williamhill online casinos

[fiddlers]

On the 3rd May 2004 I was a "winner" on the William Hill progressive jackpot on a blackjack table. According to their own rules my hand was a winner. They failed to payout and when contacted their response was to shut down their rule site. The next day the rule site was re-opened with amendments made in their favour. They offered a compensation payment of less than 10% which i refused. The dispute was forwarded to Arbitrators. After 7 months of stalling a "decision" was made to the end that it was o.k to change the rules as other sites had similar games and I was supposed to deduce from that the rules of their game. It is a mystery why the abitrators IBAS supported a company changing their rules overnight. I can only imagine that the total amount won which was over £153.000 sterling somehow clouded their judgement. Local news stories giving more details can be viewed on wwwkeighleynews.co.uk on the dates Thursday Dec 23rd 2004 and 14th or 21st May 2004. You will not need to look further than the headline page.

[CSR]

Thanks for posting this distrurbing news. We are very sorry for your loss and we are adding William Hill Casino to our scam warnings page.

Here is the full article for everyone to read.

Internet gambler loses £150,000 jackpot appeal
by David Knights

A man who says he won £153,000 at an Internet casino has lost his appeal against William Hill's refusal to pay.

The gambling giant offered Steven Carter just £10,000 even though he fulfilled the requirements for a jackpot win.

The 46-year-old landscape gardener appealed to the Independent Betting Arbitration Service (IBAS), which took seven months to investigate.

Mr Carter, of Southfield Drive, Riddlesden, this month heard that IBAS had ruled against him, despite agreeing William Hill's rules were unclear.

He said: "This has spoiled my Christmas. It's in the hands of solicitors and we're pressing forward our claim. I'll keep on and see how far I get."

Mr Carter played blackjack on William Hill's Internet site last summer and was dealt two aces, a five, then two more aces.

He says he had won £153,000, because rules written on the web site stated that four aces automatically won the jackpot.

William Hill refused to pay out and the next day the rules were extended, specifying the four aces had to be dealt consecutively.

Staff at the firm's call centre told Mr Carter he was entitled to only £25, for gaining just the first two aces consecutively.

William Hill told Mr Carter it would abide by the arbitration service's ruling.

The arbitrator accepted that William Hill's published rules for Progressive Blackjack Jackpot were "far from clear" and did not make clear that the winning aces had to be the first cards dealt.

But he wrote: "Equally, the site did not say that the payouts would be paid if any of the cards dealt were aces."

He stated that rules governing the £25 payout referred to "the first two cards dealt being aces", so it had to follow that the four aces must also be the first four cards dealt.

The arbitrator pointed out that if the rules had allowed Mr Carter to win, it would have meant the odds of winning were too high, going against the principle of the Progressive Jackpot.

The arbitrator concluded: "The panel can see why the client may claim to have been misled, but feel the compensation offered by the bookmaker is a fair settlement.

"Whatever the summary of the rules published on the site may have said, the hand was not a legitimate winner of the Progressive Jackpot."

Mr Carter told the Keighley News he had consulted a solicitor, who agreed with him that the arbitrators' reasoning was flawed.

Mr Carter said: "The ruling doesn't make any sense. The solicitor just laughed at it."

Mr Carter pointed out he had not yet received any compensation and last summer turned down William Hill's £10,000 offer.

No one at William Hill was available for comment this week.