Dear Lucky Legends team,
Somehow my questions were not answered at all.
However, although it was written nicely above and the offer was presented as something super lucrative, a one-time cash withdrawal, with no further deduction, basically, at that point, $1,200 (we agree only with the deduction of $200 - deposit and a "sticky bonus") was already deducted from the disputed winnings.
In addition, we can play with words, but there were again (as it was in the case of her balance "reset") only 2 options - either to accept the casino's offer with a significantly lower amount compared to the winnings that she is entitled to or "Otherwise we will unfortunately have to allow the complaint to be closed without resolution" (so in other words - nothing). How would you expect a regular player would behave in such a situation?
The complainant came to terms with the solution of a lower amount only because otherwise it could mean she would receive nothing. Since I really cannot see such information anywhere - how did you find out that the player is satisfied with this solution, please?
What other options did the player have at the moment the casino confiscated her pending withdrawal of $2,000 than to use the returned initial deposit and use the allowed deposit bonus with it? It was already confiscated.
If the casino made the "reset", it confiscated the winnings/pending withdrawal that she was entitled to and that she accumulated legitimately and without breaching any rules, the casino basically did not have a reason to confiscate it (the casino even was not able to substantiate the decision with relevant rules, or it hid the confiscation behind irrelevant or unfairly/incorrectly applied rules), and as a final solution, it forced the player to accept a disadvantageous offer with deduction of $1,000 from her winnings, how can the casino consider it a good faith?
Basically, if the casino had done everything fairly and correctly at the time the withdrawal was still pending, nothing from the following events would not have happened. The casino was the one who decided to make a "reset" of the balance and let the player use the returned initial deposit and deposit bonus, while there was no justified reason to do it at all. So, I dare to claim that - as Americans say, "having your cake and eating it too" could be also used in a different way in this case.
Now I will just repeat the parts from my previous post.
"Is the casino please able to reconsider its final decision and restore the rest of the confiscated winnings with possible deductions, or restore them and provide the player with clear instructions on how to withdraw them?
I am afraid that if the casino insists on the provided solution, it will not be possible to close the complaint as successfully resolved."
Can you please confirm the casino's decision is final and remains unchanged?
Dear Lucky Legends team,
Somehow my questions were not answered at all.
However, although it was written nicely above and the offer was presented as something super lucrative, a one-time cash withdrawal, with no further deduction, basically, at that point, $1,200 (we agree only with the deduction of $200 - deposit and a "sticky bonus") was already deducted from the disputed winnings.
In addition, we can play with words, but there were again (as it was in the case of her balance "reset") only 2 options - either to accept the casino's offer with a significantly lower amount compared to the winnings that she is entitled to or "Otherwise we will unfortunately have to allow the complaint to be closed without resolution" (so in other words - nothing). How would you expect a regular player would behave in such a situation?
The complainant came to terms with the solution of a lower amount only because otherwise it could mean she would receive nothing. Since I really cannot see such information anywhere - how did you find out that the player is satisfied with this solution, please?
What other options did the player have at the moment the casino confiscated her pending withdrawal of $2,000 than to use the returned initial deposit and use the allowed deposit bonus with it? It was already confiscated.
If the casino made the "reset", it confiscated the winnings/pending withdrawal that she was entitled to and that she accumulated legitimately and without breaching any rules, the casino basically did not have a reason to confiscate it (the casino even was not able to substantiate the decision with relevant rules, or it hid the confiscation behind irrelevant or unfairly/incorrectly applied rules), and as a final solution, it forced the player to accept a disadvantageous offer with deduction of $1,000 from her winnings, how can the casino consider it a good faith?
Basically, if the casino had done everything fairly and correctly at the time the withdrawal was still pending, nothing from the following events would not have happened. The casino was the one who decided to make a "reset" of the balance and let the player use the returned initial deposit and deposit bonus, while there was no justified reason to do it at all. So, I dare to claim that - as Americans say, "having your cake and eating it too" could be also used in a different way in this case.
Now I will just repeat the parts from my previous post.
"Is the casino please able to reconsider its final decision and restore the rest of the confiscated winnings with possible deductions, or restore them and provide the player with clear instructions on how to withdraw them?
I am afraid that if the casino insists on the provided solution, it will not be possible to close the complaint as successfully resolved."
Can you please confirm the casino's decision is final and remains unchanged?
Edited by a Casino Guru admin