July 2021 PAB Summary

Issue summary: Player believes a non-paying casino has popped up again with a slightly different moniker and was hoping to revive a two-year-old case.

Conclusion: The original case is too old to expect any good results here but at least we can give it a shot. Player hasn’t responded to our request for supporting evidence, this is going nowhere until they do. Player still not responding to us — case closed.

Issue summary: Player says they have had their withdrawal requests denied 5 times in the last week, they are now blocked from making any more attempts and that the casino is investigating their gaming activities.

Conclusion: The casino refused to discuss the player’s complaint, no reason given. Case closed and a Casinomeister Warning against them will be posted.

Issue summary: After attempting to withdraw the OP says their account was frozen and that the casino was investigating the game. This happened over 18 months ago.

Conclusion: Issue is too old and thus beyond the scope of the PAB process, case closed.

Issue summary: Player’s says their account is locked and they are still waiting for verification after a week and a half.

Conclusion: Day after submitting this PAB, the player started a forum thread about their issue and posted repeatedly, ignoring PAB procedures. Case closed.

Issue summary: Player says they have attempted to withdraw 7 times but the money is just returned to their casino account.

Conclusion: Between our efforts and the player requesting his payment 50+ times he was eventually paid in full. Case closed.

Issue summary: Player says that despite their account being verified, they have been waiting over a month for their withdrawal while the casino has become unresponsive.

Conclusion: The casino claims they’ve sent the player the withdrawal but can’t trace it. Their recommendation to the player is to do a chargeback at their bank: case in progress.

Issue summary: Player admits breaking Terms by playing a bonus-excluded game — but feels this isn’t fair and that the casino should have stopped them.

Conclusion: The player is at fault here, case closed.

Issue summary: Player claims they have not been paid their withdrawal.

Conclusion: At first the casino insisted the player would have to go through their internal complaints resolution process. When the player showed evidence that that had already been done, and failed, the casino then refused to discuss the player’s complaint claiming that “regulatory obligations” prohibited them from doing so. When asked to show which regulatory obligations those were they did not respond and the discussion ended there. Case closed.

Issue summary: Player says their request to be self-excluded across the Mirage Group was confirmed but the exclusion was not applied to all their casinos.

Conclusion: The casino appears to have closed. The parent company tried to claim that the player had intentionally tried to circumvent their self-exclusion system by using a capital letter in their email address but we argued that there was no evidence to prove that. Eventually the company paid the player in full. Case closed.

Issue summary: Player says that after winning, the casino accused them of cheating, closed their account and refunded their deposit.

Conclusion: Case in progress.

Issue summary: Complaint regarding non-payment of winnings.

Conclusion: Player reports that the casino paid in full, case closed.

Issue summary: A PAB submitted by a forum member on behalf of his brother who apparently couldn’t wait 15 minutes for the casino to process his withdrawal so he reversed it, blew it, and now wants his money back.

Conclusion: The very definition of “frivolous and vexatious”, and closed — per the PAB rules — for exactly that reason.

Issue summary: Player has been going through the SoW procedures for over three weeks.

Conclusion: Player’s SoW process has been completed and they have received their withdrawal: case resolved and closed.

Issue summary: Self-exclusion issue.

Conclusion: The casino people won’t discuss the player’s case with us, this leaves the player with no choice but to pursue the casino as described in the Terms. Case closed.

Issue summary: Players says that KYC taken nearly two weeks, that the casino has not accepted documents that other casinos have and that they’ve now become unresponsive.

Conclusion: Casino claims player was subsequently paid. Player did not respond to our repeated requests for confirmation.

Issue summary: Player says all their documentation for an AML check has been rejected and now the casino has become unresponsive.

Conclusion: Case _was_ in progress but the player became unresponsive and weeks have passed, case closed.

Issue summary: Player claims that despite previous self-exclusion and being registered with GAMSTOP they were allowed to sign up and make deposits.

Conclusion: Case in progress

Issue summary: Player says that after requesting a withdrawal of winnings, the casino accused them of having more than one account and refused to pay.

Conclusion: Player freely admits that he and a friend both accessed the casino from his home during a visit. As it happens they did so multiple times. The casino is well within its rights to enforce the Terms here, and so they have. Case closed.

Issue summary: Player says their withdrawal request was denied and they were accused of breaking terms.

Conclusion: Turns out the casino had previously offered the player a settlement and the player took it. Sorry but once you accept a settlement offer the problem is considered resolved. Case closed.

Issue summary: Player says that after requesting a withdrawal, the casino did not allow them to submit documents proving their residency but immediately accused them of breaking terms and offered them their deposit back.

Conclusion: The casino eventually reversed itself and restored the player’s winnings on the condition that once withdrawn the player’s account at the casino would be closed. The player reported the money successfully withdrawn. Case closed.