Yet Another Roxy Palace Horror Story: £1.5k LOST!

[Casinomeister]

The larger issue is (speculation on who really owns them all aside) many, many MG casinos have this term, and in many, many of these cases it's hidden in the same way. Furthermore when you question live chat about this term BEFORE signing up/depositing, they do a merry tapdance and try to play it down saying it is only applied at managements discretion. I urge anyone to go to anyone to go to any MG site that has this term and ask. In fact, it'd be funny to see the convos c/p'ed in this forum to watch the live chat rep try to squirm their way thru it and not lose the customer.

It's bad casino practice in my opinion. If the CSRs are relying on slipshod website information, the onus is on the casino to square things away in favor of the player. They need to get it together. It would take an intern about 20 minutes to compare the bonus term pages and make the corrections.

 

[dunover]

Setting the UK law aside, as well as the UKGC (an untested licensing jurisdiction) this term is "unfair" in relation to common sense. What is the justification to hobble the winnings? Was it because the casino manager was having a bad day? Is the casino being hammered by advantage players? Or is there some secret algorithm that flagged this player's payout? We don't know - so it's not fair. Players are at the casino's whim. All we know is that this casino is protecting its "valued" customers.

If you offer a bonus that can be "abused", then it's a bad bonus - don't offer it.

I can understand that a casino needs to protects its business, but this is the wrong way to go about it. To not include this term on the bonus terms page (like the very first term) flies in the face of common sense and reeks of nefariousness.

I've reread the casino rep's response several times, and I am not only miffed - but flabbergasted. It's a bullshit term and should never have been approved and posted. And if the casino management had properly thought this through, they would have nipped this entire scenario in the bud and posted this term in plain site on the bonus landing page, and made an announcement from the top of the mountain that this term was there. And most importantly, they should have notified anyone advertising their casinos. This is a potential train wreck - and it's crashing in front of us in slow mo'.

As far as I can tell - the casino rep's last words on this were final; there is no indication otherwise. I gave them a heads up this morning that their listing here was pending revocation - no answer, so I guess that's it.

It's always a shame seeing a 13 year relationship get tossed into the bin.

I too cannot fathom it. It's illogical, damaging and unfriendly. As I said I was doing some work going through terms/SUBs when I came across this and it's endemic. It's been snuck in and the affiliates don't seem to have been told. Like sheep, most MG groups have it now. (This is where most of my urge to post the 32Red thread recently came from which led to the FS on Ariana. Some perspective was needed when you see how bad other sites' terms are!)

THIS 6XD LIMIT SUB IS NO LONGER A BONUS IN MY OPINION - IT IS A CASINO 'INSURANCE POLICY' AGAINST NEW WINNERS.

 

[coxwel]

This rule indeed slipped into many mg casinos terms for some time now, also many accredited ones.

I do not get the logic of this, just today i was paid by roxy a withdrawal of about 700€. I had a real headache last days after seeing all the trouble they have here and stunts they pull, that they might enforce something on me too, gladfully they didn´t.

I played one of their regular offers, no sub. It was a 100% match along with 100 freespins on terminator 2.

I made a deposit of 20€ and lost on my bonus. Then won 18€ from the fs and played on with that, hitting quite good, after wr was met i cashed out the above amount. Their welcome bonus is quite the worse offer, no 100fs worth 30€, if i would have played that i would only been have paid 120€.

Pretty bad, and pretty senseless. This only scares off any early winners, if they dont pull these restrictions on all their other bonus, which are quite decent, then why the hell enforcing this on their sub. I see more damage for their reputation than financial gain from this.

The max cashout on any no-deposit bonuses or spins on roxy is 200 by the way, funny thing, if you deposit the min and claim their sub your maxcashout is even lower

Somebody should get this right ASAP!

 

[slottymcslot]

It's bad casino practice in my opinion. If the CSRs are relying on slipshod website information, the onus is on the casino to square things away in favor of the player. They need to get it together. It would take an intern about 20 minutes to compare the bonus term pages and make the corrections.

Call me a sceptic, but my thinking is that the setup of their terms is deliberate; it is done this way in the hope the player doesn't see it (and clearly often they don't, I didn't when I signed up here, but I lost).

I think it's GREAT you are really calling them out on this, but a lot of MG casinos have had this term and attempting to enforce it for a while now. What I am guessing is in the past they just applied it to people they thought were APs who licked their wounds and moved along quietly, but lately they opened it up to everyone and that's why it's starting to appear everywhere with fury.

The question is can anything be really done about it? Even if they put it highly visible on every ts&cs page and make it more black and white (i.e. winnings are capped in all instances at 6x the amount of your deposit), it is still a terrible, unfriendly, unplayable, uninteresting bonus, and bonuses are meant to tempt people to sign up not do the opposite. On an industry level, it is also highly uncompetitive with other casinos and THAT is why they hide their little FU term, and why other casinos hide theirs.

Anyway it's nice to see this stuff finally called out and "punished", more of it I say!

 

[Dinahnana]

Setting the UK law aside, as well as the UKGC (an untested licensing jurisdiction) this term is "unfair" in relation to common sense. What is the justification to hobble the winnings? Was it because the casino manager was having a bad day? Is the casino being hammered by advantage players? Or is there some secret algorithm that flagged this player's payout? We don't know - so it's not fair. Players are at the casino's whim. All we know is that this casino is protecting its "valued" customers.

If you offer a bonus that can be "abused", then it's a bad bonus - don't offer it.

I can understand that a casino needs to protects its business, but this is the wrong way to go about it. To not include this term on the bonus terms page (like the very first term) flies in the face of common sense and reeks of nefariousness.

I've reread the casino rep's response several times, and I am not only miffed - but flabbergasted. It's a bullshit term and should never have been approved and posted. And if the casino management had properly thought this through, they would have nipped this entire scenario in the bud and posted this term in plain site on the bonus landing page, and made an announcement from the top of the mountain that this term was there. And most importantly, they should have notified anyone advertising their casinos. This is a potential train wreck - and it's crashing in front of us in slow mo'.

As far as I can tell - the casino rep's last words on this were final; there is no indication otherwise. I gave them a heads up this morning that their listing here was pending revocation - no answer, so I guess that's it.

It's always a shame seeing a 13 year relationship get tossed into the bin.

Thank you Bryan. I am not sure if the casino cares much about their accreditation here because if they did they would have been more responsive. I guess they are more interested in making a profit than keeping the players they have. This practice is not good business IMHO as newbies that are stung by this term will not continue to play there. In addition older customers may close their accounts. At this rate they won't last very long.

 

[slottymcslot]

Thank you Bryan. I am not sure if the casino cares much about their accreditation here because if they did they would have been more responsive. I guess they are more interested in making a profit than keeping the players they have. This practice is not good business IMHO as newbies that are stung by this term will not continue to play there. In addition older customers may close their accounts. At this rate they won't last very long.

The practice isn't good business for them now they are in UK jurisdiction, I'd bet whatever the bookie would let me this 6x stuff wouldn't fly in court. Any UK player affected by this could just threaten court action (legally, not an empty email threat) and the casino would not dare take it to court and set a precedent that could cost them an incredible amount of money. The cynic in me thinks this (and other spirit of the bonus stuff like this) is why a lot of MG casinos didn't bother applying for a UK licence (that and the need for ownership transparency)

 

[Jasminebed]

I have a very long to do list in my life, but I am adding closing any accounts that have this term for the SUB. I have left my longtime internet provider, and I have been changing my email addresses slowly. I need to contact them anyways.

While the majority of my play does not go to any of them, I hold accounts at many and have responded in the past to various offers, usually ones sent by post.

I will be sure to cite this rule as the reason why. I have lost confidence in these casinos ability to be "fair", and I no longer trust them not to sneak something in hidden in a section of general terms that might affect me in the future.

 

[Deeplay]

Think Bryan made the only call he could and this is what makes CM your best bet when it comes to finding the right place to squander our money.

They sure could have nipped this in the bud as Bryan stated but have chosen not to. Shame but cant have casinos like that on board here!
This is one of the most ridiculous (and scurrilous) terms I have personally ever come across. I feel for those players who are gonna get screwed by this and they will not doubt be many! Hope the SE will pick up some of the threads here about Roxy Palace Casino and maybe will save a few players from being ripped off by Roxy Palace Casino.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Setting the UK law aside, as well as the UKGC (an untested licensing jurisdiction) this term is "unfair" in relation to common sense. What is the justification to hobble the winnings? Was it because the casino manager was having a bad day? Is the casino being hammered by advantage players? Or is there some secret algorithm that flagged this player's payout? We don't know - so it's not fair. Players are at the casino's whim. All we know is that this casino is protecting its "valued" customers.

If you offer a bonus that can be "abused", then it's a bad bonus - don't offer it.

I can understand that a casino needs to protects its business, but this is the wrong way to go about it. To not include this term on the bonus terms page (like the very first term) flies in the face of common sense and reeks of nefariousness.

I've reread the casino rep's response several times, and I am not only miffed - but flabbergasted. It's a bullshit term and should never have been approved and posted. And if the casino management had properly thought this through, they would have nipped this entire scenario in the bud and posted this term in plain site on the bonus landing page, and made an announcement from the top of the mountain that this term was there. And most importantly, they should have notified anyone advertising their casinos. This is a potential train wreck - and it's crashing in front of us in slow mo'.

As far as I can tell - the casino rep's last words on this were final; there is no indication otherwise. I gave them a heads up this morning that their listing here was pending revocation - no answer, so I guess that's it.

It's always a shame seeing a 13 year relationship get tossed into the bin.

The affiliates could inadvertently walk into danger too. As "business partners", they too could be in the frame for "misleading advertising" where they have written a promotional review directed at gaining new customers and have failed to mention this, or any other, critical terms. Worse, their review could even suggest the opposite, easily done when trying to drive traffic, and what better lure than promoting the potential for a substantial win, one that will be paid IN FULL provided the promotional terms are met.

It seems that this has been quietly slipped in under the radar for some time, and it's not only Roxy Palace at fault. The term at Lucky 247 is even WORSE as it applies to ALL players taking a bonus, no matter how "valued" or "loyal" they may be.

The rep is also suggesting that it's the UKGC that has "required" the wording to be vague with "reserve the right", and that they can't change the UK terms to make them clearer because of this.

It looks like the UKGC are not up to the job, so it's going to have to be tackled under UK consumer laws. In some ways this is even worse for the casinos, as unlike UKGC rules, the consumer protection laws are derived from a recent EU directive, and ALL member states are required to incorporate this directive into law. This means that if this term gets demolished in the UK, it is likely to get demolished throughout the EU as well. The fact that a UK licenced operator has been found to be in breach of UK law may also get unwelcome attention for the casino from the UKGC, even if only to cover UKGC asses rather than meaningfully protect players in the future.

 

[slottymcslot]

The affiliates could inadvertently walk into danger too. As "business partners", they too could be in the frame for "misleading advertising" where they have written a promotional review directed at gaining new customers and have failed to mention this, or any other, critical terms. Worse, their review could even suggest the opposite, easily done when trying to drive traffic, and what better lure than promoting the potential for a substantial win, one that will be paid IN FULL provided the promotional terms are met.

It seems that this has been quietly slipped in under the radar for some time, and it's not only Roxy Palace at fault. The term at Lucky 247 is even WORSE as it applies to ALL players taking a bonus, no matter how "valued" or "loyal" they may be.

The rep is also suggesting that it's the UKGC that has "required" the wording to be vague with "reserve the right", and that they can't change the UK terms to make them clearer because of this.

It looks like the UKGC are not up to the job, so it's going to have to be tackled under UK consumer laws. In some ways this is even worse for the casinos, as unlike UKGC rules, the consumer protection laws are derived from a recent EU directive, and ALL member states are required to incorporate this directive into law. This means that if this term gets demolished in the UK, it is likely to get demolished throughout the EU as well. The fact that a UK licenced operator has been found to be in breach of UK law may also get unwelcome attention for the casino from the UKGC, even if only to cover UKGC asses rather than meaningfully protect players in the future.

I think some people misunderstood or overestimated what the UKGC could/would/will do. The TRUE value has always been that casinos had to apply for a UK licence and thus, be accountable to UK law, which is significantly tougher than *insert weak jurisdiction that is difficult for a foreigner to sue a local based online casino in*. This IMO is the only reason several big players opted not to bother applying. Once a casino gets taken to court here (which is far easier to do than in other countries, a small claims court for example) or the ASA or wherever, it sets the almighty precedent that a casino will do anything to avoid.

 

[vinylweatherman]

I think some people misunderstood or overestimated what the UKGC could/would/will do. The TRUE value has always been that casinos had to apply for a UK licence and thus, be accountable to UK law, which is significantly tougher than *insert weak jurisdiction that is difficult for a foreigner to sue a local based online casino in*. This IMO is the only reason several big players opted not to bother applying. Once a casino gets taken to court here (which is far easier to do than in other countries, a small claims court for example) or the ASA or wherever, it sets the almighty precedent that a casino will do anything to avoid.

So, it's going to take a few players to call their bluff and hold them accountable in the UK courts, or with bodies set up to protect consumers. If anything, complaining to one of the consumer protection bodies may be better as it would mean that the casino couldn't settle out of court and prevent the issue from being looked into.

Even an adverse ruling from the ASA would mean they have to pull their current ads and rework them to highlight this term more prominently, which may well scare players off, and also alert naïve players that such nasty terms even exist in the industry.

The guidance I looked at stated that many companies do "try it on" by having terms that they know don't stand up in court, but rely on most customers not being aware of their legal rights and therefore just accepting their fate when they get screwed over.

In fact, so called "legalese" isn't allowed either, the requirement is for terms that the customer can understand without the need to consult a lawyer. The use of obscure legal language in itself can render a term "unfair" under UK law, even when it otherwise would be OK. This is a mistake almost ALL casinos have been making, the use of legal language, rather than "plain English", particularly in the general terms.

 

[Aerozzz]

Another victim

Guys unfortunately,

1. I deposited into Roxy palace 200$ ( claimed a bonus of 150$)
2. I did not read the T&C which say i am not allowed to place bets exceeding 25% of my bonus limit which is $37.50, which i placed on live casino, won a few hundred and then i was told i had to hit the wager of 7000 based only from slots to withdraw.
3.I hit the wager and my withdrawal was told that it was proceeding.
4. No story of my withdrawal, i called customer service and they said that my withdrawal has been forfeited due to some bets exceeding 25%.
5. I won overall $880 and now i'm left with nothing , but was told by the customer service there is nothing much that i can do.

Please advice guys

 

[Jono777]

Your not going to want to see this but IMO as much as I'm on the players (your) side you've answered your own query.

If you didn't read T&C's and then listed that you cannot exceed 25% but DID then the casino will use this against you and Unfortunately I don't hold much hope.

Other members/mods may be able to provide you with something a bit more positive but I wouldn't hold my breath on this one.

Sorry to be negative but I am also honest - I do however wish you the best of luck

 

[coxwel]

Guys unfortunately,

1. I deposited into Roxy palace 200$ ( claimed a bonus of 150$)
2. I did not read the T&C which say i am not allowed to place bets exceeding 25% of my bonus limit which is $37.50, which i placed on live casino, won a few hundred and then i was told i had to hit the wager of 7000 based only from slots to withdraw.
3.I hit the wager and my withdrawal was told that it was proceeding.
4. No story of my withdrawal, i called customer service and they said that my withdrawal has been forfeited due to some bets exceeding 25%.
5. I won overall $880 and now i'm left with nothing , but was told by the customer service there is nothing much that i can do.

Please advice guys

You are not another victim. The same would have happened to you in any other casino. By the way you crosspost your issue here (ypu opened another thread already), not cool.

 

[ujjain]

eCOGRA Disputes has replied as such:

We have investigated your query with Roxy Palace Casino and made the following findings:

• The terms and conditions do state that a maximum withdrawal value of 6 times your first deposit will be paid when using the Welcome Bonus.
• The terms and conditions also state that the Welcome Bonus will automatically be credited.

Bearing the above in mind we are confident that the operator has acted in accordance with their terms and conditions in confiscating the winnings above the maximum withdrawal value. It is the player's responsibility to have read and fully understood the terms and conditions before playing at a site.

 

[Batman]

As long as you accepted their Terms and Conditions and played with their bonus, it's your fault in the end...
I'm sorry to disappoint, but you won't see that money anymore.
Guess it will serve you and many others as a life lesson.

The fuss here is caused by the "roguish" term (imho): 6x deposit max cash out via the welcome bonus.

Terms and Conditions on all online websites and apps are very important.

You may pay for a $1 monthly subscription on a magazine, which will take $10 each day from your card, because of a term that states that you have to pay the $10 as a donation for their field reporters...

 

[cncas2123]

eCOGRA Disputes has replied as such:

We have investigated your query with Roxy Palace Casino and made the following findings:

• The terms and conditions do state that a maximum withdrawal value of 6 times your first deposit will be paid when using the Welcome Bonus.
• The terms and conditions also state that the Welcome Bonus will automatically be credited.

Bearing the above in mind we are confident that the operator has acted in accordance with their terms and conditions in confiscating the winnings above the maximum withdrawal value. It is the player's responsibility to have read and fully understood the terms and conditions before playing at a site.

I dont find this response surprising in the least - eCOGRA just pampers to the casinos needs and doesnt want to offend his masters.

 

[citizenx]

A casino that are having such a rule and are defending it is not a casino I want to see accredited here.

I suggest they get removed. It's as simple as that.
...and the rest that have the same rule too.

That's just my opinion though.

I fully agree. This type of term should require automatic cancellation of any accreditation.

I'd go as far as to list them as rogue. Its disgusting.

 

[citizenx]

This has to be the biggest pile of steaming poo that I have ever read.

That post is just commercial suicide.

Alas, I suspect it isn't. I would imagine most new players won't do research before jumping in, only those in the know will be affected and therefore, a relatively savvy business decision but an awful customer one.

 

[ujjain]

They do automatically apply the bonus though and there is no obvious way to unapply the bonus without contacting customer service.

 

[Batman]

I also would agree...

As long as I'm risking my own money, I'd like to take all my winnings out...



LE:

They do automatically apply the bonus though and there is no obvious way to unapply the bonus without contacting customer service.

Their and most casino's CS is available 24/7, so it's not the best excuse.
If you don't want to play with a bonus, keep the balance intact (if the bonus is automatic) and contact support (mail / phone / live chat) and request the removal of the bonus...

 

[vinylweatherman]

eCOGRA Disputes has replied as such:

We have investigated your query with Roxy Palace Casino and made the following findings:

• The terms and conditions do state that a maximum withdrawal value of 6 times your first deposit will be paid when using the Welcome Bonus.
• The terms and conditions also state that the Welcome Bonus will automatically be credited.

Bearing the above in mind we are confident that the operator has acted in accordance with their terms and conditions in confiscating the winnings above the maximum withdrawal value. It is the player's responsibility to have read and fully understood the terms and conditions before playing at a site.

eCogra are wrong, the term says "reserve the right", not that they will. There is a difference. It's all this beating around the bush with "reserve the right" and "at the discretion of..." that is the problem, rather than the term itself.

An absolute term is expected to be enforced 100% of the time, however with a "reserve the right" type of term, there needs to be some justification for using this reserved right in one case, and not in another.

The next step is to challenge the terms under the Consumer contract laws, which not only require the terms to be clearly worded, but that they are "fair".

 

[jim509]

this thread is certainly interesting reading for me....

I deposited £200 with Roxy Palace and received the £150 bonus automatically. Played and won, I asked for them to remove the bonus as I had not used it and they refused. Fair enough I thought,

After doing well I requested a cash out of £1200 and then a further £2000 a day later. Then I received an email saying I had broken the max bet rule on two occasions (out of thousands of bets placed) by a small amount as I had chosen to double on a hand of blackjack and they would not honor any cashout.

Thankfully for some random reason they processed the second withdrawal for £2000. I am convinced this was a slip up on the part of Roxy Palace.

Ecogra ruled in Roxy's favour as I had broken the max bet rule, however small the break of rules was. I asked Roxy Palace to close the account as I felt they were misleading in the way the max bet rule was imposed and and I felt it was in bad faith to be so petty as to disallow £1400 winnings because of a minor mistake of a genuine player. I received this..

The issue of acting in bad or good faith can be debated upon, but in normal circumstances the full amount requested would be forfeited. I would also like to point out that there is another rule (point 13 in our general terms and conditions) which states that even without having exceeded the limit on any bet we only pay out 6 times the first deposit, which would have come to £1200

I don't recall reading anything at all about the 6 times limit, though I later found it was buried in their T&Cs .

I was surprised to read on various websites that Roxy Palace was associated with good practice. I cannot acuse them of being rougue but there are other sites I would rather entrust my money to.

 

[vinylweatherman]

this thread is certainly interesting reading for me....

I deposited £200 with Roxy Palace and received the £150 bonus automatically. Played and won, I asked for them to remove the bonus as I had not used it and they refused. Fair enough I thought,

After doing well I requested a cash out of £1200 and then a further £2000 a day later. Then I received an email saying I had broken the max bet rule on two occasions (out of thousands of bets placed) by a small amount as I had chosen to double on a hand of blackjack and they would not honor any cashout.

Thankfully for some random reason they processed the second withdrawal for £2000. I am convinced this was a slip up on the part of Roxy Palace.

Ecogra ruled in Roxy's favour as I had broken the max bet rule, however small the break of rules was. I asked Roxy Palace to close the account as I felt they were misleading in the way the max bet rule was imposed and and I felt it was in bad faith to be so petty as to disallow £1400 winnings because of a minor mistake of a genuine player. I received this..

The issue of acting in bad or good faith can be debated upon, but in normal circumstances the full amount requested would be forfeited. I would also like to point out that there is another rule (point 13 in our general terms and conditions) which states that even without having exceeded the limit on any bet we only pay out 6 times the first deposit, which would have come to £1200

I don't recall reading anything at all about the 6 times limit, though I later found it was buried in their T&Cs .

I was surprised to read on various websites that Roxy Palace was associated with good practice. I cannot acuse them of being rougue but there are other sites I would rather entrust my money to.

Looks like it was, they should have paid £1000 at most, even without breaking the rules. I bet they also didn't like the fact that you played Blackjack, so were determined to be nit picking and follow the rules to the letter. I suspect the slip up was because you split the withdrawal into two, and they only focussed on the first one for enforcement of the new player terms, and slipped up with the £2000 because they didn't automatically connect it with the same violation on the first deposit.

This could be an interesting strategy for any player who overshoots the 6x limit, or thinks they violated another rule, split the withdrawal and hope their audit team drops the ball again. I bet it won't last long though as they will quickly realise what is happening.

We will, of course, expect the same nit picking adherence to the letter of the rules when this favours the PLAYER, even where they are hoping the player would allow some leeway because the casino "was acting in good faith".

 

[Jono777]

Need some advice / clarification please CM'ers

Been making a few deposits (usually £20's) at Roxy Palace via Ukash vouchers over last few weeks.

Finally had a decent run this weekend gone and made a £160 withdrawal to my debit card which was already registered/linked within the 'bank' section of the casino.

Pending period elapsed and it was sent for processing today (so I was looking forward to funds tomorrow afternoon)
I then got an email asking me to change my PMOP, suggesting Wire Transfer, Neteller or Skrill.

I do not have/want or need the e-wallets so had to opt for bank transfer which costs £12!!! and I also have to now wait up to 5 days!!

I asked if I made a deposit using the card and then re-withdrew could I then withdraw to card to which I was told NO, I suggested that after a few deposits had come from the card could I use it as PMOP then? - told NO again, not THAT card.

Asking why I got no straight answer, this card is used/registered at every casino I play, 32 Red, Guts, CR, Redbet, Casumo etc etc and never any issues.

Any help / advice or simply reassurance would be greatly appreciated!