Reopen blocked account (page 2)

I get what you're saying, but as I and my colleagues said, accusing caisno or anyone else of doing something unfair requires proving your point. The way I understand it, the reopen request didn't provide sufficient evidence. That's literally all.

To be utterly concrete, we do not need details about the conversation—we need to see the conversation firsthand from the player. I'm truly sorry, but it has always been like this.

Without such proof, each casino's management may easily say that no such conversation exists; the only possible response without proof would be, "Are you certain?" As you can see, such situations are designed to fail. I'm not opposing you, but I'm quite familiar with the process, and I can assure you that my colleagues are particularly interested in such cases because, as the player said, we have spotted far too many spontaneously reopened accounts this year, and they really care to investigate anything associated with responsible gambling.

Also, is it okay that the casino support has an email address that only Gmail emails go to? So in reality, for example, a person using Outlook email can't even close their account there.

I would understand the point of view if I hadn't proven that I also went to live chat to say about my gaming addiction. In addition, I only got my account closed on Monday because I had to go to live chat again to complain about their broken email. People who still have Outlook email won't get their account closed via email there.

Ok but still, my case was handled very poorly by the casino guru. I was not given any opportunity to clarify the case more, but my complaint was practically rejected immediately. At least you could have asked what the casino's opinion was on the this case, what their explanation was, but even that was not done.

Quite often, it feels like the casino guru protects the casinos more than the players.

I don't think it's right for a gambling addict to have to wait 72 hours to get my account blocked. The casino should at least offer a temporary closure via chat if all else fails.

Hello,

I agree; permanent self-exclusion due to gambling addiction should never end up with easy reopening. I'm talking about a situation when the small employer keeps coming to beg or litigate about the cost of reopening an already closed account.

If the player obeyed the rules, explained the problem, and requested full or permanent self-exclusion in the same casino, such an account should stay closed. This applies regardless of the license under which the casino operates.

Exactly, should be like that but it isnt. And actually there isnt any rule under any lisence that they can't reopen an account. This Even with permanent self-exclusion due addiction.

I think UKGC lisence is The only one that has strict rules regarding this matter.

Other lisences has gave casinos The option to decide themselves what to do. Unfortunately.

In my opinion, the email domain does not directly affect the service efficiency. However, I would be cautious and anticipate the inclusion of an official casino email domain in the rules. At least it is always beneficial to confirm that with official casino support.

If you are, however, asking if it is okay for a casino to say, "Hey, sorry, we didn't get your email because it was not sent from Gmail," I'd say that's quite stupid, and I recall a few cases when we explained to the casino management that once they allowed a player to register with such an email, they held the responsibility to secure communication from that email domain. On the other hand, the player also needs to take responsibility for their actions. Players sometimes kept playing for a month and then asked for chargebacks because no one replied to their one email. During that time, however, he even discussed additional bonuses with support, never mentioning awaiting a self-exclusion request response.

This is sometimes a very delicate matter for both sites.

It is not good for addicted players, but not every casino—especially the smaller ones—is able to address such requests during the weekends or banking holidays. From the player's perspective, the point is not to play, I believe. 🙁

I disagree due to the very concrete explanation provided. The complaints are a process based on proof. To help players, they must have at least something to show. Asking the casino about its opinion is pretty much pointless if we have nothing else to present because it is only a theoretical debate. Such debates are sadly more cut for the forum.

However, since I believe you made up your mind and I am not here to argue with it, I respect your opinion.

Obviously 'not to play' is impossible to do for a problem gambler. Most Curacao operators rely on loose or nonexistent regulations to prey on ones such as me and Mag7 here.

I sent an email to The correct support email that was on The terms, so that is not The point.

I sent three emails. One from Hotmail, one from Outlook, one from Gmail.

The Gmail one was The only one going through, and The casino said so also. Actually IT IS still like that. So basically If you have an account with any other email than gmail, there is high possibility that you cant Even close your account with them.

My casino account email was Outlook, and as so The email dont go through.

Also If customer is expected to follow every single term like IT IS written on the casino's site literally, then how come casinos can just choose to do whatever?

Like we have a term that we close your account after 24 hours from the email. IT does not say that it can take longer time on the weekend. So the question is, why casinos dont have to comply with their own terms but customers have to?

They wouldnt have to write that kind of term If it is not true.

I am surprised that you keep repeating that I have not provided evidence of the closure. I sent all the relevant emails as they were to the case handler and I was ready to explain the case more because there was a language problem. The closure and the discussion about it were in Finnish and the reason for closing the complaint was that I had not used the term "self-closure" by English?? There is no equivalent for that term in Finnish. And that is why I would have liked to reopen the case but the opportunity to talk to the case handler is zero on the casino guru page.

Also, for example, the MGA terms and conditions state that when a person closes an account, the casino should verify whether they mean self-exclusion.

And it's true that the word isn't even used in Finnish. I've also thought that, for example, closing and blocking are exactly the same thing.

Still, why do the rules say that within 24 hours and nothing about the fact that this time can be extended on certain days?

After all, the rules exist so that both parties follow them. Or do customers also have the same right to follow the rules however they want, and apply them to their own advantage as needed?

In my opinion it is pretty much a stupid casino excuse; I explained why. Yet players may still at least contact the live chat operator, like you did, and we work with a 72-hour time frame, which is not ideal; it is one of the standards, however.

Believe me, I wish responsible concepts operated differently, but as you and other struggling players can attest, reality differs from logical expectations.

So give customers the same opportunity to break the rules as you give casinos. Why is this still only allowed for casinos?

Perhaps because almost each Terms and Conditions includes the part saying, "we reserve the right to..." those rules are subject to change..." or any other form of the same meaning.

The way I see it it serves to protect a party's ability to enforce processes at a later time, without implying consent or acceptance of any contractual breaches.

The same, in my opinion, works for "estimated" withdrawal times listed in the rules.

As I previously mentioned, rules may not specifically enforce every situation. Each company always reserves some sort of rights and is subject to change...

This is an excellent illustration of how the world operates in general. We all want to be 100% protected, which pushes companies to such solutions. Just my view, of course.