Sporting Index - will avoid honouring RAF any way they can

[Fella]

Just a headsup that SpIn will avoid honouring their referral any way they can.

Referred someone a month ago. They did all the necessary bets (& more) & I got an email saying the freebet was noted against my account & ready to be used.

Rang yesterday to try to place it & was told I needed to provide them with not just my referee's name but also his account number (!) therefore I couldn't place the freebet.

So - found out that info & today tried to place the freebet again. Today they refuse to honour the freebet because I've not placed two or more bets in the previous 30 days.

Now, I HAD placed more than two bets in the 30 days previous to referring my friend which is clearly what that term refers to. The terms are not "the referrer must have placed 2 or more bets in the 30 days prior to referring someone AND in the 30 days prior to placing their freebet".

Furthermore they'd already confirmed by email that the freebet was noted against my account.

And finally, by coincidence, the last two bets I placed were actually on 28th January - i.e. 31 days ago & had they accepted my bet yesterday those would have been within the 30-day cutoff regardless of which interpretation was put on their terms. To refuse to allow the freebet to be placed today is simply a joke - and a disgrace.

So, nothing really new here I guess, since most people are already aware that Spread firms will do everything possible to avoid honouring an offer. But this demostrates that Sporting Index will sink to any depths IMO, especially since the account this relates to is a "model" account from their perspective; never referred anyone before & has placed tons of bets over the years. And my referred friend has placed way more than the minimum bets to qualify for his freebie etc.

Sporting Index treat their customers with contempt.

[Landprofits]

Introducers must have placed a minimum of 2 bets in the last 30 days (each bet must have a potential win and a potential loss of £20 or more).

I agree with you that this term points towards the 30 days prior to referring your friend, it doesn't stipulate any activity on your account after having referred your friend.

This could be down to one particular individual no interpereting the term correctly..... are you going back to them to debate this point? It would be interesting to see how this turns out.

[Fella]

No, am certainly not going to back down.

I've received another laughable response from them that contains gems like this:

We are regulated by the FSA, although we are the sole arbiter of this promotion any disputes would be dealt with by us, see point 17 of the terms:

Sporting Index are the sole arbiters of these Rules and any other issue arising under this promotion.


Haha. Unless I misinterpret, SpIn appear to be saying "we're regulated by the FSA, except when we choose not to be. In those cases we will make up the rules as we go along & then regulate ourselves".

Good luck with that. I've sent one final response asking for a satisfactory response & if I don't get it I'm complaining formally to the FSA. Let them decide whether SpIn are actually the arbiter in this case or not.

[Fella]

BTW my replies have been from 3 different people thus far, so it's not simply a case of one stupid employee. It's clearly company policy to avoid honouring this offer in any way possible.

[munk]

That does sound like someone's not understanding the rules quite right and if you got another CS agent you might have more luck, maybe worth trying again? Also maybe a case this time of getting it in writing in email? Might be easier to see 'on paper' that the terms are clearly being misread and hopefully make it obvious the free bet is due?

Good luck, let us know how you get on.

[Landprofits]

Good luck, you're right not to back down.

If it does go to the poingt where you have to complain formally to the FSA, it will be interesting to see how that pan's out. I would suspect (but don't know) that the FSA regulation applies to the spread company keeping sufficient funds and financial standing in order to pay out on any big wins betc. This is the same way that the punter has to have a credit check to ensure good financial standing - should they incur a big loss.

I don't know that for sure though - i'm just thinking out loud.

They are clearly abusing their own terms though, so I hope you get some sense out of them.

[Fella]

To clarify - they had already emailed me saying I'd qualified for the freebet, it was noted against my account, & I just needed to email them to place it!

Despite this they're refusing to as per the above.

[cleaner]

I feel sorry for you and agree they bent the rules of the promo.
But am quite sure FSA has nothing to do with regulated companies offering (or denying) incentives to their clients...
SpreadEx did similar thing on massive scale a few seasons ago and they got away with it.

[Landprofits]

I feel sorry for you and agree they bent the rules of the promo.
But am quite sure FSA has nothing to do with regulated companies offering (or denying) incentives to their clients...
SpreadEx did similar thing on massive scale a few seasons ago and they got away with it.

Interesting. I think all of this highlights the fact that, just because a company is FSA regulated doesn't mean they are going to act in a squeakly clean manner. I mean, let's face it, they don't particularly go to great lengths to make the terms clear, and with Spreadex for instance when I did the SUB I must have missed the term that stipulates all qualifiers must be on separate markets, thus I had placed a load of qualifiers that didn't, um, qualify.

I was a bit annoyed by this so I took no losses and arbs when I did the qualifiers again.

[Andy]

Today they refuse to honour the freebet because I've not placed two or more bets in the previous 30 days.

If you ignore the rights and wrongs of the situation and look at it from a logical point of view.

You are at place A = No freebet being given. You want to get to place B = Freebet being given.

To get from A to B there are two routes, argue with them and play E-mail tennis with various CS staff, complain to various watchdogs and bodies, spend time and effort getting cross with them. OR you could just place two more bets.

Might it be easier to place two more bets? You shouldnt have to I agree, but thats by the by at the moment, you just want to get to place B. The quickest and easiest way to do that might be to humour them and just bet again.