Bruce Bet Casino Review

The Polish player had experienced a lengthy verification process at Bruce Bet. After the initial verification approval, he had been asked to submit additional documents. However, he had received no response after sending these documents, which violated the promised 48-hour review period. The Complaints Team had engaged with the casino representative to clarify the situation. The casino had confirmed that the delay was due to a backlog of requests and had assured that measures had been taken to prevent such delays in the future. The player's account had been fully verified and he had confirmed receipt of his payment, resolving the issue.

From Germany, the player had been attempting to verify their account for the past two weeks. Despite having submitted requested documents such as bank statements and Lbs documents, the player consistently encountered delays and obstacles. After submitting additional documents, the player's account had been successfully verified. Consequently, the player was able to initiate their first withdrawal without any further issues. The Complaints Team had marked the complaint as resolved.

The player from Norway is experiencing difficulties verifying his account, despite providing various documents. His account lacks a photo of his bank card, which he lost in a recent move. The player is frustrated by customer service's handling of the situation.

The player from Germany had been attempting to submit documents for weeks for a payout. However, the casino consistently replied that the images were not visible enough, the IBAN couldn't be recognized, or the name couldn't be seen properly, which led to suspicions of fraudulent practices. After several interactions and guidance from the Complaints Team, the player successfully submitted the necessary documents and expressed relief and gratitude. The issue was subsequently marked as 'resolved' by the Complaints Team.

The player from Germany had won 15000€ at the casino. Despite having sent all necessary documents and verifying his identity multiple times, his winnings had been delayed for a month. The player had provided all the necessary documents for KYC verification. However, the casino had informed that the player had an active address change request in accordance with GDPR, which was causing the delay. After the address change was verified, the casino confirmed that the player's account was fully verified. We had not received any updates from the player since, hence we had to reject the complaint.

The player from Poland had experienced delays in the payout verification process at an online casino. The casino had promised a 24-hour process, but three days had passed with no progress. After the Complaints Team had advised the player that such delays were common and could be caused by unfinished KYC verification or a high volume of withdrawal requests, the player had agreed to wait. Eventually, the issue had been resolved. As a result, we had also marked the complaint as 'resolved' in our system.

The player from Germany had successfully withdrawn 1000 Euros but was still waiting for the transfer of 2000 Euros that had been processed and approved. Live support hadn't provided any useful responses. Both withdrawals came from the same winnings made with a real money deposit and a bonus from the casino. The casino had suggested cancelling the payout due to technical difficulties with the payment provider, Mifinity, and offered to process a new withdrawal request via bank transfer. Eventually, the player reported that the casino had paid out and the amount was credited to his account after he requested a new withdrawal to his bank account. We marked the complaint as 'resolved'.

The player from Poland had been waiting for a withdrawal for three weeks after winning 800PLN at an online casino. Despite having provided all necessary documentation multiple times, she had been repeatedly requested to wait another 24 hours. The player, a new user who had not used a registration bonus, had not been verified despite numerous attempts. We had attempted to resolve the issue by asking for all relevant communication between the player and the casino for further investigation. However, the player did not respond to our messages, which resulted in our inability to further investigate and led to the rejection of the complaint.

The player from Poland had requested a withdrawal prior to submitting this complaint. Unfortunately, his winnings had not been received. The player claimed that after cancelling his withdrawal, the casino deleted his account balance to zero. He had provided evidence of his game and deposit history, showing that he had played with a welcome bonus without a payout limit. The casino initially insisted that the player had violated bonus terms, but after further investigation, admitted an error on their part. The casino later returned the disputed funds to the player's account in full. The player confirmed the receipt of his winnings, so we consider the matter resolved.

The player from Poland requested a withdrawal of winnings and, despite the initial approval, had not received the funds. The casino allegedly told him that the provider had cancelled the payment and indicated that they would return the money to the casino account, however, this had not occurred. The player had been waiting over two weeks for his winnings. After a series of back-and-forth communications, the player reported that the casino had returned his money to his game account and he had ordered a new withdrawal. Unfortunately, the player decided to close his account due to frustrations with the process and lost his disputed funds. Consequently, the complaint was rejected as the disputed funds were lost.

The player from Poland had a pending withdrawal of 6865pln with Bruce Bet Casino. The casino claimed the funds had been sent, but the player hadn't received them. The casino's responses to the player's inquiries had been vague and unsuccessful. The player's account had not been verified by the casino despite him providing the necessary documents. He had made a deposit with a 150% bonus and had fulfilled the turnover requirements. The casino had acknowledged a payment issue and had promised to return the funds to the player's account for him to make a new withdrawal request. However, the player had reported continued delays and had suspected the casino of intentionally withholding his winnings. We had involved a Bruce Bet Casino representative in the conversation, who confirmed a system error and mentioned that the player's subsequent withdrawal requests had been declined due to insufficient funds and self-exclusion. Despite our efforts, we had been unable to assist the player further due to him playing down his winnings and initiating self-exclusion.

The player from Poland had reported an issue with Bruce Bet Casino, specifically regarding the withdrawal of his winnings. Despite multiple attempts, he had been unsuccessful and reported that the casino's technical support had been unresponsive. The player also expressed confusion over the casino's verification requirements. However, he failed to respond to our team's requests for further information within the given time frame. As a result, we had to reject his complaint due to insufficient information.

The player from Poland had complained that the casino had improperly calculated their no-deposit bonus by reducing it to 50 PLN instead of the equivalent of 50€. The player had had 450.66 PLN, which was reduced to 50 PLN. The player had confirmed that they had made a deposit and their KYC had been approved. The Complaints Team had reached out to the casino for clarification. The casino had responded stating that there had been a technical issue and the player had been compensated with 50 PLN, while the remaining 200 PLN had already been withdrawn. We then asked the player if they were satisfied with this resolution, but received no response. Consequently, the complaint was rejected due to a lack of further communication from the player.

The player from Germany had a withdrawable balance of €4000, but after he won with free spins, a turnover condition was applied and the withdrawal amount had been reduced to €1800. Later, the withdrawal was cancelled due to an issue with the payment provider, and the player unknowingly played with the funds that were originally marked for withdrawal. The player ended up with a zero balance as he had mistakenly wagered his winnings. We had concluded that the player was responsible for their account, active balance, and all the bets that took place. Unfortunately, we couldn't assist further as the player had wagered all his winnings. The complaint was subsequently rejected.

The player from Switzerland is struggling with withdrawal requests which are being cancelled. The casino's live support and email address haven't provided any response from the relevant department for several days. The issue has been resolved successfully.

The player from Switzerland had won money using an active bonus and had made a withdrawal request, but the payout had been reduced according to the casino rules. He then made additional real money deposits and won again, but the winnings had been manually reduced to the maximum payout for the initial bonus. The casino had claimed that the player's winnings were capped at the maximum withdrawal for the initial bonus. We found this unfair as the player had made subsequent real money deposits. Despite the evidence provided by the casino, we initially concluded the case as unresolved, stating that the casino's behaviour was against our fair gambling codex. However, the complaint was later reopened when the player confirmed that the casino had credited his account with the disputed amount. The issue was then marked as resolved.