Irrevocable block opened (page 2)

Thank you for the feedback.

In my view, this is precisely the crucial point: From the customer's perspective, the casino's wording at the time ("permanent", "irrevocable") could only be understood to mean that a later reopening was impossible.

If a casino later allows a reopening despite having previously confirmed a permanent closure, this creates, in my view, a significant contradiction in player protection.

Of course, I applied for the reopening myself later. However, if the casino had been permanently or irrevocably closed, it would have had to either reject this application or at least conduct a very rigorous additional review. That doesn't seem to have happened here.

Therefore, I still consider the internal classification of the original closure and the communication at the time to be crucial. I am now awaiting the full review of the complaint.

I understand what you mean, and I can see why the wording used at the time may feel contradictory to you now.

At the same time, I think this is exactly the kind of detail that needs to be looked at in the complaint review, including how the original closure was classified internally and the later reopening process.

Since the account was eventually reopened after communication with the VIP manager and confirmation from your side, I think the full picture matters here.

For now, I’d probably leave it to the complaint review, as I’m not sure there is much more to add until we have that outcome.