Hello everyone,
thank you, Need For Spin Casino, for providing a detailed explanation of the case, the supporting evidence, and the full video verification recording.
After carefully reviewing the materials provided, I have concluded that I cannot support the player’s position in this case.
While I understand the player's argument that the call was interrupted, the evidence supplied by the casino indicates that the verification process was not completed and that the player disconnected before the verification could be finalized. The recording also shows that several verification questions remained unanswered and that the session was not successfully concluded.
Additionally, the casino has presented multiple risk indicators that led to the enhanced verification procedure, and I find it reasonable that the operator requested further verification under these circumstances. Most importantly, the player did not successfully complete the video verification process required by the casino.
I also note that the player appears to have reopened this dispute while providing only a partial description of the circumstances, omitting several important facts that became apparent during the review of the evidence.
Given all of the above, I am unable to conclude that the casino acted unfairly or contrary to its Terms and Conditions. Therefore, this complaint will now be closed as rejected.
Dear cocrol,
I understand that this outcome will likely be disappointing. However, based on the available evidence, I do not find sufficient grounds to challenge the casino's decision.
Thank you to both parties for their cooperation throughout the investigation.
Best regards,
Samuel
Casino Guru
Hello everyone,
thank you, Need For Spin Casino, for providing a detailed explanation of the case, the supporting evidence, and the full video verification recording.
After carefully reviewing the materials provided, I have concluded that I cannot support the player’s position in this case.
While I understand the player's argument that the call was interrupted, the evidence supplied by the casino indicates that the verification process was not completed and that the player disconnected before the verification could be finalized. The recording also shows that several verification questions remained unanswered and that the session was not successfully concluded.
Additionally, the casino has presented multiple risk indicators that led to the enhanced verification procedure, and I find it reasonable that the operator requested further verification under these circumstances. Most importantly, the player did not successfully complete the video verification process required by the casino.
I also note that the player appears to have reopened this dispute while providing only a partial description of the circumstances, omitting several important facts that became apparent during the review of the evidence.
Given all of the above, I am unable to conclude that the casino acted unfairly or contrary to its Terms and Conditions. Therefore, this complaint will now be closed as rejected.
Dear cocrol,
I understand that this outcome will likely be disappointing. However, based on the available evidence, I do not find sufficient grounds to challenge the casino's decision.
Thank you to both parties for their cooperation throughout the investigation.
Best regards,
Samuel
Casino Guru