National Casino Review

The player from Ireland had submitted numerous identification and finance-related documents to the casino but continued to face difficulty in successfully withdrawing funds. The casino had recently requested the original deposit to the player's crypto wallet, which the player found challenging to provide. Despite the player's efforts to comply with the casino's verification process, the casino closed the player's account and confiscated the winnings due to alleged failed verification. We attempted to mediate the issue, but the casino did not respond, leading us to close the complaint as 'unresolved.' This lack of cooperation from the casino was set to affect their overall rating.

The player from Australia, after several years with National Casino, faced difficulties with account verification due to an expired license. The casino refused to accept the player's valid government-issued proof of age card. He confirmed that the ID document verification was the only issue. Due to the casino's history of non-cooperation, we were unable to resolve the issue. Later, the casino reopened the complaint, but the player failed to respond. Therefore, we were forced to reject the case.

The player from Montenegro had experienced difficulties in withdrawing €9200 as the casino had continually requested new documents, despite several confirmations. The player had also reported the issue to Skrill support. He claimed that he had submitted all the required documents, but the casino kept asking for additional photographs, which he considered a delay tactic. Despite our efforts to mediate the situation, the casino had not provided a response. We had marked the complaint as 'unresolved' and suggested that the player contact the Curacao Gaming Authority for further assistance. The complaint was eventually rejected at the player's request after he expressed dissatisfaction with the process.

The player from Hamburg claimed to have lost 130 Euros on Natiocasino1 due to being allowed to play despite self-exclusion. The player demanded a refund of the deposited money. However, despite our attempts to understand the situation better and resolve the issue, the player did not respond to our queries. As a result, we were unable to investigate further and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Spain had encountered issues with National Casino when he attempted to withdraw his winnings of 5000€. After some back-and-forth communication, the casino allowed the withdrawal of the player's winnings. The issue was then marked as resolved by the Complaints Team.

The player from South Korea had encountered issues with blocked withdrawals on their MasterCard despite having met all casino requirements and maintaining proper documentation. The issue remained after two days of communicating with the casino's live chat support and attempting withdrawal with another card. The casino responded by stating that the withdrawal to the bank card was unavailable for the player's region and suggested alternative methods like Skrill or Neteller. The player expressed confusion as these e-wallets were not supported in Korea. Despite our attempts to communicate and resolve the issue, the player did not respond to our messages, and we were forced to reject the complaint due to lack of further information.

The player from Italy had been attempting to close his casino account for months using both chat and email. Despite having reached out to him and explained the difference between account closure and self-exclusion, the player did not respond to our messages or provide any further information. As a result, we were unable to investigate his case further. Therefore, the complaint had been rejected.

The player from Manitoba had had an issue with withdrawing winnings from an online casino, as they had been unable to provide a requested screenshot of a bank transaction. The player had confirmed that this was the only document they couldn't provide, having already submitted approved proofs of identity and residence. The casino had insisted on a single screenshot, which the player's bank could not provide. The issue had been successfully resolved, with the player confirming receipt of the funds.

The player from Spain was unable to withdraw their winnings despite having made multiple deposits and attempts at account verification, including submitting photos of the cards used. The Complaints Team had reached out to the player for further clarification on whether the casino had confiscated their winnings or if their withdrawal request was pending. However, the player failed to respond to the team's inquiries within the extended timeframe, which led to the complaint being rejected due to a lack of information. The team was thus unable to investigate the matter further.

The player from Greece had deposited 20 euros, won 773 euros and completed the required turnover. However, his winnings were subsequently confiscated. We explained that purchasing in-game features was considered the same as making a bet and could lead to confiscation of winnings. As the player had repeatedly purchased in-game features, he had breached the maximum allowed bet. Therefore, the casino was within its rights to confiscate the winnings, and we couldn't take any action. The complaint was rejected.

The player from Germany is experiencing difficulties withdrawing his funds due to incomplete account verification. We closed the complaint because the player didn't reply to our messages and questions.

The player from Czech Republic has requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting this complaint. Their money hasn’t been received yet. The complaint was rejected because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Argentina had her account blocked and her winnings confiscated. Since we had not received any response from the casino, we were forced to close this complaint as 'unresolved'. The player claimed her account was suspended after being accused of treating the casino as a bank, despite meeting all wagering requirements without using bonuses. The casino later stated the player exploited a currency conversion error. Consequently, the complaint was rejected.

The player from Ecuador has been blocked. The casino accused him of fraudulent activity. There was no response from the casino, so the complaint was closed as 'unresolved'. The complaint was reopened at the request of the casino. The casnio stated that the player had taken advantage of a currency conversion error, and provided some evidence to support this. The player was asked to provide records of their transactions to the casino, but as there was no further response from them the complaint was rejected.

The player from Argentina has been blocked without further explanation. Unfortunately, there was no response from the casino, so the complaint was closed as 'unresolved'. The casino contacted us and requested the complaint be reopened. Evidence was provided that suggests the player was able to benefit from deposits made at the incorrect exchange rate. The player was asked about this, but as there was no response from them the complaint was rejected.

The player from Germany had her winnings confiscated and her account closed due to accusations of third-party deposit. The complaint was ultimately closed as ‘unresolved’ because the casino failed to reply. After reopening the complaint the player did not respond to our inquiries, which led to the rejection of the complaint.

The player from Argentina requested a withdrawal, but she did not receive her money. In addition, the funds were confiscated and the account was closed for an unspecified reason. The complaint was closed as 'unresolved' because the casino failed to reply and cooperate in resolving the issue. After more than a year, the casino contacted us with clarification and sufficient evidence to support their decision regarding the complainant's casino account.

A male player's withdrawal was delayed for almost a month. Since we had not received any response from the casino, we were forced to close this complaint as 'unresolved'. The player from Portugal reported that his account was verified, and previous withdrawals had been successful, but his recent withdrawal had not been processed, and the casino had ceased communication. Despite multiple attempts to contact the casino, no response was received. The complaint was closed due to the casino's lack of cooperation.

The player from Greece breached bonus terms by placing a single bet greater than the allowed one. After reviewing the player's game history, the casino's accusations were confirmed, therefore we were forced to reject this complaint.

The player from Brazil has submitted a withdrawal request less than two weeks prior to contacting us. Winnings haven’t been obtained up to this day. The complaint was rejected because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Brazil has been waiting for a withdrawal for less than two weeks. Unfortunately, their payout hasn’t been received yet. The complaint was rejected because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Brazil has requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting this complaint. The payment hasn’t been processed yet. The player later confirmed that the withdrawal was processed successfully, therefore we marked this complaint as resolved.

The player from Greece is experiencing difficulties withdrawing their winnings due to ongoing verification. The casino asked the player to provide with a valid ID with a visible expiration date according to its standard process. The complaint was rejected because the player did not respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Argentina was experiencing difficulties withdrawing her winnings due to ongoing verification. The account was then verified but the player had issues with the chosen payment method. After trying a different payment method, the player received their winnings and the issue was resolved.

The player from Austria is experiencing difficulties withdrawing their funds due to limited availability of payment methods. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Greece played with a free spins. Later their winnigs have been significantly reduced. The player accumulated the winnings with a free spin bonus which had a maximum cashout limit, therefore we were forced to reject this complaint.

The player from Spain requested self-exclusion when having the first account. Despite this fact, he was able to open the second account. Unfortunately, the player wasn't able to provide evidence proving that he requested self-exclusion in the past, therefore we were forced to reject this complaint.

The player was struggling to withdraw his winnings due to limited availability of payment methods. The issue was later resolved and the player confirmed he had received his funds. The complaint was closed as 'Resolved'.

The player from the Czech Republic experienced difficulties withdrawing their funds due to the limited availability of payment methods. The casino did not respond. The player attempted to use Skrill but faced issues depositing funds, and their bank denied blocking transactions. Despite multiple communications, the casino attributed the problem to technical issues with the payment provider. The complaint was closed as unresolved due to the casino's lack of timely response and the player's non-response to further inquiries.

The player from Australia was experiencing difficulties withdrawing his funds. The difficulties were apparently caused by incorrectly entered bank details. The casino later informed us that the issue was resolved and the player had successfully withdrawn his funds. The complaint was closed as 'Resolved'.

The player from Australia had been experiencing difficulties withdrawing his winnings from an online casino. Despite his account being fully verified and having made successful withdrawals in the past, his recent requests had been consistently rejected. The player had reported inconsistent responses from the casino's support team regarding withdrawal limits and dates. Despite our efforts to mediate the situation, the casino had not provided a substantial response. The player had managed to withdraw a portion of his funds but remained frustrated with the process. We had rejected the complaint as the player no longer required assistance.

The player from Germany has been accused of depositing funds into his account using the 3rd party credit card. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Spain has been trying to close his account due to a gambling problem. Unfortunately, the enquiries were ignored. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Italy is experiencing difficulties withdrawing his winnings due to ongoing verification and allegedly expired Driving License. We closed the complaint as 'unresolved' because the casino failed to respond, however, the player later informed us they successfully passed the identity verification. The complaint was, therefore, closed as 'resolved'.

The player from Germany has been trying to withdraw her winnings for 2 weeks. She provided all the required documents and than the casino accused her of having multiple accounts. The player issue was resolved.

The player from Australia had experienced difficulties withdrawing her winnings due to allegedly incorrect bank details. Despite her claims of having provided all necessary identification from the start, the casino had labeled her submitted bank statement as irrelevant. The casino had not initially responded to our inquiry, which led us to close the complaint as 'unresolved'. However, upon their request, we reopened the complaint. The casino claimed to have provided a detailed explanation to the player, enabling her to withdraw her funds successfully. We asked the player to confirm this, but she did not respond, which led us to reject the complaint.

The player from Germany had his personal documents required for account verification rejected without further explanation. The complaint was closed as unresolved because the casino did not respond to us within the given time. The casino later claimed the documents were in the wrong format, but the player did not provide evidence of compliance. The complaint was eventually rejected due to the player's non-responsiveness.

The player from Germany was accused of opening multiple accounts. Despite multiple attempts to contact the casino and seek resolution, the casino initially remained non-responsive. The player was advised to contact the casino's regulator in Curaçao. Eventually, the casino responded, requesting the player to contact their support team for assistance. However, the player failed to respond to further messages, leading us to close the complaint as unresolved.

The player from Australia is experiencing difficulties withdrawing his winnings due to ongoing verification. He is in contact with License provider so we're waiting for their decission. Player stopped responding to our question therefore the complaint was rejected.

The player from Germany has requested withdrawal a week ago. It has been pending since. Shortly after the complaint was submitted, the player was able to receive his withdrawal and the complaint is resolved.

The player from Netherlands has experienced a technical glitch while playing live roulette. The player placed a bet on number 31, straight up, but the winnings were not rewarded. The player's original bet was eventually credited back to the player.

The player from Canada faced repeated cancellations of withdrawals due to alleged incorrect banking information, despite having confirmed the details with her bank. The casino, Playamo, provided inconsistent instructions regarding what information to enter, complicating the withdrawal process. After contacting Interac/Gigadat, it was confirmed that her account was not on hold, leading to a successful withdrawal of $1,600. The issue was marked as resolved by the Complaints Team, and the player was advised to reach out for future assistance if needed.

The player from the Czech Republic is experiencing difficulties withdrawing funds, because the transactions to preferred payment methods have been declined. She has received her winnings by another payment method.

The player from the Czech Republic requested a withdrawal, but it has been rejected. Although the player deposited funds via third party cards, the casino has decided to pay the player his winnings and warned him not to deposit from third party cards again. The complaint is now resolved.

The player registered in the casino, had some trouble with the verification, but eventually passed it. The player continued playing and made several withdrawals. After some time, the player was asked to verify her account again. The isue was successfully resolved.

The player from Australia was unable to withdraw $75 winnings from no deposit free spins because the only withdrawal methods were crypto or bank transfer, and bank transfer required a minimum of $250. The casino denied the crypto withdrawal since the winnings weren't from a crypto deposit. After the player threatened to escalate the issue publicly, the casino processed the withdrawal using the crypto method. We confirmed the issue was resolved and marked the complaint as closed.

The player from Australia has been accused of opening multiple accounts. We received sufficient evidence of this from the casino and so the complaint was rejected. After some time, the casino reconsidered their position and decided to pay the player the previously confiscated winnings. As such the complaint has now been closed as 'resolved'.

The player from Germany requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting this complaint. Their money hasn’t been received yet. The player later confirmed that the withdrawal was processed successfully, therefore we marked this complaint as resolved.