Super Casino - WAGERING DISPUTE

UNRESOLVED
posted on February 17, 2014.

Hi Guys,

I was awarded a 400% bonus up to 800gbp when I deposited 200gbp of my own money, I checked the bonus code was valid with a chat rep who confirmed it was, as it was via an affiliate link I was a little unsure, anyways once you hit visit the casino button on the link it brings you to the supercasino home page where you can look at the promotions and the wagering, it clearly states the wagering is 25x deposit and bonus ie in my case 25,000, i PLAYED and luckily got my balnce up and thought I would check the wagering where I was flabbergasted to see it had doubled !!! and I was asked to wager 50,000 ????

I got back on chat and was told by the same lady I spoke to before I deposited that it was indeed 50x dep and bonus, I argued that I was not informed of this wagering befire I accepted this bonus ie by her or a pop up message like in other casinos do....I said unless you have written confirmation in your terms for the offer or you verbally inform me of this before I deposited how can this stand ?? the only viewable terms on the site say quite clearly 25x dep and bonus, she instigated that the affiliate link should show the terms of the offer but they dont and quite frankly I dont think that is their job too.

I was not aware of this wagering and by law the casino have to have written confirmation of the terms for each offer by listing on the website or being told verbally on chat...I was jus told by the chat rep that '25x dep and bonus is an example of wagering' which is a pretty pathetic excuse...terms and conditions are written for a reason and not for 'example' and I feel like they are making up wagering as they go along.

disgruntled customer.

posted on February 21, 2014.

We would like to confirm that our support manager, James Corrie, has tried to contact the player by mobile but the number given is invalid. We are waiting for the player to contact us so that we can resolve the issue.

posted on February 21, 2014.

After speaking with a chat rep and explained there is nothing wrong with my phone, and they can contact me any time they want , I get the same response , "we tried to call" , well thats funny because i have no missed calls on my phone , i even get friends to call me to make sure it works..... So for them to say this response to you , that "they tried to call" is nonsense.

Supercasino, feel free to CALL me , you have my contact number

Regards

Luke ;)

posted on February 21, 2014.

Hello,

in light of the wagering dispute the casino retracted it and said once you have wagered 25,000 inform us and we will manually remove it....AND THAT IS WHERE THE PROBLEMS REALLY AROSE !!!

I was initially told by the manager when he finally called me that he was trying to call but it was going dead ! I can categorically say there is nothing wrong with my mobile and have received calls on it all day, anyway I was then told by the manager that I had broke the terms of the bonus...something about a 20% rule, I am 100% sure this term was not on the site when I signed up my account as I checked it thoroughly as there was a wager dispute immediately after I played with my funds...the term apparently was updated on 14 feb 2014 just 3 days before I signed up an account and I am not entirely convinced this was the case..its more than likely the terms were changed after I signed up to catch me out... is there any proof I they can provide this change was made before 17 feb ???

on the back of that I have APPARENTLY breached this 20% rule which I agree I did when placing bets on live roulette....but nowhere in the terms does it say the people who breach this term will have winnings voided which I have been told will happen !!!!

17.1 Bonuses ;

The total amount of bets placed in a single round on any game while a bonus is active on Your account must not be greater than 20% of the value of the bonus amount awarded. Any bets placed that contravene this term will not count towards Your wagering requirements for that bonus.

the extract simply states that the bet greater than 20% will not count towards wagering requirements and thats it !!! So how do they decide they will void my winnings on the basis of this information ????

My initial complaint on this thread was that I was asked to wager too much...and the casino stood by their decision that all the information of wagering and terms and conditions should be listed on the terms from the affiliate I obtained the bonus from....HOWEVER this affiliate with Supercasino has since been removed (guessing immediately after I won money at this casino) . So how on earth am I able to know what is the correct requirements as in one breath Supercasino are telling me that 25 x dep and bonus "IS AN EXAMPLE" of wagering and then telling me something different they cannot prove.

I truly feel Supercasino manipulate customers into signing up accounts with desirable offers only then to punish you and manipulate wording and terms and conditions for soley their own purposes.

I was led to believe Super Casino were a distinguished online casino site that are heavily advertised on TV and respec­tab­le...c­learly I am wrong and I have got my solicitor on hand who is currently building a very positive case agains this rogue institution.

Mr Giddings.

posted on February 23, 2014.

We can confirm that James Corrie has spoken to Mr Giddings regarding this issue. We have made Mr Giddings aware of the situation regarding his bonus and associated wagering requirements. As Mr Giddings has not met the wagering requirements for this bonus but claims to have been unaware of the correct terms we have offered, in the spirit of goodwill, to return Mr Giddings to his original position with his initial deposit and 400% bonus amounts reinstated so that he can make another attempt at fulfilling the wagering requirements. However, Mr Giddings did not indicate whether he wished to accept this offer or simply have his deposit returned to him and as yet we are still waiting for confirmation from him as to what he would like to do.

posted on February 23, 2014.

Im sorry Supercasino but have you read my previous message on this site ? I did not give Mr Corrie an answer on the phone as I wanted to re-evaluate the term of the offer...and again it clearly states that contravention of betting more than 20% of the value of the bonus will not count towards wagering (THATS IT !!!)...so how do you come to the assumption and decision that the winnings built up by me contravening that rule be removed ???

So my answer to your question of do I want my ORIGINAL balance of 1,000gbp restored (dep+bonus) is errrrr....NO !!!!

I want my balance of 7,151gbp restored and for you to add on the designated wagering back where I contravened the term on my bets on Live Roulette.

And for you to class your offer as a 'Gesture of Goodwill' is insulting and embarassing.

Please reinstate my balance fully or I will submit legal proceedings against your site as my solicitor is on hand and ready to begin.

Mr Giddings.

posted on February 23, 2014.

Again to clarify your terms ;

The total amount of bets placed in a single round on any game while a bonus is active on Your account must not be greater than 20% of the value of the bonus amount awarded. Any bets placed that contravene this term will not count towards Your wagering requirements for that bonus.

So therefore you are legally and binded by your T+c'S to adhere to these...and in my case it is clearly not been handled in the correct manner as nowhere does it say contravention of this term results in voiding of winnings.

Good Night.

posted on February 24, 2014.

We note Mr Giddings’ response, but would like to clarify what the details of his case are exactly.

Mr Giddings contravened our bonus terms by placing 100% of his balance on one spin. As stated in our terms and within the terms of each bonus offer we make, when a bonus is active on a given player’s account we restrict the amount of bonus used in a single round of betting to 20% of the overall balance. Any bets placed above this will not count towards the wagering requirement, and as such any bets placed that contravene this term should be voided because they are not allowed under the terms of the offer. We have therefore removed the balance accrued using these non-allowed bets, offering to put Mr Giddings back to his original position, i.e.: with his original deposit and bonus reinstated.

Mr Giddings has made it clear in his comments that this resolution is not satisfactory for him and that he wishes for all of his bets to count. Of course we cannot allow this as his betting activity was in clear breach of our terms, which he indicated his acceptance of during the registration procedure, and that is our final word on this area of his complaint.

However, we would like to respond to two other points that Mr Giddings has raised within his comments posted here. Firstly, Mr Giddings has made clear that he feels his bets that were in breach of our terms should only affect his overall wagering requirement total and that any bets generated as a result of them should still count and be reinstated. We would like to simply point out that where a bet is in breach of our terms and must be voided in relation to the bonus offer, it follows that any winnings from that bet must also be voided. To put it simply, if the bet is rolled back then of course the winnings no longer are valid either. The opposite, to consider it for one moment, would be that the winnings remain valid, in practise allowing a player to continue wagering using winnings that were generated from an invalid bet – a situation that under analysis is completely illogical and nonsensical.

Secondly, Mr Giddings queries whether the date of change on our terms and conditions (14th February) is accurate and expresses that he is not convinced that this is true. We would like to remind Mr Giddings, with the greatest of respect, that we are a licensed eGambling operator in the States of Alderney and as such our terms and conditions must be lodged with our regulator, the AGCC, at all times, so that they can independently verify when changes were made, what those changes were and update their records accordingly.

posted on February 25, 2014.

Good god are we really having this conversation supercasino.

You seem to assume your players are mind readers !!! if you had worded the terminology how you have above into your T+c'S you would completely be right in what you are saying but the point about voiding winnings from a bet higher than 20% is simply NOT STATED IN THE TERMS...how many times do I have to say this , and you can contrive in a way you wish by saying a load of rubbish like 'of course it would void winnings blah blah blah' but unless we are told.... how you can think a person off the street playing a casino for the first time and reading that would understand thats what is meant, you are blatantly trying to contrive the wording to suit you .

Since this complaint I was curious to see if any other Netplay owned casinos have the same wording of terms, I came across a site called Vernons where written in in term 17.8 is the below ;

17.8. The total amount of bets placed in a single round on any game while a bonus is active on Your account must not be greater than 20% of the value of the bonus amount awarded. Any bets placed that contravene this term will not count towards Your wagering requirements and any winnings accrued from such a bet may be forfeited.

No if you had taken a leaf from their book and added the small sentence at the end about any winnings accrued from such a bet may be forfeited.... we would not be here having this conversation ( I would be in the wrong)...why do your terms not say the same as vernons...I think someone has forgot to add that bit in at the 'powers that be' at supercasino.... so that then is my fault is it ?????

And back to your comment about me demanding the wagering be counted when I contravened the terms is NONSENSICAL might I add...I never said that at all !! I said my bets in live roulette should NOT count towards wagering so I stand by decision that my winnings be reinstated and I will wager whatever amount is left that you feel I should.

My wins in live roulette SHOULD count because yes... I contravened a rule of 20% but the amount placed on the bets should not be added onto my wagering requirment AS STATED IN YOUR TERMS but the win should !!!...the terms are what they are Supercasino...and basically someone has messed up when they wrote the terms at your site because that term is as clear as day in your sister company Vernons...so either reinstate the balance and I will fulfill the remaining wagering or please direct me to the complaints procedure of where my Solicitor needs to voice this complaint .

Thank You.

posted on February 25, 2014.

I wrote my above reply last night but only got published just now....So you have now added the term I see where it says if contravention of the 20% rule will indeed forfeit winnings...but your T+C's still have a date of 14/2/14 when last updated...surely you need to change this date to 24/2/14 as this term was not there last night ???

Thank You.

posted on February 25, 2014.

In answer to Mr Giddings’ latest assertions we would like to offer the following information.


While we can appreciate Mr Giddings’ point of view in relation to the winnings generated from his unqualified bet, unfortunately they cannot remain valid once the bet which generated them has been voided. Mr Giddings is free to interpret our terms and conditions in any matter he chooses, however, the intention and effect of the term in question remains valid, as we have stated earlier.


As regards recent changes to our terms and conditions, Mr Giddings is correct to have pointed out that the change was seen on our Vernons site before our SuperCasino site, however this still does not affect the validity of that change, or any other change that we see fit to make at any time. The date of the change was Friday the 21st February, as can be seen at the top of our main terms and conditions page, as it is required for us to publish the date of terms changes as a licensed eGambling operator in the States of Alderney.


Our full complaints procedure can be found within our main terms and conditions and we would invite Mr Giddings to make use of this facility should he wish to take his complaint further. We will be happy to respond to Mr Giddings’ formal complaint should he wish to make one, or even if he wishes for his solicitor to do so on his behalf. Until we are in receipt of such a complaint we will now consider this public forum dialogue suspended until such a time as the complaint has been formally resolved to both parties satisfaction.