Fruity Casa - Unfair Confiscation

Hi dsfender31 - welcome back!

Before we can do anything to help you I need you to provide me with the username and email address you use a FruityCasa casino. Once I have those I'll contact the operator.

Thank,

ThePOGG

Hi defender31,

I've reviewed your emails. By the looks of things you have violated the maximum bet rule, but let me discuss this with FruityCasa before we close any doors.

Thanks,

ThePOGG

Hi dsfender31,

Can you confirm that this was the welcome package you were playing with?

Thanks,

ThePOGG

Hi dsfender31,

Can you confirm how much your win was for?

Thanks,

ThePOGG

Hi dsfender31,

I need the above requested information to move this issue forward.

Thanks,

ThePOGG

I've now had a chance to review all of the pertinent information in this case and having done so have drawn the conclusion that neither party can be viewed to be entirely in the right in this situation.

Multiple factors have been considered when reaching this conclusion which will be detailed below.

1) The promotion you claimed was on your very first deposit and as such the operator feels it should be considered a Welcome Bonus and subject to Welcome Bonus Terms and Conditions which clearly restrict bets of more than £5.

While I do agree that common sense dictates that the first bonus received should be considered a Welcome Bonus, as this was clearly advertise as a sporting event related promotion and made no mention of being subject to Welcome Bonus terms and conditions it is unfair to expect the player to know to default to Welcome Bonus promotional terms rather than general promotional terms.

2) The operator claims that the following term was violated during play:

8.1 Irregular Play

Before any withdrawals are processed, Your play will be reviewed for any irregular playing patterns, which include but not limited to

(ii) Placing single bets equal to or in excess of 5% or more of the value of the bonus credited to Your account until such time as the wagering requirements for that bonus have been met.

Having checked this term was in place within the General Terms and Conditions document at the time of registration and play and the play in question did violate this term.

However, two factors have to be considered here:

i) The following term within the Promotional Terms and Conditions:

(xx) Where a Welcome Bonus and/or No Deposit Bonus has been granted to you, subject to you being required to have met all wagering requirements, you will be limited to a maximum withdrawal value of your total deposits any remaining balance will be forfeited if the casino deems your play to be irregular. For example, equal, zero or low margin bets or hedge betting, shall all be considered irregular gaming for bonus play-through requirement purposes. “State” game abuse is where the player collects gems, coins and other items that initiate a bonus round or free spins, to nearly the point of activating the bonus or free spins, and this is done with the welcome bonus and first deposit, and then the player then plays the balance down to under 1 credit, therefore, cancelling the wagering requirements, then re-entering the game with another deposit of cash only with no bonus and re-entering those games to complete the collection of items to trigger the bonus of free spins. Other examples of irregular game play include but are not limited to, placing single bet in excess of £5.00 to initiate a high win during the early stages of game play, then making a significant change in bet size down to less than £1.00 a bet until such time as the wagering requirements for that bonus have been met. While a welcome bonus is in play the maximum you may bet on any single bet will be capped at £5.00, above this amount will be considered irregular play for bonus play through requirements.

The above term is problematic. The operator suggests that the term above only applies to Welcome Bonuses and as such, if we don't accept that this bonus was a Welcome Bonus, we have to default to the 5% rule within the General Terms and Conditions. However, the construction of the above term ensures that it HAS to apply to other bonuses. The term clearly stipulates that the maximum allowed wager for play with a Welcome Bonus is £5. This is added as an exception at the end of a more general term that allows for bonuses above £5 as long as the player does not then drop their wager to less than £1. Both these rules cannot co-exist simultaneously. If the term only applies to Welcome Bonuses, the clear restriction on bets exceeding £5 would make the initial allowance for bets over £5 redundant. As such the term has to be viewed in two parts, a first general part for all bonus play with a secondary exclusion for Welcome Bonus specific play.

So ignoring the Welcome Bonus specific section we have a term allowing for bets exceeding £5 as long as the player does not drop their wager to less than £1 after a win in the Promotional Terms and Conditions and a term restricting the maximum allowed bet to 5% of the bonus granted in the General Terms and Conditions. These two terms are not inherently conflicting - it is possible to wager more than £5 while still remaining within the limit of 5% of the bonus depending on the size of the bonus.

By strict definition there has been a violation of terms here however the terms regarding the maximum betting restrictions are inconsistent between the General and Promotional Terms and Conditions. The promotional term certainly could be considered misleading as not all situations – including the specific situation of this player – would allow for wagers over £5 as they would exceed 5% of the bonus. In this player’s case, any bet in excess of £5 would have violated the 5% rule. By default players are likely to look at Promotional Terms and Conditions to find rules directly related to play with bonuses and as such I would be inclined to default to the Promotional Terms and Conditions where there is a conflict of this nature. This favours the player.

ii) The conversation with a Live Chat representative – there was a clear conversation with a Live Chat operative where the operative informed the player that:

“The max bet of your first deposit bonus is 5.- after that no limit.

And it's only for the first deposit bonus.”

There are multiple factors to be considered here. Firstly the Live Chat representative HAS made a mistake. There are clear max bet restrictions for all bonuses, not just the first deposit bonus. However, the Live Chat representative has at no point referred to the 5 max bet restriction as a Welcome Bonus restriction, but rather advised the player that this was a “first deposit bonus” restriction. The player made their first deposit and received a bonus, so in fact despite the mistake about subsequent bonus restrictions the Live Chat representative HAS given out entirely correct information with regard to the player’s situation. Unlike the Welcome Bonus interpretation of the terms covered in point 1) above, there is no ambiguity here – the player has been given clear and correct information about a restriction applying to their specific situation which they then went on to violate. This favours the operator.

Taking all of the above into consideration ruling favour of either party would be inappropriate and it is the opinion of ThePOGG.com that the parties should look to reach a middle ground settlement. In our opinion fault is equally shared. It is the operator’s responsibility to ensure that their terms and conditions are adequate to ensure that players are not mislead. This has not been achieved. However, in our opinion given the complainant’s focus on the Live Chat conversation rather than the terms it seems more likely that the player misinterpreted clear information provided by a Live Chat representative rather than being mislead be the terms in question. To that end we propose a 50% payout. This proposal and the reasoning for it has already been agreed to by the operator.

dsfender31,

At this stage it is necessary to make you aware that as one of the UKGC appointed ADR services for Fruity Casa use of our service is not legally binding and regardless of the ruling does not diminish your rights under consumer law. You are free to withdraw from this process at any point and pursue alternative legal action. However, if you choose to accept this settlement this would be considered legally binding and you would have no further right to take your complaint to other ADR services or a court as detailed in term 4 of the Social Responsibility Code Provision 6.1.1 issued by the UKGC as follows:

“4. The services of any such ADR entity must be free of charge to the customer and must not be subject to terms which restrict, or purport to restrict, the customer’s right to bring proceedings against the licensee in any court of competent jurisdiction. Such terms may, however, provide for an agreed resolution of a dispute (arrived at with the assistance of the ADR entity) to be binding on both parties.”

http://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/ADR-Blog/ADR-LCCP-extract-Annex-A.pdf

I’ll await your decision.

Thanks,

ThePOGG

Hi dsfender31,

Thanks for getting back to me and I'm glad you're happy with the suggested solution.

This may take a while to enact as the operator are likely to want to put in place a contract stipulating that the issue has been resolved at the point where payment takes place.

I've informed FruityCasa of your decision and I'll let you know as soon as they get back to me.

Thanks,

ThePOGG

Hi dsfender31,

Thanks for getting back to me and I'm glad you're happy with the suggested solution.

This may take a while to enact as the operator are likely to want to put in place a contract stipulating that the issue has been resolved at the point where payment takes place.

I've informed FruityCasa of your decision and I'll let you know as soon as they get back to me.

Thanks,

ThePOGG

Hi dsfender31,

I spoke with the person managing this issue last night. My understanding is you should receive an email directly from Fruity Casa in the near future detailing the agreement. If you could let me know when you receive this I'd appreciate it.

Thanks,

ThePOGG