NovaJackpot Casino Review

The player from Greece faced a delay with his withdrawal, which was not completed within the timeframe stated by the casino. The player confirmed that no account verification was required and that winnings had been accumulated with real money. He reported that the casino cited a high volume of requests as the reason for the delay. Eventually, the withdrawal was completed. The issue was marked as resolved.

The player from Germany experienced intentional delays in the withdrawal process, totaling 650 EUR. The verification process had not been activated, and support provided standard responses or did not reply at all. Attempts to get regulatory authority contact information were unsuccessful. The issue was resolved as the money was paid out.

The player from Austria was unable to withdraw winnings as the funds kept being returned to his gaming account. Support provided excuses, and emails went unanswered. We attempted to gather more details from the player to assist with the issue, but she failed to respond to our inquiries. Consequently, the complaint was rejected due to lack of communication from the player.

The player from Finland had requested a withdrawal 8 days earlier but kept receiving the same automated message from the casino, despite their terms stating that withdrawals take 1-5 days. We advised the player to wait at least 14 days before submitting a complaint, as delays could be due to unfinished KYC verification or high withdrawal volumes. The player later confirmed that he received his withdrawal from the casino, and the complaint was marked as resolved.

The player from Italy had been attempting to withdraw funds for three days and received no response from the VIP Manager. He learned that Revolut was not accepted and provided a new IBAN but still sought assistance to complete the withdrawal. The Complaints Team set an additional 8-day timer for the casino to process the payment. However, the player subsequently lost all his winnings. The Complaints Team explained that options were limited since the player had played through his winnings and emphasized the importance of patience and prompt communication in the future.

The player from Greece requested three daily withdrawals of 500 euros each, but his first request from the 19th of the month was still pending. With 3300 euros remaining in his account, he was unable to withdraw more. The casino's live chat had stopped working, and responses were vague and delayed. We contacted the casino, which confirmed the pending withdrawals were paid. The player later confirmed all withdrawals were completed, and the complaint was resolved.

The player from Spain had withdrawals of 100€ and 300€ canceled and found her account closed the next day due to an anti-fraud system alert. Despite attempting to provide documentation, the player worried that the account wouldn't be reopened or the winnings returned. We concluded that the player did not pass the Know Your Customer (KYC) and Anti Money Laundering (AML) process due to discrepancies in the provided documents and notifications from the payment processor. Consequently, the complaint was rejected, and only a refund of the confirmed deposit was offered.

The player from Germany submitted documents for account verification on May 13th and had yet to receive any feedback. The live chat consistently informed him that the request was being processed. The casino initially claimed not to have received the documents, leading the player to resend them. After further investigation, it was revealed that the player had breached the terms and conditions by depositing from someone else's bank account. Consequently, the casino acted in accordance with its terms and conditions, leading to the rejection of the complaint.

The player from Greece requested a withdrawal of €499 on 08/05 and two more of €100 each on 13/05, which are still pending. Despite reaching out via live chat and email, he has not received any responses. They informed him that he couldn't close his account while having pending withdrawals.

The player from Finland had been experiencing delays in withdrawal processing for over two months, with the casino continuously canceling the requests without explanation. The casino's customer service had not provided a reason for this, and inquiries had led to different representatives without any resolution. The issue was resolved after we contacted the casino and forwarded the player's bank statement, leading to the verification of her account. The player confirmed that she was able to withdraw her winnings, albeit in increments, and eventually received the full amount.

The player from Germany had experienced withdrawal issues, having waited over 8 days for his payout, which exceeded the casino's three-day policy. Despite regular communication with the casino's live chat, the issue had remained unresolved. After we had advised him to be patient and wait at least 14 days after requesting the withdrawal, the player confirmed that he had received his winnings. As a result, we had marked this complaint as 'resolved'.

The player from Germany had been waiting since April 25th for a 500 Euro payout, after depositing over 720 Euros. He reported that he was blocked from chat and received no replies to his messages. After a two-week wait, the player had received his winnings. We had marked the complaint as 'resolved' in our system.

The player from Greece had requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting his complaint. The payment hadn't been processed at that time. The Complaints Team had advised him that withdrawals could take some time to be processed and asked him to wait for at least 14 days. After some time, the player confirmed that he had received his withdrawal and the case had been successfully resolved.

The player from Canada had requested withdrawals from two different casinos owned by Rabidi N.V but had not received any of his winnings yet. The player was frustrated about the delay and repetitive responses from support, questioning the company's high safety index. The player's account did not require verification and he had been consistently reaching out to the casino with no response. After waiting for over two weeks, the casino informed him that they were waiting for the provider to clarify the issue. Despite this, the player decided to give up on the casino and requested to close the complaint. We rejected the complaint as per the player's explicit request.

The player from Ontario had been facing issues with a delayed withdrawal of $520 from an online casino. Despite the casino's 3-5 day withdrawal promise, the player had been waiting for a month. After repeated inquiries and threats to report to the licensing agency, the casino suspended the player's account without providing any response. The player, who primarily played slots without bonuses, had not received any explanation for the account suspension. Despite our efforts to understand the situation and assist, the player did not respond to our queries, leading us to reject the complaint due to lack of further information.

The player from Ireland had been experiencing a significant withdrawal delay from the casino. Despite several attempts to contact customer support, he continued to receive the same response advising patience. The player intended to close his account after receiving his money. After communication with us, the player confirmed that he had received his outstanding withdrawals summing to 1500 and subsequently closed his account. The Complaints Team then marked the complaint as 'resolved'.

The player from Ireland had submitted a withdrawal request less than two weeks prior to contacting us. Winnings hadn't been obtained up to that day. After our intervention and communication with the casino, the player confirmed receipt of her winnings. Consequently, the player decided to close her account with the casino. The issue had been successfully resolved.

The player from Austria had been waiting for a payout since April 18, 2024 and had reported ineffective communication with the casino. We asked for further details to investigate his issue, such as account verification status and the nature of his winnings. However, the player did not respond to our queries within the extended 7-day period. As a result, we were unable to proceed with the investigation and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Finland had faced issues during the KYC process at an online casino. Despite having submitted the required documents, including a photo of his driver's license and proof of address, three times, the casino had continued to reject his bank statement. The player had reported receiving unhelpful responses from the casino's support team. However, after he mentioned contacting Casino Guru, his documents were approved on the fourth attempt. We had marked the complaint as 'resolved' in our system. Later, the player had requested to close the complaint, stating he had played back his money and closed his account. As per his request, the complaint had been closed.

The player from Saxony had encountered issues with her withdrawal process at an online casino. Despite her multiple attempts to contact the casino's support team, she had received no response. Her account had been blocked, and she was asked to verify her account, which she did, but still received no feedback from the casino. This had resulted in a delay in her withdrawal of €1000. After our intervention, the casino had requested additional documents for verification, which the player had provided. Eventually, the casino had processed her withdrawal in two parts, each of €500. The player had confirmed receipt of her total winnings, resolving the complaint.

The player from Saxony had expressed concern over a delayed withdrawal of €500, which had exceeded the stipulated 3-day processing period. After a week, he was informed that the payout had been cancelled due to a 'provider error'. Frustrated, the player chose to close his account, but insisted that the complaint be published to warn other players. Despite our attempts to obtain more information, the player did not respond, resulting in our inability to further investigate the issue. Consequently, we had to reject the complaint.

The player from Germany won €1000 at an online casino and her withdrawal should have been processed in three business days according to casino's terms and conditions. However, it is the fourth business day and withdrawals have still not been processed. Support gives no solutions, only delays.

The player from Finland had had two pending withdrawals totaling 1000€ and had been concerned about the delay in processing. The casino had failed to provide a timeframe for the resolution, leading to further frustration. The player later discovered that one of the withdrawals had been processed, but the other had remained pending. After continued follow-ups, the player confirmed that all withdrawals had been received and the issue had been resolved.

The player from Finland, who had self-excluded from all Rabidi NV casinos in the past, discovered that an undisclosed owner had reopened the site. The player was concerned about potential responsible gambling violations, as there appeared to be no measures in place to protect problem gamblers. He had complained about the casino's failure to respond to his emails and their refusal to refund his €271 deposit. The casino eventually closed his account without offering any explanation. We requested evidence of his communication with the casino and his requests for self-exclusion. He provided some proofs via email. However, we clarified that each online casino is a separate entity and might not share self-exclusion data. We also informed him about our Self-Exclusion Assistance Tool for blocking accounts across multiple gambling establishments.

The player from Finland had been able to deposit money at a casino despite having a gambling ban in place at most sister casinos and had demanded a refund. We had asked her to provide evidence of her self-exclusion request to further investigate her claim. However, the player did not respond to our messages and queries, which resulted in the rejection of the complaint due to lack of necessary information for further investigation.