Here is how it went.
After registering there I spoke with live chat and asked whether I could play games that did not count to wagering requirements and got a positive reply. I was clearly informed that this would not lead to any consequences other than such play not counting towards the wagering.
I asked for withdrawal after winning and completing the relevant requirements for that bonus. Later, however, I received an email from the casino stating that my winnings were void because I played an excluded game which was not allowed by their terms. In the correspondence that followed the casino showed complete ignorance of my arguments.
First of all, obviously, the fact that I acted accordingly with the information from the live chat is of great importance here. And the second, most amazing part is that actually the term they referred to did not have the meaning they wanted it to imply.
The agent I spoke said "if a game doesnt count then that does not mean you cant play it, it just wont count towards the wagering". Put it in other other words, "you can play excluded games". I believe this "can" does not refer to my physical ability of doing it, it refers to this type of play being allowed by the casino.
The last part of this quote directly implies that playing excluded games would not result in winnings being void. It absolutely clear that my question was related to whether this type of play was allowed, not whether I can physically play such games, and the answer made it clear that this would not lead to any negative consequences. This was also shown by the usage of the word "just".
And because the term "excluded games" is identical to "games that do not count towards the wagering", then If you look at this another way, I was asking "I am allowed to play games that do not count towards the wagering?" and the answer was that yes, I am, this just won`t count.
Sorry for an excessively long description of the above, just wanted to be clear.
Regarding the unbelievable situation with terms. They referred to clause 13.13 as the reason for voiding my winnings. The problem is that it is worded incorrectly so that it does not make any sense, or at least it can not be used in the sense they are using it.
"Should you request a withdrawal before meeting the wagering requirements or playing excluded games you may forfeit any winnings over and above the amount of your original deposit"
Read it again:) It sounds strange, doesn`t it? Using the word "playing" instead of "play" makes its sense completely reverse. Any expert analysis would confirm that this wording means that not only is playing excluded games allowed, but is necessary to make a withdrawal and keep winnings. It says that requesting a withdrawal before playing excluded games is actually not allowed.
I may presume that this was not the intended meaning, but this is actually its current meaning. My point is that my gameplay was not only confirmed by chat agent as ok and allowed, but it is actually allowed in their terms. Their current terms provide no justification for the actions they take, and voiding 7000 euro based on incorrectly worded term is not legitimate.
I believe that casino is in no position to keep my winnings in this case and that I am entitled to the full amout in my account. I would not be arguing had the situation been different, for example, if I had really broken the terms or if the information from the agent had been different.
Lesacasino remained completely ignorant to my arguments that show that they are in the wrong.
