Butlers Bingo Casino Review

The player wanted to cash out their winnings but the casino declined it, stating that the customer had an active bonus on their account. They never noticed they had the bonus and proceeded to win a small amount of cash. The player wanted to at least get back their deposit but the casino refused to pay them. The casino also made it clear they wouldn't be responding to any public complaints and it remained unresolved.

The player wanted to find out from the casino if they had an open account with them or not but they never responded to their request. So the player decided to open the account, made a deposit and lost. They requested closure of their account and found out they already had an account that was closed due to self-exclusion. Then the player wanted the casino to return their deposit but they refused to because they used a different email address. The player claimed that they did use a different email address, but the rest of the information was the same as at the self-excluded account. There is no further information available.

The player complained that after he lost his deposit he was given a large sum of money to play in free bingo credit. He put money on several tickets and left his laptop on overnight. When he tried to log in the next day there was a ‘503 server error’ at the casino page. The player suspected he got an IP block. No more updates since then.

The customer had a previous self-exclusion on their name but since they used a different e-mail address the casino allowed the customer to play and lose their money. The casino stated that they wouldn't respond to this complaint.

The player managed to deposit via 3rd party's PayPal account as well as with credit cards not in their name. The casino promised it would be refunded, but after approving all the requested documents, the casino barely replied to player´s messages and closed their account. In the end, the player was informed there would be no refund. No more updates since then.

The customer sent his verification documents to the casino but they were declined, asking for another document. The customer thus claimed denial of his valid ID. The casino supposedly sent a response to the mediator they would only discuss this with their appointed ADR and there hasn't been any progress since.

The player 'peter160682' self-excluded himself in this casino due to his gambling addiction issues. However, a year and a half later, despite using the same registration details but using a different email address, he was still able to open a new account. Before the casino realized it was a duplicate account of a self-excluded player, he managed to make a deposit. After the player's account was closed, the player demanded a refund of his deposits. The casino refused to do so and was reasoning it with a self-exclusion that was engaging both parties with some responsibilities and that the player tried to circumvent by using a different email address - the information that was crucial for an individual's identification. The casino didn't react publicly to this complaint.

The player, Mairee, complained that the casino was withholding her payout. She hadn't had issues receiving her money before, but this time, the casino support kept telling her to contact the finance department and the finance department was supposed to email her back with an update, but that had never happened. No reply from the casino which left the case unresolved.

Toni had won around £4,000 when her account was suspended and she was asked to send a lot of documents for the account verification. She provided those straight away and 5 weeks later, her request was still in the queue. No further information on this case is available.

The player registered their account in the UK, won some money, moved back to their home country and closed their bank account in the UK. After that, they tried to withdraw their winning using a different bank account, but their winning was confiscated and their account was blocked. The casino informed them it was because their account was linked to fraudulent activity. The complaint remains unresolved.