BetMaximus Casino Review

The player from Norway had experienced delays with account verification at Betmaximus, which also affected his withdrawal process. Despite having submitted all required documents, he hadn't received a prompt response from the casino. After several days of waiting, the player's account had finally been verified, but his withdrawal was still pending. Eventually, the player had received his money and requested the case to be closed. The issue had been successfully resolved by the Complaints Team.

The player from Thuringia had deposited 40€ in XRP. The transaction had been confirmed but the amount had not been credited to the player's account. The casino's representative explained that the player had not input the required destination tag for the Ripple (XRP) transaction, which led to the funds being lost. Despite our efforts to mediate, the casino and its payment processor insisted that the funds were irrecoverable. The casino had declined our suggestion to credit the player's account as a goodwill gesture, citing previous free bonuses claimed by the player. The complaint was closed due to a lack of further resolution options.

The player from Sweden had deposited 200SEK and won 3,700kr, but was having trouble withdrawing due to failed KYC verification. The casino did not accept the player's driver's license, which was their only form of ID. The player had submitted all necessary documents for verification, including both sides of his credit card. However, the casino insisted on a national ID card or passport for proof of ID. The player eventually scheduled to get a national ID card. However, the case was rejected due to the player's failure to respond.

The player from Arizona had been waiting for his withdrawal for less than two weeks but had not received his payout. We had informed the player that withdrawal processing could take some time and advised him to wait at least 14 days after requesting the withdrawal before submitting a complaint. We also noted that delays might have been due to unfinished KYC verification or a high volume of withdrawal requests. However, the player provided unclear feedback, and despite our efforts to extend the conversation and request for more information, he did not respond. As a result, we were unable to investigate further and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Germany, a long-time user of WESTCASINO, had been unable to access their account for several weeks and was seeking a way to withdraw their funds. The issue was resolved when the player followed the casino's instructions and successfully received their balance of EUR 270.55 transferred to another account. The Complaints Team confirmed the resolution and marked the complaint as resolved, offering further assistance if needed.

The player from Finland experienced delays in verification, with the casino rejecting documents that met all criteria for over a month. The issue was resolved after the player successfully uploaded an official residence certificate, which the casino accepted, leading to the verification of his account. Subsequently, the player’s withdrawal request was processed, and after a few days, he confirmed that the funds had arrived in his account. The complaint was marked as resolved.

The player from Germany had cashed out €521 but did not receive any email confirmation or the money, despite being verified and having had successful withdrawals before. The live support gave standard responses, and the stated timeframe of 5 days had long passed. The casino requested updated documents due to the time elapsed since the last verification. After providing the documents, the player faced further delays and was informed of the need to wager the deposit amount. Despite multiple communications, the player had to wait for an extended period. The issue was finally resolved, and the player received the payment after 17 days. The complaint was marked as resolved.

The player from British Columbia had been trying to verify their passport at West Casino for 2 weeks with no success. Despite sending clear passport photos, the casino claimed the images were unreadable and provided only general feedback. We advised the player to upload a new photo directly through the casino account. The casino confirmed the successful verification of the documents, and the player's withdrawal request was processed. The player confirmed the receipt of the winnings, and the complaint was marked as resolved.

The player from North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany found that she could no longer access her Westcasino account and suspected that a recent change in law might have restricted access for German players. Despite having funds in the account, she was unable to retrieve them and did not receive a response from the casino to her inquiry. After our intervention, it was clarified by the casino that there were no restrictions on their end, and the player confirmed that the technical issue was resolved by the casino's technical department, allowing her to access her account and place bets again. The complaint was marked as resolved.

A German player had experienced a delay with a €2000 withdrawal at Westcasino. The payout had been pending since 03.05.2024, exceeding the typical 5-day processing period. The casino's finance team had been unresponsive, and the winnings were not bonus-related. The player confirmed that the delay had been due to incomplete verification, and upon completion, the funds had been successfully transferred. The complaint was then closed as resolved.

The player from Finland had made a withdrawal request on 21.3 which was later rejected by the casino. They had demanded bank account confirmation which had already been provided earlier, leading to a delay in payment. The player had used different methods for deposit and withdrawal, which had caused confusion. After communication with the casino and our team, the player's account had been verified again. The casino had clarified its procedures and timelines for withdrawal processing. The player eventually received their withdrawal. The issue has been resolved successfully.

The player from Japan had struggled to verify his address as part of the casino's Know Your Customer (KYC) procedures. Despite having submitted multiple documents, the casino had continually rejected them due to poor photo quality and the documents not being in the player's name. The casino had suggested submitting a bank statement in PDF format. After the player complied, the casino confirmed the successful verification of his account. However, since we hadn't received final confirmation from the player, we had to reject the complaint. Later the player confirmed that the issue was resolved.

The player from Afghanistan had deposit issues with the casino and claimed a loss of 750 Euro. We reached out to the player, sought clarification on his issue, and asked for relevant documentation. The player later responded that his issue had been resolved. Consequently, we marked the complaint as 'resolved'.

The player from Rhineland-Palatinate had been waiting for a payout of 100 euros that had been delayed for over a month. Despite the casino having claimed the payout was completed, the player had not received any money. After back and forth communication, the player had provided a bank statement as proof of non-receipt of the funds. Finally, the player had confirmed that the money had arrived, resolving the issue. We had marked the complaint as 'resolved' in our system.

The player from Germany requested a withdrawal from Westcasino, but despite being previously verified, they were asked to re-verify their identity. After providing the requested documents, the withdrawal has been delayed for 14 days, far longer than the player expected.

The player from British Columbia submitted a withdrawal request less than two weeks prior to contacting us. Winnings haven’t been obtained up to this day. The player later confirmed that the withdrawal was processed successfully, therefore we marked this complaint as resolved.

The player from Germany was asked to complete additional wagering of his funds, even though the player considers the requirement unwarranted and wants to withdraw his winnings. The player confirmed the withdrawal was successful.

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

The player from Ireland, who had relocated to England, was unable to withdraw €430 from Goldwin Casino due to additional verification requests. Despite having provided the required documents, the casino had stopped responding. The player expressed dissatisfaction with the resolution process, citing concerns about the casino's legality in the UK. The player stated that he table matched the money out, leading to the conclusion that the issue was resolved.

The player from New Zealand had deposited $20 to Goldwin 32 hours prior via Skrill. Despite the funds being withdrawn from the Skrill account, the casino claimed the issue was being escalated, while Skrill confirmed the problem was on the merchant's side. The casino later credited the missing deposit and informed the player. The player expressed frustration over not receiving a bonus initially added to the deposit. The casino clarified that a bonus could not be activated post-bet but offered 40 free spins as a goodwill gesture. The Complaints Team closed the complaint as resolved since the deposit was credited.

The player from Canada faced difficulties verifying his account due to a disagreement with the casino on the required documents. Despite enjoying the selection of games, he couldn't deposit or withdraw his $1700 winnings because of the ongoing verification issue that lasted for 2 weeks. The issue was resolved after the player provided an official bank statement showing the transactions made to the casino, which the casino then approved. The player confirmed receiving his winnings, and the complaint was marked as resolved by us.

The player from Germany had complained about a pending withdrawal request made on 26th March. The player had been fully verified and had used a credit card for transactions. She had described the withdrawal process as unsmooth and felt the casino's support team was unhelpful. However, the issue was resolved when the player received her winnings. Consequently, we had marked this complaint as 'resolved'.

The Australian player had won a significant amount of money, which upon attempting to withdraw, was informed that the winnings had been forfeited for not playing the free spins that were part of their deposit. They felt the stipulation of using free spins was being used by the casino as an excuse not to pay out winnings. After reviewing the case, we found that the player had not fulfilled the wagering requirements of the bonus within the stipulated time frame. However, the casino representative had clarified that the player had chosen a regular wagering bonus for the first time and failed to meet the wagering requirements. As a one-time exception, the casino had agreed to reinstate the confiscated balance. The player had confirmed the receipt of his winnings and the issue had been successfully resolved.

The player from Germany had had a problem with a delayed withdrawal request of €1650 from Goldwin Casino since 06/02/24. The casino had initially confirmed the transaction on 20/02/24, but it had allegedly been rejected by the player's bank two days later. The player's subsequent attempts to withdraw had been unsuccessful due to an invalid BIC Swift code. After several interactions and clarifications from the casino and the complaints team, the player had been able to correctly request the withdrawal. Eventually, the player had confirmed that the full amount had been successfully transferred to his account.

The player from Germany had encountered issues with a €250 withdrawal from an online casino due to verification problems. The casino had requested a gas, water, or electricity bill for verification, which the player only received annually. After nine days, the player had confirmed that the verification issue was resolved. Consequently, we had marked the complaint as 'resolved' in our system.

The player from the United Kingdom had had an issue with her withdrawal request of £500 due to her having lost her bank card. The casino's finance team had requested proof of ownership for the lost card, which she had provided through bank statements and photographs, but these had been rejected. She had then been blocked from accessing her account and emailing customer support. After several correspondences between the player, the casino, and the Complaints Team, she had been able to provide the necessary documents and information to verify her account. The player had then been advised to cancel and resubmit her withdrawal request, which she did. Despite some frustration over the time it had taken for the process, the player had eventually received her withdrawal. The issue had been successfully resolved.

The player from Norway is attempting to have his account closed due to gambling issues but the casino is not complying with his requests. The casino informed us that the player's account has been blocked on the same day, so we closed this complaint as resolved.

The player from North Rhine-Westphalia submitted a withdrawal request less than two weeks prior to contacting us. Winnings haven’t been obtained up to this day. The casino started processing withdrawals in weekly installments, therefore we marked the complaint as resolved.

The player was dissatisfied with the casino tournament as there is a maximum win limit for the prize. The casino had informed the player that upon gaining the second place prize in the tournament, the prize money of EUR 3600 must be wagered 50 times and would have a maximum cashout of EUR 100, because it was classed as a "free bonus'. There was no mention of this in the promotional terms and conditions, and due to these restrictions, it would be easier to achieve the maximum winnings of EUR 100 by coming in last place, as you would have to wager a smaller amount of prize money. We considered this to be very unfair and stated that the player should be paid their prize in full. The casino refused to change its position on this, and instead offered the player the same amount of prize money with a smaller amount of wagering and a larger amount of maximum cashout. We still considered this to be unfair, but eventually the player begrudgingly decided to accept the offer as there was no better option. As the player and the casino came to an agreement, the complaint was closed as 'resolved'.

The player from Sweden has requested a withdrawal back in January 2021. Unfortunately, winnings haven’t been received yet. We were not able to receive any relevant information or evidence from the casino, other than some claims about legal procedure, which was not confirmed by the player. The player decided to submit the complaint to the licensing authority of the casino and we have closed this complaint as unresolved. We have reopened the complaint and learned that the issue has been resolved successfully.

The player from New Zealand requested a withdrawal 2 weeks prior to submitting this complaint. It has not been received. The player later confirmed that the withdrawal was processed successfully, therefore we marked this complaint as resolved.

The player from Ukraine had experienced difficulties withdrawing her promotional winnings. After a thorough investigation, we had determined that the casino's system failed to enforce bonus restrictions properly. Initially, the casino had insisted that the player breached the terms and conditions by claiming a bonus with a code, which should not have been available to her due to her jurisdiction. However, we found that the enforcement was based on IP address rather than the country in the registration form, and VPN usage was not prohibited by the casino. Despite the casino providing evidence of a bonus code being used, the player consistently denied this. Ultimately, we reopened the complaint to give the casino another chance to resolve the issue. The casino then decided to make an exception and credit the confiscated amount back to the player's account. The player agreed to this proposal and confirmed the receipt of funds. Consequently, we marked the complaint as resolved.

The player from the Ireland was experiencing difficulties withdrawing their funds, because the option to withdraw via their preferred payment method was not available. Later, she was able to request a withdrawal via bank transfer. She confirmed she had received her funds a few days later.

The player from Switzerland had had their bonus winnings cancelled due to a violation of promotional rules. The player had disputed the casino's claim of bonus abuse and the complaint had been taken to the regulator, which had ruled in favor of the casino. The casino had offered a partial payment of $1,000, which the player had initially declined. After further discussion and reevaluation by the casino under new management, the offer had been upheld and the player had accepted. The player's account had been verified, and they had successfully received the $1,000 settlement. The complaint had then been marked as resolved.