MrQ Casino Review

The player from the United Kingdom is frustrated with the lengthy withdrawal process. Although he sent all the documents required for his £650 withdrawal, correspondence was slow and the account was eventually suspended without any explanation.

The player from the United Kingdom, who was registered with Gamstop, claimed she was allowed to create an account and deposited over £900 at MRQ Casino without any identity verification. She had asked for a refund of her deposits and the permanent closure of her account but had faced difficulties with the casino. We suggested that the player directly contact Gamstop as we were not privy to their specific procedures and methods for verifying eligibility for refunds. However, the player did not respond to our messages and questions, thus we were unable to investigate further. Consequently, the complaint was rejected due to lack of response from the player.

The player from the UK had experienced a delay in withdrawal since January 26, 2024. Despite multiple document submissions, her account was suspended on February 13. After she lodged a complaint and we facilitated communication with the casino, the casino finally paid out her winnings. The player had since requested her account to be permanently closed due to dissatisfaction with the casino's process. We had marked the complaint as 'resolved'.

The player from the United Kingdom had been unable to withdraw £30 from his MrQ account due to the need to update his bank card details. The casino's policy required the account balance to be £1 or less to make such updates. We had advised the player to contact the casino's payment team directly and provide necessary details for card replacement. However, the player failed to respond to our messages within the given timeframe, resulting in the closure of the complaint.

The player from the United Kingdom had requested a withdrawal of 1600 pounds before registering with Gamstop to take a break from gambling. However, MrQ casino had returned the deposits and withheld 750 pounds due to the player's registration with Gamstop. The player had also alleged that a live chat operator from the casino attempted to bribe him with free spins for a positive review on Trustpilot. We had requested additional information from the player, including his Gamstop registration and any relevant communication with the casino. However, the player did not respond, which resulted in the inability to further investigate and led to the complaint being rejected.

The player from the United Kingdom, a long-time user of Mr Q, had been struggling with a recent withdrawal attempt. Despite having complied with several ID verification requests, the withdrawal had still not been processed and contact with the casino was proving difficult. We had explained to the player that the Know Your Customer (KYC) process was a critical step for casinos to ensure funds were sent to the rightful owner. We asked for more information to understand the specific issue with their account verification. However, due to the player's lack of response to our messages and questions, we were unable to proceed with further investigation or provide potential solutions.

The player from the United Kingdom had mistakenly used his wife's card to deposit £50 and won £4,000. After he had provided the requested ID and card details, his account was closed due to a breach of terms. Despite his efforts, he had been unable to communicate with the casino. The player had questioned the casino's decision, citing a previous withdrawal of £100 that had been approved. In response, we had explained that players were responsible for using their own funds for deposits and gameplay. The casino's action of closing the account was in line with their terms and conditions, as the player had breached a fundamental rule. The complaint was subsequently rejected.

The player from the United Kingdom had been waiting for a withdrawal for less than two weeks. Unfortunately, their payout hadn't been received yet. The player claimed to have provided all the necessary documents for account verification but the casino had not yet processed the withdrawal. The casino had been unresponsive to the player's complaints and did not provide any timeline for the withdrawal process. After the complaints team intervened and contacted the casino, the player finally received his winnings. However, the player's account was permanently closed by the casino following the payout. The player had expressed dissatisfaction with the casino's practices but acknowledged that the primary issue of the delayed payout was resolved.

The player wanted to withdraw £2.600 but got an e-mail saying her account was closely linked with an existing account that had been self-excluded, therefore, the casino confiscated her funds. The player refused such accusation - her documents had been verified, however, she admitted that maybe one of her family member once had an account that they closed down. In the end, she was paid £1600 - her deposit amount back, the rest got confiscated and her account was closed. The casino failed to prove their claims and stopped cooperating with resolution of this complaint.

The player complained that once he'd sent the requested documents, the casino stopped responding. When he went back to his account, he found out that it had been suspended. He said he'd had £600 in withdrawals still there. He emailed the casino support who told him that his email didn't exist. There were no more updates since then.