Cashmio - Confiscation of Winnings
Found for the Casino - Rather than one complaint this player has found a significant number of reasons that they feel that despite breaching the max bet term for the bonus they accepted, that the max bet term should not be considered legitimate in this case. Having reviewed these claims we don't see majority in the vast majority of them. The one that may have bearing to the case relates to the position of the terms and conditions link in relation to the banner advertising the promotion. This is a technicality that falls under the remit of the Advertising Standards Agency in the UK. As such we've directed the player to the ASA to review this particular aspect of their complaint.
Read our Cashmio Casino Review.
I write to request you look into a dispute between myself and Cashmio (www.cashmio.com) where they have confiscated £2652.51 of winnings due to "bets being made in excess of £5.00".
The main points in my argument against the confiscation of funds are:
1. The only Terms and Conditions I were presented with and accepted were the ones at sign up, their "Terms and Conditions" and at no point was I presented with any "Bonus Terms and Conditions" which is what they have based the confiscation of funds on.
2. Term 8.6 within the Terms and Conditions states that a players "deposited funds" are always used before bonus funds. Since my balance never dropped into the bonus funds then all associated winnings were won with my deposited funds.
Cashmio have stated that in signing up to their "Terms and Conditions" I signed up to clause 1.1.4 (see page 23 of email chain) which states that I also signed up to "any terms and conditions of promotions, bonuses and special offers which may be found on the website from time to time" and this is why they have confiscated funds. Stating that by accepting the "Terms and Conditions" at sign up I have automatically accepted the "Bonus Terms and Conditions" (again a completely separate set of terms and conditions which you are not made aware of at sign up or deposit).
My argument is that under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (attached) these "Bonus Terms and Conditions" would be considered hidden terms and conditions (see below) making clause 1.1.4 unfair and therefore making confiscation of funds based on these terms unfair. Stating that there may be additional terms and conditions "on the website from time to time" is not enough.
(10) A term which has the object or effect of irrevocably binding the consumer to terms with which the consumer has had no real opportunity of becoming acquainted before the conclusion of the contract
3. Notwithstanding the above, throughout the Bonus Terms and Conditions, any bonus funds are mentioned with regards to "wagering requirements". Only clause 15 which they have based the confiscation of funds on refer to "play through requirements". This term is mentioned nowhere else in either the Terms and Conditions or Bonus Terms and Conditions. Nor is their a definitions list to identify what "play through requirements means".
4. By their own admission, in the email of 23/01/17 at 12.20, their own staff struggle to understand the terms and have to have management explain them.
5. They have failed to provide me with email copies of their Terms and Conditions and Bonus Terms and Conditions.
6. They have failed to provide me with full company details so I can take the matter further should I need to do so.
In my attachment (complaint text) I will now go on to explain the position fully and outline evidence supporting my case.
Should you require any further information then please do not hesitate to contact me.
the casino review
Leave a Reply
You must be
to post a comment.