Dear PMaria64,
Thank you for letting me know, and I apologize for the delay. Given the volume of emails I receive, some may occasionally be overlooked. That’s why it’s always best to ping me directly here in the thread so I can check and respond promptly.
Dear Instaspin Casino,
Following the player’s latest message and our internal discussion in the Complaint Resolution Center, I must acknowledge that we consider the player’s position correct.
I appreciate your effort to resolve the matter by issuing a new bonus without wagering requirements. However, while this may seem like the simplest solution, it does not fully address the fairness of the situation. Essentially, it resets the player to the beginning without proper regard for the progress already made under the original terms.
As you know, we strive to assist players when they are treated unfairly, and in this case, your own support agent admitted that a mistake occurred on your side while attempting to resolve the issue. This admission makes the casino’s responsibility very clear.
The key question is: why should this player, who had already completed a significant portion of the wagering requirement, be placed at a disadvantage compared to other players whose bonuses were not mistakenly cancelled? The player’s reasoning regarding guaranteed and non-guaranteed winnings is both valid and logical.
To illustrate:
- Total winnings: €2,767
- Remaining wagering: €1,000
- Guaranteed winnings: €2,767 – €1,000 = €1,767
Even in the worst-case scenario - if the player lost every subsequent wager while completing the remaining requirements - the guaranteed amount would still be €1,767. Offering a €500 bonus, even without wagering requirements, falls far short of this guarantee. Even assuming a 100% RTP, the player would end up with significantly less than what was already effectively secured under the original bonus.
Furthermore, since your team has already acknowledged the mistake in the chat log, it is difficult to understand your current position. Referring to your corrective actions as an act of "good will" is misleading: correcting one’s own mistake is not good will - it is simply the fair course of action. Additionally, mentioning the possibility of refunding deposits and closing the account is not constructive and cannot reasonably be considered a satisfactory resolution.
Our suggestion is as follows:
- Credit the player’s guaranteed winnings in full, i.e. €1,767, based on the above calculation.
- Allow the player to continue with the new "good will" bonus as an additional opportunity, since we cannot quantify what her winnings might have been from completing the remaining wagering requirement (though statistically, further winnings would be expected).
We believe this proposal represents a fair, rational, and balanced resolution. Please let us know if you agree with this approach, or provide a clear explanation as to why you believe this logic does not hold.
Thank you, and I look forward to your response.
Dear PMaria64,
Thank you for letting me know, and I apologize for the delay. Given the volume of emails I receive, some may occasionally be overlooked. That’s why it’s always best to ping me directly here in the thread so I can check and respond promptly.
Dear Instaspin Casino,
Following the player’s latest message and our internal discussion in the Complaint Resolution Center, I must acknowledge that we consider the player’s position correct.
I appreciate your effort to resolve the matter by issuing a new bonus without wagering requirements. However, while this may seem like the simplest solution, it does not fully address the fairness of the situation. Essentially, it resets the player to the beginning without proper regard for the progress already made under the original terms.
As you know, we strive to assist players when they are treated unfairly, and in this case, your own support agent admitted that a mistake occurred on your side while attempting to resolve the issue. This admission makes the casino’s responsibility very clear.
The key question is: why should this player, who had already completed a significant portion of the wagering requirement, be placed at a disadvantage compared to other players whose bonuses were not mistakenly cancelled? The player’s reasoning regarding guaranteed and non-guaranteed winnings is both valid and logical.
To illustrate:
- Total winnings: €2,767
- Remaining wagering: €1,000
- Guaranteed winnings: €2,767 – €1,000 = €1,767
Even in the worst-case scenario - if the player lost every subsequent wager while completing the remaining requirements - the guaranteed amount would still be €1,767. Offering a €500 bonus, even without wagering requirements, falls far short of this guarantee. Even assuming a 100% RTP, the player would end up with significantly less than what was already effectively secured under the original bonus.
Furthermore, since your team has already acknowledged the mistake in the chat log, it is difficult to understand your current position. Referring to your corrective actions as an act of "good will" is misleading: correcting one’s own mistake is not good will - it is simply the fair course of action. Additionally, mentioning the possibility of refunding deposits and closing the account is not constructive and cannot reasonably be considered a satisfactory resolution.
Our suggestion is as follows:
- Credit the player’s guaranteed winnings in full, i.e. €1,767, based on the above calculation.
- Allow the player to continue with the new "good will" bonus as an additional opportunity, since we cannot quantify what her winnings might have been from completing the remaining wagering requirement (though statistically, further winnings would be expected).
We believe this proposal represents a fair, rational, and balanced resolution. Please let us know if you agree with this approach, or provide a clear explanation as to why you believe this logic does not hold.
Thank you, and I look forward to your response.