Fortune Clock Casino Review

The player from the UK tried to withdraw her winnings, but the request was cancelled probably due to unfinished KYC. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player 'LACOSTE2020' said that they requested a refund of the deposits made in March 2020 due to gambling issues. The player claimed that the casino first asked for KYC documents, but despite providing every one of them, they got rejected. The casino said that they had not received any e-mail about gambling issues. Instead, they received an e-mail in which the player was claiming that their account had been hacked and was requesting a refund of the deposits made by player's relatives. The casino also said that the player blocked themselves on April 10th, for seven days, and on April 24th, after receiving a refund request, the casino support permanently blocked player's account. Mediator came to conclusion that evidence provided by the casino was not enough to prove their claims and was waiting for more evidence. No information from then.

The player 'Casey776', from UK, tried to make 3 withdrawal requests via Mastercard, the payment method used for depositing, however, they were all rejected. So the player made 3 withdrawal requests via Bitcoin, two requests were accepted while one of them was still in pending. In the meantime, the player wasn't getting any payments and casino told him it might take up to 10 days. The player said the casino was trying to keep hold of the money for as long as possible. No information since then.

The player 'pompey4388' complained that the casino was creating excuses for rejecting their withdrawal requests. The player said to be verified already, but each time he tried to make a withdrawal via the same method that was used for depositing, it got rejected. The player said having tried to withdraw with other methods as well but the casino kept rejecting all withdrawal requests. No information since then.

The player 'Rustyr1989' complained about the casino denying his withdrawal requests even though he had been fully verified. Requests were rejected due to "technical issues", and after 11th rejection, each time asking the player to use a different payment method, the casino then asked for verification again. No information since then.

The player from United Kingdom is suggesting that his country should have been listed as restricted jurisdiction. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

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

The player from Sweden was experiencing difficulties withdrawing his funds due to a limited availability of payment methods. The casino later informed us that the issue had been resolved and the player had been paid. Even though there was no reason to believe the issue had not been resolved, without a confirmation from the player, we were forced to reject this complaint.

The player from Sweden is experiencing difficulties withdrawing his funds due to limited availability of payment methods. After a closer examination, we ended up rejecting this complaint as unjustified.

The player from United Kingdom was experiencing difficulties withdrawing his funds due to limited availability of payment methods. The complaint was resolved. The player confirmed he had received his winnings 9 days later.

The player said he had requested account closure and self-exclusion due to serious gambling addiction, however, the casino was slow and didn't close the player's account after the first request. The player deposited and lost even more money and requested to have his account closed again. This time, the casino executed his request right away. The player demanded a refund of the money lost in between the two self-exclusion requests. The casino didn't react to this complaint.

The player from United Kingdom had the account blocked after an unsuccessful attempt to withdraw her winnings. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from United Kingdom has closed his account due to a gambling problem. However, three months later the player was able to deposit again and now he’s experiencing difficulties to receive his promised refund. The complaint was closed as "unresolved" as we did not receive any answer from the casino.

The player from the UK verified her identity and requested a withdrawal. Then she was informed that due to some technical problems her withdrawal cannot be processed. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from the UK was asked to make a deposit of €100 and he was supposed to receive a cashback in return, but the casino refused to give him this bonus. We ended up closing the complaint as ‘unresolved’ because the casino failed to reply.

The player from Portugal probably experienced a technical issue while playing Roulette, which caused some discrepancies in his balance. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from United Kingdom has requested a withdrawal which she cancelled later. The player is criticizing that the requested amount has not been deducted from the active balance and when she expected to have the funds put back, she’s been advised that the funds have been played. After a closer examination, we ended up rejecting this complaint as unjustified.

The player from the United Kingdom has requested a withdrawal which was rejected. Afterward, the funds have disappeared from the account. Even though the player had a good point, no rules were broken and we ended up rejecting the complaint.

The player from United Kingdom has tried to deposit funds in to his account. Subsequently, he was informed by the bank about an attempt to overcharge him. After a closer examination, we ended up rejecting this complaint as unjustified.

The player from United Kingdom had his withdrawal approved three times. Unfortunately, the casino claimed, that every transfer has been rejected by the bank. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Ireland has requested partial withdrawal but the funds were not deducted from his balance. The withdrawal is still pending. After a closer examination, we rejected this complaint as unjustified.

The player from the United Kingdom has requested withdrawal a week ago. It has been pending since due to unfinished account verification. We closed the complaint as ‘unresolved’ because the casino failed to reply. The player accused her child of depositing the money, and after gathering all the necessary information we rejected this complaint, as we believe that the player is not in the right to ask for a refund.

The player from the United States is struggling to withdraw $2,748 from his casino account via Bitcoin due to recurring address errors. Despite contacting customer service multiple times and verifying that the addresses used are correct, the problem hasn't been resolved yet. Player’s complaint has been resolved successfully.

A Brazilian player has been waiting for 10 days for their approved withdrawal from Slottyway Casino to reach their account, despite having a verified account. Representatives say that the issue lies with the payment provider. While we were trying to contact the casino, the player informed us that the money was returened to his account and he was asked to request a new withdrawal. A few days later, the player confirmed receiving his funds so the complaint was closed as resolved.

The player struggles to verify his account for over 2 months. We contacted the casino and got a response that the account has been verified, later the player informed us that he received his withdrawal so we closed the complaint as resolved.

The player from Germany had his bonus winnings cancelled due an accusation of breaching the Terms and Conditions. The issue was discussed and the casino later reconsidered its decision. The player received his winnings in full. The complaint was closed as 'Resolved'.

The player from Germany has requested a partial withdrawal of his bonus winnins. Payment seems to be cancelled even if the first part has been received successfully. The player managed to receive the full amount of his withdrawals requested and the complaint is resolved.

The player from Brazil is not able to withdraw her winnings. The casino rejected all previous withdrawal requests. The player later confirmed that the withdrawal was processed successfully, therefore we marked this complaint as resolved.

The player from Germany was experiencing difficulties withdrawing winnings since his country became a restricted jurisdiction. The player confirmed he received a payment of his remaining balance approximately 2 weeks after the complaint was submitted. The complaint is resolved.

The player from Poland 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 Germany has been struggling to withdraw his winnings for a month. The player later confirmed that the withdrawal was processed successfully, therefore we marked this complaint as resolved.

The player from Germany requested self-exclusion, but before the casino closed his account he managed to make a deposit. The casino informed him that in order to issue a refund he will have to provide documents to verify his identity. At first, the complaint was closed as 'unresolved' because the casino failed to reply and cooperate in resolving the complaint. After receiving information from the casino, we reopened the case. Once the player provided the casino with the necessary documents for additional verification, a deposit refund was made in a few days. The complaint is resolved.

The player from Brazil was struggling to withdraw his winnings from a no-deposit bonus due to the unavailability of payment methods that support Brazilian real. To withdraw his winnings, the player needed to place a deposit, which was indeed not possible. Since the situation arose due to a flaw on the casino's side, we believed the casino should have found an alternative solution for the player to be able to complete the final steps to withdraw his bonus winnings. The casino's point of view was that the player could not be paid, arguing that he should have checked the available payment methods before claiming the bonus offer. At first, the case was closed as 'Unresolved' because the casino failed to comply with our ruling. Several months later, we reopened this case as per the casino's request. The casino team informed us that the option to deposit in Brazilian real had been made available. The player, thus, was able to meet the remaining requirements of the bonus offer and withdrew his winnings. The complaint was closed as 'Resolved'.

Paul, a player from Germany, played a blackjack with real money, finished at €1500, and the casino deducted his winnings because there is a max bet limitation in this game. This case was successfully resolved.

The player from Chile had reported a delay in processing a withdrawal request of 75,000, which had been denied three times due to verification issues. However, the issue was resolved after the player confirmed they had received the withdrawn funds. Consequently, we marked the complaint as 'resolved' in our system.

The player from Brazil received a $25 bonus and met the requirements to unlock it. They played with the bonus and won 250 reais. However, when attempting to withdraw, they encountered an issue where only a Bitcoin option was available, requiring a minimum of 250 reais to withdraw. Despite trying to deposit, there is no deposit option provided. After investigating the issue we found out the casino had technical problems and the ability to make deposits wasn't available to all players. This has been solved and the player was able to make a deposit and later submit a withdrawal. The player confirmed they received the funds in the end. The Player’s complaint has been resolved successfully.

The player from Peru had had his winnings of 2500 soles confiscated by Slottica casino due to exceeding maximum bets. He had disputed this, stating he had not used any bonus. An earlier win of 1600 soles had also been confiscated under the same circumstance. The player had deposited a total of 400 soles, and the winnings had been generated from real money, not bonus play. His account had been fully verified with the required documents. The issue had been resolved when the casino had sent the total amount of 2500 soles to the player's bank account.

The player from Brazil is experiencing difficulties withdrawing her winnings due to ongoing verification. The player later confirmed that the withdrawal was processed successfully, therefore we marked this complaint as resolved.

The player's winnings were deducted during his account check. The casino explained that the account was blocked due to a violation of a term regarding duplicating bets on the same event. The casino also stated that it has changed its approach in these types of cases, and the player's account was unblocked after explaining the violation. The casino then processed the player's outstanding withdrawal and the matter was resolved.

The player from India has requested a withdrawal four days prior to submitting this complaint. Simply, winnings haven’t been received yet. After communicating with the casino the player finally informed us about the payout to be successfully received so the complaint is resolved.

The player from Croatia played with a bonus, but his winnings have been canceled. The complaint escalated to an investigation of a lost deposit. Even though the winnings were cancelled, the issue with the player's lost deposit was successfully resolved.

The player from Germany has been accused of breaching bonus terms by placing bets greater than the allowed ones. The complaint has been closed as 'unresolved' because the casino failed to reply and cooperate in resolving the complaint. Later, the complaint was updated based on the information we received from the player. The complaint is resolved.

The player from Germany wasn't credited with bonus funds after he had completed the wagering requirement of a bonus offer. It became clear there was a mistake in the terms and conditions of the offer and that the bonus amount needed to be wagered an additional 70x. The complaint was resolved. The player informed us the casino credited his account with the disputed amount 3 weeks later.