Casinos

Casinos By Status

Popular Filters

By Banking Options

Games

All Games

Bonuses

Popular Bonus Filters

Forums

Popular Forums

Forum User Features

Complaints

Submit A Complaint (PAB)

PAB Rules and Guidelines

Browse PABs

Gambling News

Popular News Sections

About Us

About Us

external image

Ladbrokes "Spirit of the Promotion"

W

wikipiti

Dormant account
CM Veteran (10yr+)
Joined
Feb 20, 2011
Location
Home
firstly hi to the forum. i found this site after googling casino complaint. heres my story

i signed up to ladbrokes mainly for their sportsbook. i then decided to play at the casino and claim the £200 bonus. their terms were play £200 and then claim the bonus. this will be credited within 48 hours. i never received the bonus so emailed them and got the following

Upon processing your claim yesterday our promotions department have
decided that you had not played in the spirit of the promotion and
therefore have not qualified.

The bets you have placed have been considered as safe betting.

I can tell you exactly how I played as this is the email i sent them

I covered 1/6 for 75p. This is to recover my bet (Pays £27 for my £25 stake). They are the numbers, either side of the edge tier numbers (27 and 33)

I then had £1.50 on 19 and 75p on chevel 16/19. I had 3 chips on 27/25/34. These are the red numbers after 0 going into the tier section of the wheel.

I then randomly place 25p chips on numbers in the tier section of the wheel.

May I ask, what is wrong in that? Also, whats the difference in covering NEARLY 50% of the wheel and playing blackjack?
Also, where in the terms is in the spirit of the promotion and also say I have to wager more then £200?

They replied with the following

As advised your play has been deemed as not within the spirit of the
promotion.

This decision has been made as you have covered a large amount of the
board, approximately 50%, and completed wagering to the total of 200
chips. We feel that this is not standard play, for the enjoyment of
playing the game, and your wagers have been placed solely to receive the
promotional credit.

We are happy to offer you the bonus, however you would be required to
make a fresh deposit in to your Ladbrokes account and complete new
wagering.

so me to them

So you say you wager £200 but what you really mean is yes £200 but if its exactly £200 then you wont get the bonus. What if I have lost would I have got the bonus then?

PLEASE show me the Terms that say "Spirit of the Promotion" because I cant see it?

i then got the basic run around so i emailed them this

Ben
Im asking you a SPECIFIC question that is very simple to answer, Yes or No

If I play 100 hands of blackjack at £2 per hand and then claim the bonus, will I receive the bonus?


How do you enjoy the games? How do you know if im enjoying playing or not? If I win, Ive enjoyed it, if I dont, I wont?

to which they eventually replied with this

We are unable to give you a specific yes or no answer to this question.

As your play on Roulette was deemed as only playing towards the bonus
funds and not for the enjoyment of the game your account has now been
flagged as not playing within the spirit of our promotions. If we feel
that you are only wagering on our website to collect the bonus funds we
would refuse the bonus again. We would recommend that you do not wager
if this is the only reason for you play.

surely this is a pee take. ive met the wagering but they have come out with "Spirit of the Promotion." what spirit and what enjoyment. surely if you win you enjoy it and if you dont, you dont.

have i any redress on this?
 
Yet more BULL from Ladbrokes! Such a vague term "in the spirit of the promotion" Which spirit ? This is the reason Ladbrokes never give a bonus instantly on deposit but reel in as many customers as possible with there opening offer knowing that many of them will not even get the bonus as they can just twist the rules to suit them so as NOT to pay a bonus. Its a win win situation for the casino the player looses his deposit without even getting the chance to play the bonus. And notice no Ladbrokes reps ever around. As per the other thread on Ladbrokes check my solution which includes and is limited to a FULL UNINSTALL of their software!
 
Oh yes...in "the spirit of the bonus". We just love that :rolleyes:, a good casino would never use that phrase.

But you have no case. The casino is not committed to give you your bonus.

When you do a deposit, always wait for the bonus to be credited before starting to play. But in this case, they might have confiscated your winnings.

The use of "in the spirit of the bonus" is roguish. It usually means that a casino will not allow any winnings with the bonus. Just pathetic


Good luck :)
 
When are casinos going to get the memo? ?

There is NO SUCH THING as the SPIRIT of a BONUS.

If you don't want roulette or any other games played a specific way, then LIST that SPECIFICALLY in the terms.

How can a player knowingly violate a term they don't know exists?. Read the Casino management's mind?

Sorry but roulette was an allowed game. So what is the problem?

I should add that it seems obvious the OP was doing what the casino says - my problem is that it isn't specifically banned.
 
Nifty
it was common sense to play for the bonus. i didnt want to lose before i recevied the bonus. there was no point in wageringover the 200 as that wouldnt count towards my turnover.

also, you have to wager before the bonus on this one as it isnt given to you until you wager 200

i could understand it if i had had £18 on black and £1 on every other number but i didnt. i had a just under even money bet. hardly safe
 
wikipiti said:
They replied with the following

As advised your play has been deemed as not within the spirit of the
promotion.
Click to expand...


This reminded me of the recent news story of Barclays bank getting away with paying only 1% corparation tax instead of the standard 28%. Saving them 2.7 billion. When questioned they replied, we paid our tax "in the spirit and the letter".


Intentionally following the letter of the law but not the spirit may be accomplished through exploiting technicalities, loopholes, and ambiguous language.
Click to expand...
wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_and_spirit_of_the_law
 
rainmaker said:
But you have no case. The casino is not committed to give you your bonus.
Click to expand...

Not sure I agree with you there Rainmaker. I went looking for this mysterious spirit on the Ladbrokes pages, and discovered two things.

On the £200 welcome bonus page I could find NO mention of the spirit, but I did find it on another promo page of theirs (the $25 free) where it stated:

Ladbrokescasino.com reserves the right to refuse all future promotions and bonuses to customers who do not take part in the promotion in the spirit it is intended.

To me it sounds like they need to pay up in this instance and wikipiti needs to move on to another casino.
 


Yes, you're absolutely right. I did read the wrong T&C:rolleyes:

Bit strange that they dont mention "in the spirit" in their welcome bonus T&C.

Thanks for correcting me :)
 
I asked Ladbrokes about "in the spirit" practice.

They replied:

"We are pleased to offer an extensive range of promotional products
across all lobbies of Ladbrokes. Promotions are offered in order to
enhance customers gaming experience. Unfortunately in order to ensure
fair practice and prevent bonus abuse, terms and conditions stipulations
are necessary."

Bonus abuse :laugh:
 

I would love to know which page this "extensive range of promotional products" from the Lobby is located ? And the above answer is without doubt as vague as it can get!
 
wikipiti said:
Nifty
it was common sense to play for the bonus. i didnt want to lose before i recevied the bonus. there was no point in wageringover the 200 as that wouldnt count towards my turnover.

also, you have to wager before the bonus on this one as it isnt given to you until you wager 200

i could understand it if i had had £18 on black and £1 on every other number but i didnt. i had a just under even money bet. hardly safe
Click to expand...

Yes, but most casinos do not want players who have any brains, but prefer witless zombies who have no clue as to whether a bonus is even worth taking much less as to how it should be played.

If a casino does not want a players own monies played in any particular manner, this must be clearly spelled out in the T&C. If a particular promo is losing the casino money, pull the damn promo from your affilitates and don't let marketing send it out to more players.

Note to casinos: There is NO 'spirit' of a promo.... no santa clause... no bonus abuse. If a player meets WR, fulfills T&C, he is to be paid, bonus to be given, whatever -- to complete the 'contract' begun by accepting the players funds and bets. Then you may bonus ban him, or even lock him out of the casino once all wagering is done and any winnings paid.
 
doomed4ever said:
I would love to know which page this "extensive range of promotional products" from the Lobby is located ? And the above answer is without doubt as vague as it can get!
Click to expand...

Yes, the reply was vague.

"In the spirit" is also very vague. It means that they can confiscate whatever they want with that explanation.

They are accredited on Casinomeister. It is stated in the "standard for accredited casinos:

Must not confiscate winnings for vague & unclear reasons, such as "irregular playing patterns" or "bonus abuse", without specific T&C violations

They have not confiscated any winnings in this case, but "in the spirit" practice does not belong in an accredited casinos T&C.
 


They clearly do NOT meet the standards for accreditation. The player also asked a DIRECT question as to whether they could play Blackjack at £2 per hand, and the CS REFUSED TO ANSWER, leaving the player vulnerable to doing this, and STILL being told it is not "in the spirit of".

Surely this wager deposit 1x rule is DESIGNED to make players play in this way, after all one wants to get this technical qualification out of the way BEFORE getting the bonus, since you can ONLY complete the WR once the bonus has been credited. Only once the bonus HAS been credited can the player start to "enjoy themselves" knowing that they are also making progress towards the WR.

A very simple amendment to the terms would get rid of the need to pull this "spirit of" stunt, the £200 has to be wagered through once on SLOTS, where you CANNOT "cover half the table".

Betting only on Red, or playing £2 Blackjack would ALSO be "not in the spirit", yet the CS REFUSED to say this, preferring the option to let the player try again, only to be told AGAIN they are not getting the bonus.

Do sports betters play "for enjoyment", do they BOLLOCKS:D They study form, teams, tipsters, etc, and bet with the intention of having selected the WINNER.

Casino players may play games they like, but who in hell "enjoys" LOSING all the time. The main incentive to play for real money is to one day WIN real money.

This BULLSHIT seems to coincide with the Ladbrokes take over of Cassava, and seems to show that Ladbrokes have gained some BAD HABITS from Cassava, who are always pulling this bullcrap on players.

This could be the start of a steady "fall from grace", and I expect Ladbrokes casino is not quite what it seems.

I think it NEVER has been either, and has NEVER been run directly by the "household name" Ladbrokes, but is instead a kind of "white label", an unknown company that has rented the right to use the Ladbrokes brand to operate a Microgaming casino, and which will soon migrate to Cassava, where it will emerge as a full grown Cassava white label.

This has ALREADY happened to Littlewoods casino, which was NEVER run directly by Littlewoods, but by "E-Cash" who operate "white label" Crypto casinos. Littlewoods then changed their white label service provider, and became a Cassava white label, changing their terms to match those of other Cassava white label casinos, which surely they would NOT have done if they were TRULY independent of the software provider, since there was NOTHING else that would have made Littlewoods snub their VIP players by suddenly introducing far WORSE terms just because of a software change.
 
I too have looked into the accreditation of Ladbrokes and find where they fall down

# Must not confiscate winnings for vague & unclear reasons, such as "irregular playing patterns" or "bonus abuse", without specific T&C violations.
# Must not implement terms that can be construed as "unfair" towards the player.
# No player shall be involuntarily placed into a situation which breaches the terms and conditions during the course of play.

Also, there rep is non existant, it just goes to the general CS.

The important thing that I found while in email discussion with Bryan and Max is they refuse to discuss problems with Casinomeister so why extend the benefit of being accredited?
 

Well, looks like we have their "gotcha".

Any player who gets this "spirit of BS" should make a formal PAB.

This will make Ladbrokes have to go on record as refusing to deal with PABs, which will trigger automatic loss of accreditation and a listing under "no-can-do", which ALSO tends to lead to a "not recommended" rating, and a "proceed with caution" in the "all MGS casinos" list.

At present, they do not appear to have confiscated winnings, but this item has been CLEARLY breached:-


# No player shall be involuntarily placed into a situation which breaches the terms and conditions during the course of play.
Click to expand...

by the following exchange:-


Im asking you a SPECIFIC question that is very simple to answer, Yes or No

If I play 100 hands of blackjack at £2 per hand and then claim the bonus, will I receive the bonus?

We are unable to give you a specific yes or no answer to this question.
Click to expand...

According to the terms, the answer should be a clear "yes", since there is NO "irregular play" in this scenario, it is just normal Blackjack play.

They also claim that meeting WR EXACTLY to 200 was also a factor, implying that the player should have wagered an unspecified amount OVER this for their play to be deemed "recreational".

Rival didn't get away with horsedung like this, so why do Ladbrokes think the rules are going to be different for them. It's surely not just a case of "...because we are Ladbrokes, not some clip joint".

That's TWO of my 2011 Casinomeister awards nominations sorted, and we are not even through with February:(
 
threescatters said:
very very disappointed to see this from ladbrokes, they used to be really up there with the best
Click to expand...

This malaise seems to be affecting sportsbooks who have a casino product, rather than stand alone casinos.

First we had Purple Lounge pull a stunt (since rectified) on a Greek player, then Betfair, and now Ladbrokes.

All three are mainly sportsbooks, which is where their main expertise lies. When it comes to casinos though, they seem to think they can behave like sportsbooks and void wagers at the drop of a hat when the outcome looks "suspicious". There may be grounds for this with sports, and all the "match fixing" scandals that have come to light, but the ONLY thing that gets "fixed" in a casino is the machine, and as far as MGS are concerned, this just CANNOT happen. Other software vendors also believe that where it is player vs software, there can be no case for "match fixing", and the resultant voiding of bets.
 
Zultha said:
I too have looked into the accreditation of Ladbrokes and find where they fall down

# Must not confiscate winnings for vague & unclear reasons, such as "irregular playing patterns" or "bonus abuse", without specific T&C violations.
# Must not implement terms that can be construed as "unfair" towards the player.
# No player shall be involuntarily placed into a situation which breaches the terms and conditions during the course of play.

Also, there rep is non existant, it just goes to the general CS.
Click to expand...
Andy is here just about on a daily basis and facilitates our communications with the casino management.

Zultha said:
The important thing that I found while in email discussion with Bryan and Max is they refuse to discuss problems with Casinomeister so why extend the benefit of being accredited?
Click to expand...
Um - excuse me? I told you that Ladbrokes is bound by its own terms not share any player info with us. So if you have a complaint, you have to deal with them directly or then take it up with their licensing agency.

In the meantime, I had no problem in making sure that the right people saw your complaint (or any others for that matter). They called me this morning to let me know you were paid. Am I right?

A simple thank you would have sufficed. :rolleyes:

As for the "Spirit of the Bonus", this is an unfair term and should not be used:

"Spirit of the Bonus"
No such animal. If the casino offers a bonus, the casino should not assume on what grounds the bonus should be accepted. If the player wants to just play and watch the reels spin or is playing to make a profit, it is not up to the casino to enforce subjective terms like "spirit".
Click to expand...
https://sussexmskpartnershipeast.com/about-us/philosophy/

It looks like someone slept through Online Casino Management 101 - "Making Offers to Players". Some remedial training is necessary.
 

So, Ladbrokes is a "no-can-do" as far as the PAB service is concerned.

For them to claim they are bound by their OWN terms is the SAME argument used by other casinos who don't want to deal with Max. There is no LAW that provides for an ABSOLUTE prohibition on cooperating with a mediator in a dispute.
This argument has already gone before the UK's Information Commissioner, and his verdict was "bullshit" (but in more technical language), there is no ABSOLUTE prohibition in law, all that is needed is for the person who's data is to be shared to give a formal permission for this to take place, which is part of the PAB process in any case. Ladbrokes are using a false argument under data protection laws, and then distancing themselves from responsibilty by saying they are "bound" by terms that they have themselves made up, seemingly in an attempt to make it HARDER for players to seek independent assistance with an issue.
The Information Commissioner has even gone further, and told businesses that they must NOT misuse the data protection act to stifle the ability of customers to get independent help and advice over an issue.

Casinos also use this argument to hide behind a regulator that they know has no effective player disputes resolution channel. Whilst Gibraltar is considered more reliable than others (Malta for example) in this respect, it STILL means players are frozen out from using the PAB service.

The fact that a casino can say they will no longer cooperate with the PAB system, yet remain accredited, is what is making members somewhat uncomfortable. This is WITHOUT the recent use by them of this "spirit of the bonus" argument to deny players offers as advertised.

I always thought that cooperation with the PAB service was one of the "core" requirements for being accredited here, and I recall that when Villento brands decided they no longer wanted to deal with PABs, they were removed from the accredited section to become a "no-can-do".
 
Geeze VWM - no one said anything about no-can-do. You need to take a serious chill pill since it doesn't take much to set you off in a rant.

The PAB service is a communications service, and if a company has a non-disclosure commitment to abide by, then we respect that. It doesn't mean that we throw the baby out with the bath water - it means that we go through other avenues of approach.

You need to mellow out a little bit.
 
vinylweatherman said:
...
I always thought that cooperation with the PAB service was one of the "core" requirements for being accredited here, and I recall that when Villento brands decided they no longer wanted to deal with PABs, they were removed from the accredited section to become a "no-can-do".
Click to expand...
Again, you're making ASSUMPTIONS here or TWISTING my WORDS around. RE Villento: what I said verbatim:
They have chosen not to respond to a couple of PABs and they don't have any interest on participating or monitoring the forum.
Click to expand...
https://sussexmskpartnershipeast.com/forums/threads/villento-no-longer-accredited.41349/

Non-responsiveness is the crux of the matter. Labrokes is not "non-responsive" and they have a fairly good relationship with the members and me.
 
Casinomeister said:
Geeze VWM - no one said anything about no-can-do. You need to take a serious chill pill since it doesn't take much to set you off in a rant.

The PAB service is a communications service, and if a company has a non-disclosure commitment to abide by, then we respect that. It doesn't mean that we throw the baby out with the bath water - it means that we go through other avenues of approach.

You need to mellow out a little bit.
Click to expand...

This is one of their own making, and whilst they are claiming players are "abusing the spirit", they are ALSO abusing the spirit of data protection laws. Player data belongs to the PLAYER, and if the PLAYER authorises it to be used within a mediation service, this should be what happens.

EVERY casino has a non-disclosure commitment, yet the PAB service can work within this.

If a player CANNOT submit a PAB, then despite whatever alternative avenues exits, it is STILL a "no-can-do" as far as a PAB is concerned.

This approach from Ladbrokes has come to the fore at the same time as they are rolling out this "spirit of the bonus" bullshit, and they seem determined to continue with this. It all looks like a policy shift towards a less fair way of administering their promotions.

Only ONE of the three players so far who have fallen victim to this "spirit of the bonus" rule has had redress. The rest have one fewer options than they had before, as they can no longer use the FORMAL PAB process, where they would have to open their arguments for taking action against the player to independent scrutiny.

All they seem to have now is a way of having the issue looked at again by a higher manager, but STILL done in secrecy, and with no guarantee that the decision is not already a "done deal", with any second look being just for show.

If casinos do NOT share their evidence, how can their decisions be assessed for fairness, and adhering to the standards expected of an accredited casino.

This has been building up for some time with Ladbrokes, it has not suddenly happened. The first anti-player moves started back in December 2008, and have been cranked up slowly ever since. Rather than change their rules, they decided to carry on making "too good to be true" offers, but with ever more powerful "F U Clauses" to protect them from players THEY deemed to have won unfairly.
As well as this "spirit" idea, they have now said that merely intending to claim the bonus is itself "bonus abuse", even before a singe bet WITH the bonus funds in the account has been made. EVERY offer is advertised with the intent that a customer will see the ad, and seek to take up the offer advertised. What is happening to some is "bait & switch", since it is only AFTER they have deposited and played it through 1x as specified that they are told the offer does not apply to them, even though there is no way to determine this from either the terms, or the ad.


Surely not being accredited is NOT the same as being rogue. It seems you have a "working relationship" with quite a few groups, yet they are merely "good to go", rather than being accredited.

Accredited should mean the casino goes BEYOND what is expected, and NOT merely scrapes along doing what they can get away with.

A casino that simply "meets general industry standards" should be nothing more than "good to go".
 
Okay - to appease any misunderstandings, no matter what I or Max or any one of the moderators have said in the past or present "We accept PABs for Ladbrokes, and we process them."

/debate on this topic

The Ladbrokes reps are looking into the OP's issue at the moment.

@wikipiti - please check your PMs.
 
***



Casinomeister: Labrokes is not "non-responsive" and they have a fairly good relationship with the members and me.
Click to expand...



No, they are one of the absolute worst at dealing with emails/questions.



Why is that?



- They have never promptly responded to my queries. They have stated that it'd take up to 48 hours for response time, and they weren't joking! I could fly from Canada to South Korea, disembark, go out for dinner, see a movie, update my memoirs book, go to bed, wake-up, get some breakfast, go for a work-out, maybe take a dip-in-the-pool, do some shopping, then proceed to go back to Canada. I'd be back home, call some friends, complain about how small the seats were on the flight over, then I could take a much needed shower, have a snack, check my emails, and see that my Ladbrokes 'care' response isn't there yet, and there's about 2 hours and 29 minutes to go.



- If and when they do respond, I always got the feeling that they never actually read any of the initial emails that I'd sent out. So, that means I'd have to wait an additional 48 hours in order to get an answer to the questions I had initially asked. Very frustrating.



- Whenever I received a 2nd response (another 48 hours later), another agent working in another dept. (or maybe the same dept. but just carrying a different 'title') would respond, and would ask me to forward my initial queries again, in order to get them up to speed. In a nutshell, ask one question, because that's all they're going to respond to. Also, cross your fingers that they actually read that first question correctly.



- These situations would repeat over and over and over and over and over and over again. So, a member here is left with the additional option to PM any number of people who work at Ladbrokes from this site. Thing is, they don't like getting PMs from this site (not that they dislike this site or anything), and would always point me to 'care@ladbrokes' which is about as useful as AOL stock (actually, if you can think of worse stock feel free to use it here). And I can think of SO many times where they told me that they'd forward my query to the right person/people, and I'd never hear about it. At least whenever I used the PM method, I got a response in a short amount of time.



- How many people work at Ladbrokes, and how many titles exist there? If I go through all of my emails sent to them over the years (and I still have them), I never get the same person twice (say for those I've contacted through PMs here simply b/c it's a direct method). It has to be one of the most mismanaged sites around. No continuity whatsoever. I've asked numerous times if there was one particular person to reach, instead of going through all of that mess (time and time again). I never got a response to that particular question. Odd. It's as though they don't know who's in charge, or there's no one there who's responsible for anything.



- Why use '[email protected]'? How about 'wedon'treallycare,[email protected]'?



They may very well be about as legit as they come, and you'll always get paid exactly 6 hours after making a withdrawal, but their CS is absolutely inept to queries (over the phone... not-so-bad), and they aren't as player-friendly as some seem to believe. How can one form a 'relationship' with a faceless entity, one which barely acknowledges its customers?



***
 
Last edited:

Yes, I must agree.

I think they are in the same league as William Hill and Unibet when it comes to e-mail support. Just takes forever to get a reply, and when you do they often don`t answer your question. My feeling is that they frequently will use pre-written vague answers.

But of course, you will always have the opportunity to contact them by chat or phone.
 

Bryan
I did thank you and acknowledge that I had been paid in the thread relevant to my dispute, https://sussexmskpartnershipeast.com/forums/threads/how-do-you-read-this.42033/ but again, thank you.

With regards Ladbrokes not discussing with third parties, well Im sorry they have fed you a curve ball and you have took it. I suggest you look at IBAS. Stands for Independant Betting Arbitration Service. Its that independant that 62% of its funding comes indirectly from Bookmakers.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.


So how come they will discuss disputes with them over gambling disputes but not with you? Probably because they are not pulling your strings but they are theres.

Link Removed ( Old/Invalid)

Above is a PDF regarding disclosing data to third parties. It shows how easy it is. All they have to ask if they at all doubted is for an email from the registered account allowing you to discuss it with them.

They dont want to discuss it with you because they know that they are wrong. Like you said, this only happened recently. Why?

No gripe with CM obviously but the arguement of not discussing with third parties is ballies even from their own terms.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.


Thanks for getting me my money though again.
 
Casinomeister said:
Okay - to appease any misunderstandings, no matter what I or Max or any one of the moderators have said in the past or present "We accept PABs for Ladbrokes, and we process them."

/debate on this topic

The Ladbrokes reps are looking into the OP's issue at the moment.

@wikipiti - please check your PMs.
Click to expand...

hi and sorry for not replying sooner. i have received an email from the promotions manager crediting me the bonus. they are still insisting that my betting was safebetting but on this occasion will credit me the bonus. i am obviously thankful but what if i hadnt found this site? a thankyou to the site owners for obtaining this bonus for me
 

Ladbrokes have always since I can remember dealt with IBAS. Being primarily sportsbook and shop facing.

When I worked for them and I was based in Gibraltar, where the Casino is physically located, along with the support staff for the casino - Ladbrokes being the large animal they are, never disclosed information concerning customer accounts to third parties - IBAS being the exception.

For smaller operators it is easier for this to happen. However for a multi BILLION pound company, like everything else, there is a lot internal politics and admin to encounter before something like this can be achieved and agreed to. I speak personally from experience having spent 5 years in their employment, whereby I managed the IT Department in Gibraltar.

However, Bryan and Max do have a very good line of communication with the people supporting the casino in Gibraltar.
 
Im glad the player was paid etc. But getting back to the issue of Ladbrokes promotion terms I just checked out the terms for the 25% cash back on Reelgems / Retro Reels. All looks good at first until you scroll down to the small print see this below :

14.As a result of bonus abuse, deposits made using Neteller and Moneybookers will be subject to a turnover requirement of 20 times the actual deposit level for all promotions. We reserve the right to recharge all banking fees on deposits, which are not turned over at this level. All other payment methods fall into the turnover requirements as specified in the rest of the terms and conditions of this promotional offer.

Now what confuses me is the part "the right to recharge all banking fees on deposits, which are not turned over at this level. All other payment methods fall into the turnover requirements as specified in the rest of the terms and conditions of this promotional offer"

If im reading correctly then you deposit with neteller thinking that if you loose on the said slots you will get 25% of your losses back upto a set level. Fine, but so long as you turn over your neteller deposit 20 TIMES (Already discussed so need to go over that very dogdy term again) but then if you are unlucky enough NOT to be wable to wager your initial Neteller deposit 20xs then they could sting you for some kind of charge related to the deposit on top of already loosing your inital deposit and NOT getting the 25% cash back due Not being able to turn over the deposit 20xs.

So this is a 3 stage gamble it seems to actually qualify for a 25% bonus :

Stage 1 : Deposit thy coin with neteller (gamble on said slots)
Stage 2 : Pray you reach 20xs playthrough in hopes of getting 25% cash back if you loose
Stage 3 : Pray you reach 20x playthrough in the hope you do not get charged any extra fees for NOT making 20s playthrough!

If that is not an unclear / unfair term then I dont know what is ? Maybe the Ladbrokes rep or somone else would care to enlighten me and other players on this ? Cuz what am i missing here ?
 


why you had the need to emahasise BILLION is beyond me. the more turnover, the bigger the budgets for departments pro rata.
 
The reason I did it was very valid. When dealing with extremely large companies, it takes a lot of smaller wheels to get the big wheel to move.

If you have worked for a large company, you will know that internal politics and administration, can mean for something to be approved can take a lot longer than it would at a smaller company.
the more turnover, the bigger the budgets for departments pro rata.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately irrelevant. The bigger the company, the harder and more time consuming it is to get something approved and done.
 

well from emails ive received th decision to not speak to CM is only recent so the above is contradictory. the position used to be TO speak to cm, but somebody decided not to. also, re the large company. maybe for a new idea but Ladbrokes have been going for ages
 
wikipiti said:
well from emails ive received th decision to not speak to CM is only recent so the above is contradictory. ....
Click to expand...

Ummm, don't think that's quite true. I believe they first said "no talkie" about a year ago but promised to receive issues and handle them through their internal complaints handling service. Some time after that Bryan established his contact within this part of the organisation, AFAIK.
 
maxd said:
Ummm, don't think that's quite true. I believe they first said "no talkie" about a year ago but promised to receive issues and handle them through their internal complaints handling service. Some time after that Bryan established his contact within this part of the organisation, AFAIK.
Click to expand...

Ill check as it was from a third part max.
 

This is an unfair term because they have plenty of other remedies for tacking "bonus abuse", which they seem to apply REGARDLESS of the deposit method used. We have had "safe betting" and "spirit of the bonus". This is surely ALREADY more than enough defence, and there is NO need at all for this special term on Neteller/Moneybookers, because it only FURTHER punishes the RECREATIONAL player, since the "advantage" player is dealt with under "spirit of" and "safe betting" rules.

In order to eke out a Neteller deposit 20x, then "safe betting" is a must, but this means that managing to make 20x on a Neteller deposit will be called "safe betting", and the bonus denied in any case.

IBAS does NOT deal with the CASINO side (they confirmed this in the Betfair case, refusing to deal with it because it was casino related), so although this option is available for the sportsbook, there is NO Independent mediation service available for casino players, who have to rely on "contacts" and Gibraltar.

The customer service is VERY poor, and from the emails I have received to queries it seems the CS team can do very little because "everything is subcontracted". Even their scratchcards are subcontracted to a third party, who process the winners, and forward the results back to Ladbrokes. This means that CS cannot sort out errors, but have to forward the query to the subcontractor, who then takes a couple of days to get back to Ladbrokes, where nothing seems to get done with it because it is never the same person dealing with an ongoing query. I have had this problem before, and it can take a week or more to sort out a problem winning scratchcard, and they have to be prodded constantly, as no-one takes charge of managing an ongoing query. I have also been asked to resend information that has already been sent regarding a query, because there is no continuity. It seems that staff members who initially deal with a query do not properly enter it on the system, so any other CS member doing to follow up has no proper access to what the first member of staff did, promised, or didn't do.
Players get frustrated because they ASSUME their query is being dealt with in a professional manner, and then feel that Ladbrokes are being deliberately obstructive when they receive "stupid" replies during follow up, where it is obvious they have no idea what the initial query was about, and are just stringing together a few "canned responses" after having an educated guess about the cause of the problems.

It is so bad that I "threw in the towel" with them over 2 years ago, and even their attempts to win me back have been screwed up, and have made me even LESS likely to return.

I am surprised they have not gone after Kasino King, who makes no secret of the fact that he plays Ladbrokes' promotions because they are so PROFITABLE for him, so surely he is breaking every one of these vague "spirit of" terms, and he bets pretty "safe" to, usually £1 or less per spin, and rarely beyond £2.
Ladbrokes must know this, but it seems they have an additional policy of CHOOSING who will be allowed to carry on playing for profit, and who gets "the book thrown at them" for trying to do the same.
 
vinylweatherman said:
IBAS does NOT deal with the CASINO side (they confirmed this in the Betfair case, refusing to deal with it because it was casino related), so although this option is available for the sportsbook, there is NO Independent mediation service available for casino players, who have to rely on "contacts" and Gibraltar.
Click to expand...

The way I read it the poster was saying the Ladbrokes deal with IBAS which is a third party. Dont think there was any reference to the regulatory part of the matter. Might be wrond :)
 
GOCC said:
The way I read it the poster was saying the Ladbrokes deal with IBAS which is a third party. Dont think there was any reference to the regulatory part of the matter. Might be wrond :)
Click to expand...

So do Betfair, but it was IBAS that told a player that they could not help because his case was about that happy hour promotion, which related to the casino. IBAS would surely say the same about a Ladbrokes casino issue, because if they didn't, it would show evidence that they have colluded with Betfair to deny players embroiled in the happy hour fiasco a hearing. This would be incompatible with their position of independence from the industry.
 
vinylweatherman said:
So do Betfair, but it was IBAS that told a player that they could not help because his case was about that happy hour promotion, which related to the casino. IBAS would surely say the same about a Ladbrokes casino issue, because if they didn't, it would show evidence that they have colluded with Betfair to deny players embroiled in the happy hour fiasco a hearing. This would be incompatible with their position of independence from the industry.
Click to expand...

VM
Ill rephrase.
The OP, IMO, was refering to the fact that Ladbrokes "Dont Discuss" with 3rd parties. This was to CM. But they obviously do as they discuss claims with IBAS over sportsbook resolution.
 
Bryan has written about this in the recent MEISTER MAIL, 25 February 2011:
Spirit of the Bonus is a antiquated misnomer, but there are some casino managers that never got the memo. It's 2011 and there are still some misguided casino managers who insist on using this term to confiscate players' winnings. What is alarming is that two large betting firms, Betfair and Ladbrokes, have used this "rule" to justify these confiscations. Ladbrokes reconsidered this action and resolved the issue by subsequently paying the player. Betfair stuck to their guns and were rogued last December.
(more)
Click to expand...
 
I have been thinking about this and I think having a 'spirit of the bonus' T&C is different to actually using it. I don't think casinos should be punished for actually having these terms but only if they use them.

Another reason why I think a lot of these casinos with sportsbooks don't deal with CM is becasue they think they are too big.
The effect of the millions of dollars that they make has given them delusions of grandeur.
 
petro said:
I have been thinking about this and I think having a 'spirit of the bonus' T&C is different to actually using it. I don't think casinos should be punished for actually having these terms but only if they use them.

Another reason why I think a lot of these casinos with sportsbooks don't deal with CM is becasue they think they are too big.
The effect of the millions of dollars that they make has given them delusions of grandeur.
Click to expand...


It's ok if they Have the term but only as long as they don't use it? What does that mean really? lol This all is why I don't use any bonus with the intent to win anymore.
 
max, bryan ,“ my: in the spirit of the bonus was ” was from a totally different casino.I hope you still know what the case was... i don't think they belong to any group ( anyway that's what my vip manager says to me... :/ - besides playtech obv )

i did alot of research on my own, but i always get siidetracked.

do you know if they are running some weird aff program maybe? top management does not want to pay she says...

i would like to talk tho them, maybe some wizzkid quant ppl pulled some data from my screen and “came” to this conclusion. then still it makes no sense to me... i'm sorry for drifting away but cause i have to broken pc's atm i am doomed to surfing on my ps3 browser so i pick some spots here and there..
 


LOL that's ok kombucha at least you can blame the drifting on the machine. I can't. LOL :)
 
maxd said:
Bryan has written about this in the recent MEISTER MAIL, 25 February 2011:
Click to expand...

Ladbrokes may have paid THAT player, but they have used this "spirit of the bonus" argument on other players, and here it seems they DID "stick to their guns".

Ladbrokes claim is that joining the casino with the intent to claim the welcome bonus is itself "abuse", even BEFORE the bonus has been credited, and any play on it has started.
As has been pointed out, they are advertising an offer where one of the conditions of that offer is that you CANNOT actually TAKE it without this being considered "not in the spirit". It seems the "spirit" is that players do NOT take the welcome bonus advertised, yet it is the advertising of this offer that draws players to register in the first place.

I expect the ASA will have something to say about this, as they did with Betfair. Those who have been given this excuse from Ladbrokes should complain to the ASA about the advert for the welcome bonus being misleading, and unfairly administered.
 


Write your reply...

Similar threads

H
Bonus Complaint Huff N Lots Of Puff - Hit £37.5k Super Jackpot but Error?
Replies
11
Views
1K
Reelsoffun
R
Krogilasi
  • Locked
VivatBet - issue
Replies
2
Views
928
maxd
maxd
A
PAB in progress 2,700 in winnings withheld due to non-consensual bonus
Replies
5
Views
1K
mulven
mulven
J
jackbit.com (Ryker B.V.) - Withholding $75k
Replies
2
Views
817
maxd
maxd
O
Wazbee Confiscates Real Winnings After Bonus Cap, Only Losses Allowed
Replies
6
Views
2K
spindoctor99
S

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)

Accredited Casinos

Read about our rating system and how it's done.
Back
Top