1 person likes this.
  18. Mar 15, 2016
  19. Harry_BKK

    Harry_BKK Senior Member CAG mm1

    Occupation:
    job is OK
    Location:
    Balcony
    Give it another day or 2 and then highlight it to Bryan that the rep is unresponsive.

    This is such a "small" issue which any decent casino would have sorted long time ago. Hope it will go in your favor.
     
  20. Mar 15, 2016
  21. vinylweatherman

    vinylweatherman You type well loads CAG MM

    Occupation:
    STILL At Leisure
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    They have compounded the error by lying to players in telling them that it's "technically impossible" to honour the offer, when in reality this is a cover up for a marketing blunder.

    What they SHOULD have done is ensure that on each slot in the campaign the VALUE of the free spins was the same, which in this case would mean more spins on the "cheaper" slots. Players would then get the same value, but a choice between many spins of low value, or fewer spins of higher value, but the total value of the promo would be the same.

    Generating mistrust will mean that players will be less likely to take part in future promos because they will fear they are likely to get screwed over again and again. The mistrust may also spread to other aspects of the offering.

    Another effect will be that if the casino was to experience GENUINE technical issues, players would not believe them and instead would see it as another ruse designed to screw them over.
     
    6 people like this.
  22. Mar 15, 2016
  23. mac72

    mac72 Senior Member

    Occupation:
    gamble
    Location:
    n ireland
    I don't get how you can agree with the casino on this at all?? Someone within that organisation got paid to do a job,they didn't do it correctly but the answer appears to be if we screw up you pay.I don't buy into that at all nor do i buy into customers having to second guess what may or may not be the case with qualifying slots?
    These terms are in my view one of the most important part of a casino's operation.To take harrys position (and i'm pretty sure he's about right) you have in effect at least 2 quality control inspectors who have let this slip through the net and it happens time and time again with promos.Its time they manned up and accepted that these mess ups can't end up costing their customers.
    I'd like to see the author of the t+c's add their initials to the terms "last updated XXX by AB" that way we'd have some way of identifying these numpties and they might just find it a bit harder to get their next job within the industry if they are the constant creator of negligent promos t+c's. It is not brain surgery to create and write them and if it is hire a few brain surgeons to take care of it,there are enough dead patients, we don't need anymore.
    To the OP,are you willing to name the casino?
     
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2016
    5 people like this.
  24. Mar 15, 2016
  25. Tirilej

    Tirilej On a Break

    Occupation:
    Breathing
    Location:
    Sweden
    You are free to question this casinos behaviour without questioning my opinions.

    I always see everything from both sides and I still don't think it's anything to get so upset about.
    Maybe if I knew what casino it was I would change my mind, I don't know. If it's a huge place then maybe, but what I think is not that important in this thread is it?;)

    I can assure you that I'm always in bitching with the casinos about different things I see, that I don't agree with or think is wrong. I'm not their favourit even if it can look like I agree with them sometimes. It depends on what it is of course.
     
  26. Mar 15, 2016
  27. mac72

    mac72 Senior Member

    Occupation:
    gamble
    Location:
    n ireland
    I'm questioning your opinion because you stated it and i fail to see the strength in your argument.Also why wouldn't i,you are willing and able to question others opinions on a regular basis.
     
  28. Mar 15, 2016
  29. mac72

    mac72 Senior Member

    Occupation:
    gamble
    Location:
    n ireland
    On this subject of marketing balls ups, Paddy power just sent me an email about a promo that started on the 13/03/16 so 2 days after the fact ! I responded asking exactly why i wasn't informed in time as i would of qualified on 2 occasions already and got an email back within 5mins accepting the mistake and adding 50 to my account as cash for pointing out their error.
    That you see is how it should be dealt with, the person making the mistake pays for the mistake.
     
    1 person likes this.
  30. Mar 18, 2016
  31. QueenBee

    QueenBee Experienced Member

    Occupation:
    Retired, used to be a translator
    Location:
    Denmark
    The Rep has now contacted me. He confirmed that it was indeed the intention to offer those spins, and agreed to a compensation to the full value of the spins.

    I am glad that he was able to see things from a player perspective, and I think the solution is only fair, and what should be expected from a decent casino.

    I just wish that the .dk-branch would have reached this conclusion on their own a lot earlier.

    I sincerely hope that the Rep's involvement means that this solution will also be offered to the remaining Danish players who still have an ongoing complaint with the casino.

    I think that everybody deserves a fair treatment, even if they are not CM members.
     
    3 people like this.
  32. Mar 18, 2016
  33. petro

    petro Dormant account, per user request PABnoaccred2 PABaccred

    Occupation:
    N/A
    Location:
    Narnia
    I only have a rudimentary understanding of T&C.

    You can call T&C contracts if you want, but that doesn't change what T&C really are.
    I think it always should be up to a sensible 3rd party to decide what is fair if a dispute arises. Not some casino manager.
    If it were up to casino managers to decide what is fair through their T&C, it would lead to chaos. (It doesn't work.)

    It currently seems like casinos can write whatever T&C they want because that's exactly what they are doing.
    But the question is: Can they get away with it?
     
    1 person likes this.
  34. Mar 19, 2016
  35. 5ta

    5ta Experienced Member

    Occupation:
    DTP'er
    Location:
    West Midlands
    Lend me a fiver and I'll pay you back £100 on Friday

    Legally binding.

    Please do not send me a fiver.

    Room for argument.

    It was hypothetical.

    Logically relevant to the thread.

    Maybe I meant to type £10.

    Should have said this earlier.

    Look up ambiguity in law, it favours the party who didn't create the contract offer.
     
    1 person likes this.

Share This Page