Lucky Owl Club Casino Review

The player from the US had an issue with Lucky Owl Club Casino where his withdrawal requests for $1,000 winnings were automatically canceled. The casino had claimed that their withdrawal system was under maintenance. However, after the player had reported the issue, a representative from the casino had contacted him and he had been able to successfully withdraw his winnings. The player had confirmed the receipt of his winnings and expressed satisfaction with the casino's resolution. The complaint was then closed as 'resolved'.

An Australian player was experiencing withdrawal issues, despite having met bonus requirements. The casino had cited system problems as the reason, with an unpredictable resolution time. The player had made a second deposit and was promised instant withdrawals, but the casino had since ceased communication. Despite our efforts to contact the casino, we had received no response. The casino was operating without a valid license and didn't refer to any ADR service, so there was no gaming authority to address the issue. We had marked the complaint as 'unresolved', which might have negatively affected the casino's rating. We had advised the player to choose casinos based on their reviews and ratings in the future.

The player from Washington had a fully verified account and experienced difficulties withdrawing his winnings due to continuous technical issues reported by the casino. Despite previously being able to pay a fee for instant deposit during such an error, this option was not available that time. The issue had been ongoing for more than a week. The player alleged that the casino was scamming him, but did not provide sufficient evidence to support this claim. The complaints team attempted to investigate the issue and extended the response time by 7 days, but the player did not respond. As a result, we had to reject the complaint due to lack of further information.

The player from the United States had been trying to withdraw his winnings since early February but consistently faced technical issues. Despite reaching out to the online casino's customer service, the problem remained unresolved. He had not been asked for any additional KYC verification, suggesting that this might not have been the cause of the issue. We had attempted to contact the casino multiple times for clarification and resolution but received no response. Consequently, the complaint was marked as 'unresolved', potentially affecting the casino's rating. The player was advised to contact an alternative dispute resolution service and the Gaming Authority for further assistance. The player later informed us that his winnings were paid out and this complaint was closed as resolved.

The player from Massachusetts had requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting this complaint. The payment hadn't been processed yet. The player reported having been given unclear explanations about "technical issues" and had been told to wait multiple times. The casino had stopped responding to the player's inquiries. Despite our team's efforts to contact the casino and resolve the issue, the casino had not cooperated. The case was marked as 'unresolved', potentially affecting the casino's rating negatively. Unfortunately, as the casino operated without a valid license, there was no gaming authority to escalate the issue to.

The player from Australia had faced difficulties with his withdrawal request from Lucky Owl Club Casino. The Casino's response had been that there was a technical glitch preventing the withdrawal. This issue had been ongoing for over two weeks. The player's account was verified and the winnings had been accumulated during a bonus game. Despite multiple attempts by the complaints team to contact the casino, they had not received a response. The team had marked the complaint as 'unresolved' due to the lack of cooperation from the casino.

The player from Brazil had made a withdrawal request but despite multiple assurances, the casino had neither processed the payment nor provided consistent responses. The casino requested documents after 11 days although initially, they had stated that no additional information was needed. The player had been unable to reach support and was seeking help. After a series of exchanges, the issue had been resolved and the player confirmed the resolution. We had since marked the complaint as 'resolved' in our system.

The player from Ohio had requested a withdrawal prior to submitting that complaint but hadn't received his winnings. However, the issue has been successfully resolved. The delay was due to a miscommunication with the casino which paid out the player in full. Consequently, we had marked the complaint as 'resolved' in our system.

The player from Hungary had requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting that complaint. The payment hadn't been processed at that time. The Complaints Team had advised the player to wait at least 14 days after requesting the withdrawal before submitting a complaint. Later, the player confirmed that the payment had been received.

The player from Washington had deposited $42 and won an additional $25 at Lucky Owl Club Casino, making a total of $67 to withdraw. However, despite repeated assurances from the casino's support team, the withdrawal had not been processed. The player had not been asked for KYC documents but submitted them anyway. The player had also faced difficulties communicating with the casino and their emails were ignored. The casino did not respond to our inquiries and the complaint had been marked as 'unresolved'. The player was later promised payment by a casino representative, after which the player requested to reject the complaint.

The player from the US had complained about perceived unfair games. The Complaints Team had explained that they couldn't make a case based solely on his description as the nature of casino games involved both wins and losses. They requested additional information, specifically the player's complete game history, to potentially address the casino regarding their Return to Player (RTP). The team extended the response deadline by 7 days, but due to the player's lack of response, the complaint was eventually rejected. The team emphasized that the player could reopen the complaint at any time.

The player from the US had trouble getting a payout and was unsuccessful in attempts to contact the financial department over a month. His account was verified and his winnings were accumulated with a bonus that had no max cash out limit. Despite this, the casino had not processed his withdrawal request. We reached out to the casino for clarification, but received no response. Due to the casino's lack of cooperation and the fact that it operated without a valid license, we marked the complaint as 'unresolved'. This could have negatively affected the casino's rating, potentially prompting a change in their approach.

The player from the United States had managed to increase his balance from a leftover promotional amount to 50 dollars. When he attempted to cash out, the casino told him his withdrawal time limit had expired, demanded a deposit, and then informed him an active promo barred withdrawal. Despite the player's efforts to provide necessary information and communication, the casino had failed to respond to our inquiries. Consequently, we had been unable to continue with the investigation due to the casino's lack of cooperation and had to close the complaint as 'unresolved'.