Flappy Casino Review

A player from Portugal had a problem with Flappy Casino because they didn't credit his second deposit of 50 Euros to his account. Even though the bank confirmed the transaction, the Casino's customer support redirected him to speak with his bank rather than addressing the issue. We advised the player to get in touch with his payment provider for a detailed investigation, as the casino couldn't intervene in this process. We extended the complaint's timer by 7 days for the player's response. However, the player didn't respond within the set time frame, which led us to reject the complaint due to lack of further information.

The player from Portugal had won a prize from the online casino but had encountered issues during withdrawal due to an incorrect bank account number. She had claimed to have always used the correct account details, and had suggested that the casino might have altered the number. The casino, however, had closed her account, leading to a loss of her winnings. The Complaints Team had requested additional information from the player and had reached out to the casino to understand the situation better. The casino had clarified that withdrawal details were manually entered by players and that the player had failed to verify the account number used for the withdrawal requests. Despite the player's insistence that she had never used an incorrect account number, the Complaints Team had concluded that they could not assist further without the necessary verification documents from the player. The complaint was therefore rejected.

The player from Bavaria had reported a delay of over 16 days in receiving his withdrawal from an online casino. The casino had insisted that the transaction was processed correctly on their end. The player later received his funds. We marked the issue as 'resolved'

The player from Italy, who had self-excluded from a sister casino, had created an account at Flappy Casino and deposited after passing the KYC verification. However, his account was later blocked without him having informed the casino about his self-exclusion. The player had used the same personal data for registration as in the previous account, and his KYC documents had been approved quickly. He had faced issues with customer support, who had closed the chat on him without providing a resolution. He had also complained about the casino's use of incorrect merchant codes for credit card transactions. Despite his self-exclusion, the player had continued to receive promotional emails from the casino. We had investigated the matter, but due to the terms of the Antillephone license and the lack of explicit self-exclusion across all brands in the initial email from Rollino, we were unable to assist the player further. The complaint was closed and the player was advised to use our Self-Exclusion Assistance Tool and seek professional help for his gambling problem.

The player from Finland had reported an issue with her deposited funds not appearing in her casino account, even after she had provided a receipt. The casino had been unable to resolve the issue after a week. We had advised her to contact her payment provider and to refrain from making additional deposits until the issue was resolved. However, the player did not respond to our messages and questions, which led to the inability to further investigate the issue. Therefore, the complaint was rejected.

The Swedish player had completed verification for initial withdrawals, but the fourth withdrawal request for 500€ was still pending after two days. They were having issues contacting the casino as emails were being ignored and live-chat was unavailable. We had advised the player that withdrawals could take up to 14 days to process and to contact us if the money was not received after this period. We extended the complaint resolution timer by 7 days, but due to a lack of response from the player, we were unable to proceed with the investigation or provide a solution.

The player from Sweden had had issues with Flappy Casino, where he had been unable to close his account and had continued to gamble, leading to significant losses. Despite having won 20,000€, he had been forced to play due to a withdrawal limit. He had managed to win an additional 2,663€, but the casino had refused to pay out, claiming he had duplicate accounts. The player had demanded his winnings or a refund of his losses. We had attempted to assist the player by asking for evidence of his request for self-exclusion, but the player had not responded to our queries. As a result, we had been unable to proceed with the investigation or provide potential solutions, leading to the rejection of the case.

The player from Denmark, who acknowledged his gambling addiction, was surprisingly able to make a deposit to Flappy Casino despite having a gambling block activated on his payment method. Upon review, he discovered that the casino had used a payment provider with false payment information to bypass restrictions. He had contacted the casino, but they denied any wrongdoing. The player's main concern was not about self-exclusion but about Flappy Casino using misleading payment provider information to bypass checks, like his Revolut gambling block. The player had reached out to the casino about this issue, but his refund claim was rejected. The Complaints Team had advised the player to reach out to the Licensing Authority to report this issue. Despite the player's account being closed following his email to the casino, the Complaints Team could not take further action regarding the misleading payment information. The complaint had been rejected due to the limitations in resolving the specific issue raised by the player.

The player from Germany had trouble completing the verification process with the online casino, which hindered his withdrawal attempts. The Complaints Team identified that the issue lay in providing proof of ownership for his Revolut card. They suggested the player provide screenshots from his Revolut account to prove ownership. However, due to the player's lack of response to the team's messages and questions, the complaint could not be further investigated and was consequently rejected.

The player from Italy deposited 7000€ into the casino, but was disappointed with the lack of real money payouts. He expressed concerns about the casino's perceived lack of reliability, poor customer service, and questionable withdrawal limits. The player is seeking a return of his deposited amount. The complaint was rejected as the player was not eligible for any kind of refund.

The player from Belgium deposited money using the rapid bank transfer option and received confirmation. Yet the funds are not credited to the player's casino account. Player has made unsuccessful attempts to contact the casino via live chat and email. The complaint was closed as the player stopped responding.

The player from Switzerland claimed a bonus of 30€ with an x15 wager and was not informed of a withdrawal limit at the casino. After completing the bonus conditions, 420€ disappeared from the player's account balance. After a closer examination, we ended up rejecting this complaint as unjustified.

The player from Greece, a new customer, initially had his withdrawals processed quickly but faced delays with his latest withdrawal, which remained pending after he provided identification documents. Communication with the casino resulted in automated messages stating that the issue was prioritized. The withdrawal was eventually processed, and the player received his money. However, he later discovered that his betting account was limited to €0.01, leading him to express dissatisfaction with the casino. The complaint was marked as resolved by the Complaints Team, acknowledging the successful withdrawal.

The player from Germany faced issues withdrawing €900 after a recent win, as the casino requested photos of a credit card that could not be provided since it was a virtual Skrill prepaid card. Despite having previously completed the verification process and explaining the situation, the player received repetitive responses from the casino. The issue was resolved after the player communicated that a solution had been found, leading to the case being marked as 'resolved' by the Complaints Team.

The player from Italy was unable to withdraw 1000 euros due to repeated requests for deposit card verification documents, which she had already submitted three times. The Complaints Team explained the importance of the KYC process and requested more information and communication records. The player clarified the situation and later confirmed that she had received the money and closed her account. The complaint was marked as resolved.

The player from Portugal had submitted a withdrawal request less than two weeks prior to contacting us. Winnings hadn't been obtained up to that day. The Complaints Team had explained that withdrawals might take some time due to various reasons such as KYC verification and high volume of withdrawal requests, and advised the player to wait for at least 14 days before submitting a complaint. However, the player confirmed that the withdrawal had been successfully processed. Hence, we marked the complaint as 'resolved'.

The player from Greece had a problem with the casino after winning 404 euros. Despite having provided the necessary documents for verification, the casino stopped responding when he intended to withdraw his winnings. The player later informed us that the casino had responded and verified his account. He then requested a withdrawal. The player later confirmed the resolution of the issue, and we marked the complaint as resolved.

The Italian player had experienced problems with withdrawals and account access. After he requested three withdrawals totaling 2800 euros, the casino stated he would only receive 1975 euros. Additionally, he could no longer log into his gaming account. The casino responded by confirming that all pending withdrawals, totaling 2976 euros, had been paid. The player confirmed receipt of the payments but expressed disappointment over the closure of his account.

The player from Portugal had encountered an issue with betting company Wintopia where a deposit of 50 euros had not reflected in his account after 24 hours. Despite presenting evidence of the transaction from his bank, the problem had remained unresolved. Following advice from our team, the player had contacted his payment provider to investigate the issue. The player later confirmed that the situation had been resolved. We had subsequently closed the complaint as 'resolved' in our system.

The player from Germany, who also held a Turkish passport, had encountered issues with withdrawing his winnings of 10,000 EUR from Wintopia Casino. The casino had blocked his account and withheld his winnings, arguing that Turkey was a restricted country. The player contested this. Following our intervention and mediation, the issue had been successfully resolved.

The player from Austria wanted to close their account at AllSpins Casino but was not receiving any responses from the support team despite multiple requests. The player’s account was eventually closed after the player filed a complaint with us.