bCasino UK Review

The player from South Africa had accused bCasino of refusing her withdrawal after she had met all wager requirements. The casino had claimed she bet over 10%, which she denied and held evidence to support her claim. The casino initially responded but then stopped communicating. The player was asked for additional information to support her claim but failed to respond. Therefore, we had to reject the complaint due to a lack of further communication from the player. However, the complaint could be reopened if the player decided to provide the requested information.

The player from Mexico had faced issues with bonus rules and withdrawal of winnings at an online casino. After he attempted a withdrawal, the casino had deducted his bonus balance and denied further withdrawals, citing a violation of bonus rules. The player's attempts to contact the casino's complaint email had been unsuccessful. The casino later explained that the player had exceeded the maximum bet limit, which led to the winnings being voided. However, considering that this breach had been unintentional, the casino offered to reinstate the player's winnings of 1500 MXN and process a payout of 1300 MXN once the player completed the KYC verification process. The player agreed to this, completed the verification process, and confirmed that he had received the payout. The issue was then marked as resolved by the Complaints Team.

The player from Argentina claimed that BCASINO had refused her withdrawal, stating that her winnings were derived from a purchased bonus. However, she insisted that her winnings came from her deposited money. She had completed the wagering requirements but faced difficulties during the payout process. Her winnings were reduced from 250,000 ars to 10,000 ars without any clear explanation. We attempted to investigate her claims by asking additional questions and extending the response time. However, due to the player's lack of response, we were unable to proceed with the investigation, leading to the complaint being rejected.

The player from Brazil had reported that she had requested a withdrawal twice over the past two months but had not received her winnings. The casino had claimed that her bank did not accept the transfer. Even after she provided details of two other banks, the player had not received her payout. She had also reported difficulties in reaching the casino's support via live chat. The complaint was rejected since the player stopped responding to our messages and questions.

The player from Finland had issues with a casino, unable to reset a remaining bonus wagering without depositing money or having funds in the account. The player had requested clarification and guidance for future interactions with the casino. We attempted to understand the situation better by asking for more details about the specific bonus in question and the player's past experiences. However, due to the lack of response from the player, we were unable to proceed with the investigation or offer potential solutions.

The player from South Africa had faced difficulties withdrawing her winnings from an online casino. After using her comp points and winning a few thousand rand, she had requested a withdrawal. The casino, however, had claimed that some of her bets exceeded 10% of the bonus amount, which was against their policy, and therefore cancelled her withdrawal and voided her winnings. The player's account had been verified and she had a small balance before redeeming the comp points. Despite our efforts to assist, the player had felt unsatisfied with our help. Eventually, she reported that another complaint site had helped her and that her funds were being paid. We had closed the complaint upon the player's request.

The player from Brazil had faced difficulties withdrawing winnings of 304 reais. The casino had repeatedly requested multiple proofs for his account and deposits. The player had been frustrated due to the unavailability of the payout option via Pix, despite the casino accepting payments through it. After an extended back-and-forth with the casino, the player was eventually been able to receive his payout.

The player from Brazil was facing difficulty with his casino account. After meeting all the wagering requirements of a bonus promotion, his subsequent winnings of $690 BRL were confiscated. The casino claimed he breached the terms of the bonus by betting more than 10% of the bonus amount, which he denied. The player sent all requested documents to the Complaints Team. However, the Complaints Team asked for the game history in a different format, not as screenshots. Despite the extended deadline, the player did not respond with the requested information. As a result, we had to reject the complaint due to the lack of necessary data for further investigation.

The player from Mexico had deposited 200 to receive a bonus. However, the money had been withdrawn from the account due to an apparent exclusion, and she had received no response from the casino. The player had clarified that she was seeking a refund of her deposit, not the bonus. She had also stated that her account was not verified as she was ejected from the casino immediately after depositing. The casino had provided evidence of transactions, which suggested that the player's deposits had been used to play. The player disputed this, claiming she hadn't played anything. We had recommended the player to contact eCOGRA or the Malta Gaming Authority for further assistance, as the evidence provided by the casino didn't support the player's claim. The complaint was subsequently rejected.

The player from Brazil had won R$ 3,380 and had met the rollover requirement. However, despite having transferred the winnings to his bank account four days prior, he had not received the funds. The player had attempted to contact the casino via chat but had received no response. After reviewing the case, we contacted the casino for clarification. The casino initially declined the withdrawal due to irregular play, but after further review, offered to pay the maximum winnings for the bonus the player had claimed (R$ 500). The player accepted this offer, and we marked the complaint as resolved.

The player from Brazil had won 72 reais from free spins and had completed the required rollover. Despite having followed the rules, his withdrawal request for 100 reais was not addressed. The player had previously made deposits at the casino and had a verified account. The player later confirmed that he had received the 100 reais and an additional 412 reais he had requested. We had concluded the case as resolved after the player confirmed receipt of his winnings.

The player from Brazil had complained about difficulties in withdrawing winnings. Despite successfully raising the withdrawal amount to 300, the casino had only acknowledged the initial deposit of 26 reais and refused to pay out due to a maximum bet breach. We had checked the player's claim against the casino's terms and conditions. It appeared the player had breached the maximum bet rule, leading to the cancellation of his winnings. We had requested the player to provide his complete gaming history for further investigation. However, the player failed to respond within the given timeframe, leading us to reject the complaint.

The player from Brazil had submitted a withdrawal request less than two weeks before contacting us. Winnings hadn't been obtained up to that day. The player had complained about the removal of the pix withdrawal option and lack of response from the casino via chat or email. We had advised the player on the usual withdrawal processing time and asked for patience. We extended the complaint resolution timer by 7 days for the player to respond. However, due to lack of response from the player, we were unable to investigate further and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Brazil had struggled with a delayed withdrawal of 2,100 Reais that he had requested on the 23rd of September, 2023. Despite having all his documents verified, the casino was not responding to his emails. We had advised the player to be patient and wait at least 14 days after requesting the withdrawal before submitting a complaint. We also had extended the timer by 7 days for the player to respond. However, due to the lack of response from the player, we were unable to investigate further and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Serbia had received free spins, won money, and fulfilled the necessary wagering requirements to withdraw. He had attempted to withdraw 483eur, but his account was subsequently blocked due to alleged violations of the bonus terms and conditions. The player insisted that he had adhered to the maximum stake rules. He had submitted a complaint to the licensing authority and the ADR. The casino claimed the player had not made a minimum deposit and had placed bets larger than 10% of the bonus amount, both of which were violations of their terms and conditions. The player disputed these claims. The case was awaiting a decision from the regulator at that time.

The player from Ireland had won 186€ from a free spins bonus, which had appeared as real winnings. However, the casino prevented him from withdrawing the winnings, stating that they needed to be wagered first. This had led to confusion for the player. The Complaints Team had reviewed the bonus terms and conditions and found a wagering requirement. Despite extending the response time, the player did not respond to further inquiries. Consequently, we were unable to investigate further and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Brazil had submitted a withdrawal request less than two weeks before contacting us. Winnings hadn't been obtained up to that day. The player did not respond to our queries for additional information to support the investigation, thus we were unable to proceed further. Consequently, the complaint had been rejected due to lack of cooperation from the player's side.

The player from India had placed a successful 0.9 euro bet on a bonus, winning 35k euros. He had requested a withdrawal, but after three days, bCasino reduced his balance and withdrawal request from 5k to 500 euros, without any explanation or response to inquiries. The Complaints Team had asked for more details about the bonus and the casino's response. However, the player had requested to cancel his complaint. Consequently, we closed the complaint as per the player's request.

The player from Mexico has been waiting 12 days for account verification and initiation of his withdrawal. The player did not respond to our questions and comments, therefore, we rejected this complaint.

The player from Argentina was struggling with a withdrawal process because the casino was providing various excuses to avoid payout. He had completed the KYC process and submitted all necessary documents. The casino, however, was asking for non-existent documents such as a Skrill extract. The player had used Astropay and Skrill for his deposits. We extended the complaint deadline twice, but due to the player's lack of response to our messages and questions, we had to reject the complaint. We reopened this complaint as per the player’s request.

The player from Brazil claims to have been scammed twice by the casino. In the first instance, the casino made them deposit money but they were unable to withdraw. During a subsequent game, the software crashed, leaving them with server denial messages and unresponsive customer support. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Canada was looking to withdraw winnings of $1,200. The process was delayed for different reasons, from an issue of differing addresses, to blurry ID. We contacted the casino and found out that the player was asked to provide the copy of a credit card which turned out to be a prepaid card, and the player had destroyed it. Nonetheless, the casino approved the withdrawal request later and the player confirmed receiving the money, therefore we closed the complaint as resolved.

The player from Canada, after securing a win from a bonus free spin, had attempted a withdrawal of 339 dollars. However, after hours of being in a pending state, the casino had reduced this withdrawal amount to 100 dollars. The player had claimed to have activated the bonus with a deposit, but failed to provide sufficient evidence to support this claim. Despite multiple requests from the Complaints Team for proof of deposit, the player was unable to provide the necessary documentation. As a result, we had concluded that the winnings were likely accumulated from a free bonus, and the casino's action to cancel the winnings was justified.

The player from Finland used a promotional offer to win €600 and requested a €500 withdrawal. However, the casino canceled the withdrawal and voided the winnings, citing the player violated the maximum bet rule. The player is confused as the maximum bet used was €3, not exceeding the limits. The complaint was closed as the player stopped responding.

The player from Brazil has attempted to make a withdrawal several times, but it has been denied by the casino. Additionally, the casino's chat support is always unavailable. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Finland submitted all the documents necessary for verification more than two weeks ago. However, the casino is still processing them. Since the player stopped answering our questions, we rejected the complaint.

The player from Brazil has requested a withdrawal five days prior to submitting this complaint. Unfortunately, winnings haven’t been received yet. The complaint was rejected as we did not receive any response from the player regarding our messages and inquiries.

The player from South Africa is having a negative experience in the casino after he was falsely informed about the value of the bonus free spins he received. The play described another issue where he was asked to verify a card that wasn't his. We closed the complaint because the player stopped responding.

The player from Brazil has requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting this complaint. Their money hasn’t been received yet. The player later confirmed that the withdrawal was processed successfully, therefore we marked this complaint as resolved.

The player from Canada is dissatisfied with the overall casino experience while playing with a bonus. Her winnings have been reduced. The complaint was rejected because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Austria has been accused of breaching bonus terms by placing single bets greater than the allowed ones. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Brazil has been accused of breaking the Bonus T&Cs by playing restricted games. The casino forfeited all the winnings generated from the bonus play. After contacting the casino we managed to help the player to get back his deposit but we weren't able to retrieve the full amount required by the player. We rejected this complaint because the player's balance was a mix of real and bonus money so the casino had right to confiscate the winnings.

The player from Germany has been accused of breaching bonus terms by placing a single bet greater than the allowed one. Therefore, her winnings were confiscated. We ended up rejecting the complaint because it was not justified.

The player from Germany has been accused of breaking the Bonus T&Cs by playing restricted games. Casino forfeited all the winnings generated from the bonus play. After a closer examination, we rejected this complaint as unjustified.

Player’s access to their account has been denied due to geolocation. Even if we assumed that the issue has been resolved, without a confirmation from the player, we were forced to reject this complaint.

The player played with a bonus and is convinced he finished the wagering requirement. He then played roulette and the casino accused him of breaching the maximum bet rule and cancelled his withdrawal. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.