Write to us about a figure, and what happens to the page if you are right

1

What is worth writing about, and where it goes

The address is editor@bonus-spins.uk and it is read by whoever maintains the arithmetic.

Four kinds of letter are genuinely useful here. A figure that does not reproduce: name the page, the figure and the line of working you disagree with, and the answer will be the arithmetic rather than an opinion. A rule cited wrongly, a licence condition numbered wrongly, or a link that no longer reaches what it was cited for. A written term described on a page that has since been rewritten by the operator, with the date you read the new wording. And a question about what a page means, which is often a sign that a sentence here needs rewriting rather than defending.

A request about a visit to this domain belongs here too. What is recorded, and the rights a person holds over it, are set out on the privacy page, and a request needs the date and the approximate time of the visit. A server log holds a network address and no other handle on a person, so without those two the lookup has nothing to work from.

2

How long a reply takes

Five working days for an answer, and that is this publisher’s own undertaking rather than a rule imposed by anybody. Where a point needs a figure recomputed or a primary source reopened, the five days buys an acknowledgement saying so and naming when the substantive answer will follow.

Two things get a faster reply than the rest, and they are flagged here so that a reader knows to send them. Anything suggesting a page helps somebody past a protection, and anything suggesting a page could be read as advice to gamble. Both are defects of a kind this publisher treats as urgent, and the page on staying in control explains why the first of them is taken that seriously.

3

Three things this publisher cannot do for you

It cannot chase an operator on a reader’s behalf. There is no relationship here that would carry such a request: commission is paid for traffic, which buys no standing to intervene in an account and no channel to intervene through, and the payment page sets out what the arrangement actually consists of.

It cannot recover money. Not a penny of anybody’s balance has ever passed through this publisher, no payment instrument is held, and no process exists here that could return a withdrawal somebody is waiting for. A letter asking for that gets an answer naming the routes in part four, which is the most useful thing it can contain.

It is not a complaints route and must not be used as one. A message here is not a complaint against anybody, it starts no clock anywhere, and sending one instead of complaining properly costs a reader time at the exact point where time is the thing that matters.

4

Where a complaint about an operator actually goes

Write to the operator first and keep the date you sent it. Inside the British licence those steps carry clocks, and they are easiest to hold as numbers. Acknowledgement: three working days from arrival, cut to a single day where play is on offer at any hour. Conclusion: eight weeks counted from the same starting point, internal escalation included, which is 56 days and in practice something near two working months. Window for starting at all: six months from the incident as the shortest an operator may allow. Whatever letter ends the process must carry the decision, declare the operator’s stage over, and point onwards to whichever independent dispute body the regulator has approved for it.

The British regulator publishes a short account of its own limits, and it repays reading more than most of what gets written about it. It describes itself as not an ombudsman. It says it cannot settle a complaint about a gambling transaction, cannot get anybody’s money returned, and that neither a stalled withdrawal nor a misbehaving game is something it can put right. Its own advice is to raise the matter with the business first. A report to it still counts, since enforcement is built out of reports, but nobody should be waiting on it for a refund.

Here is the part a reader of this domain has to be told plainly. The offers written about here sit beyond the Great Britain licence, which leaves every one of those clocks unenforceable and no approved dispute body standing behind them. What is left is the operator’s own published procedure, whatever its own licensing authority provides, and the chargeback or dispute route run by whoever carried the payment. Those are the honest options and they are a great deal thinner, which the section on conditions met on the way out prices case by case.

5

The correction promise, and what it is worth

Where somebody demonstrates that a number here is wrong, the number changes and the page carries a dated line recording what it used to say. A correction is never folded into the text quietly, because a reader who acted on the earlier version is entitled to see that it moved, and a publisher editing its arithmetic out of sight is asking to be trusted rather than checked.

What that promise is worth can be computed, which is the appropriate way to make it on this domain. Suppose a guide states a multiple of 35 where the written document in the written terms says 45. On a £10.00 credit the stated version gives £10.00 multiplied by one less 1.4, an expected minus £4.00. The true reading gives one less 1.8, an expected minus £8.00.

The expected close a mistaken digit produces minus £4.00 The expected close the document actually supports minus £8.00 What one digit, left standing, is worth per reader £4.00

Four pounds for one digit, multiplied by however many readers took it, is the reason the correction route is on a page of its own rather than in a footnote. It is also the reason this publisher would rather receive a letter that turns out to be mistaken than not receive the one that is right, and no letter of either kind gets a reply complaining that it was sent.

One thing a correction cannot repair is settled nowhere in writing. Nobody here can establish who read the earlier version, or tell them. No record of individual readers exists, by the design set out on the privacy page, so a dated note on the page is the entirety of the remedy available and this page claims nothing beyond it.