WAGERING DISPUTE

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.

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.

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.

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.