Qbet Casino Review

The player from Germany deposited money, which was debited from her bank account but not credited to her casino account. We recommended she contact the payment provider to investigate the issue, which could have taken up to a month. The casino's finance department resolved the problem, and the money was credited to the player's account. The complaint was marked as resolved.

The player from Germany had deposited money on June 18th, but had neither received a refund nor had the funds credited to her account. Despite assurances from support, it had been 4 days with no resolution and no responses to her emails. After extensive communication with the casino and the Complaints Team, the issue was resolved, and the deposit was credited to her player account. The player expressed gratitude for the assistance provided by the Complaints Team throughout the process.

The German player's account had been closed without any explanation. He had a remaining balance of 700€ along with an active game worth 120€, but he wasn't given any chance to sort things out. The investigation revealed that the account had been closed due to multiple chargebacks made by the player, which violated the casino's terms and conditions. Consequently, the complaint was rejected as the casino had provided evidence supporting their decision, indicating that assistance could not be provided in this case.

The player from India had requested a withdrawal but received an email from Qbet Casino stating his account had been closed due to a manipulated ID. He insisted all documents provided were legitimate and sought help to get his withdrawal. After reviewing the documents, we concluded that they had shown signs of editing, hence we agreed with the casino's decision to permanently close the player's account. As a result, we rejected the player's complaint due to the breach of the casino's terms and conditions.

A German VIP customer of Qbet had experienced problems with depositing money since the switch to a new provider, Channeltopay. Despite her efforts, her 70€ deposit had disappeared and the casino claimed they could do nothing about it. The player did not respond to our inquiries, leading us to reject the complaint.

The player from Finland had had an issue with wagering a 20 euro deposit and a 100% bonus at an online casino. Despite her attempts to wager and withdraw her 180 euro winnings, the wagering percentage had remained at 0%. After cancelling the bonus, she had lost all her funds. She had also expressed dissatisfaction with the casino's customer service. However, the issue was resolved when the casino had paid her winnings into her bank account. We had advised her to contact our Complaint Resolution Center if she encountered any future issues.

The player from Germany had had an issue with a deposit at Qbet. After he made a deposit through Sofortonline following the launch of a new deposit page, the funds had not reflected in his game account. We had advised the player to contact his payment provider to investigate the issue, as the casino could not intervene in this case. However, the issue had been resolved successfully when Qbet credited the player's payment. Consequently, we had marked this complaint as 'resolved'.

The player from Germany had reported a problem of gambling addiction and losses at Qbet. After he had closed his first account and suffered more losses on a second account, the player found it had been impossible to contact Qbet for assistance as all his attempts were ignored. The Complaints Team had attempted to mediate the situation, but the casino confirmed that the player had used fake data to create a second account. This had prohibited the casino from instantly closing the account and protecting the player. The player had been advised to use the Self-Exclusion Assistance Tool to block his casino accounts across multiple establishments. Due to these circumstances, the complaint had been rejected.

The player from the Netherlands was dissatisfied with Qbet Casino over their treatment of loyal customers and technical issues. He had been granted less bonus than expected and experienced game lags and delays, especially when winning. Despite complaining to customer service and the VIP manager, he had received unsatisfactory support. We had informed the player that casinos reserve the right to restrict or withdraw bonuses at any time and we could not penalize the casino for this. The player was not satisfied with our explanation and decided to seek resolution through another platform.

The player from the Netherlands had experienced an issue after winning €850+ on a game. After an error and page reload, the winnings were no longer shown in the account. The player had contacted support, was told a review was requested, but it had been 4 days without a resolution. We had asked the player to provide more details, including the exact date and time of the deposit and any error messages displayed. The player had provided a screenshot of the deposit and withdrawal requests, but no error code. The player had reported a similar issue with another game from the same provider. We had advised the player not to play any games until the issue was resolved and had extended the timer for response by 7 days. However, due to lack of further response from the player, we had to reject the case, but the player had the option to reopen the complaint in the future.

The player from India had his account blocked, which prevented him from accessing his balance of 11k. Despite having submitted his KYC documents, he didn't know the reason behind the block. After a series of exchanges with the Complaints Team, the casino's representative had revealed that the player had failed the KYC process multiple times, provided a fake ID, and was not above 18 years old. The player disputed these claims, insisting he was over 18 and had submitted the correct ID. However, due to the evidence provided by the casino, the complaint was rejected and the account block was deemed justified.

The player from India had deposited 4000rs and played games, after which he attempted to withdraw 5700rs. Despite having passed all KYC verification processes, the casino had closed his account without providing a clear reason. The player had stated that he submitted all necessary documents including a selfie with his Aadhar card. The casino had claimed that the player submitted a forged document, which the player had vehemently denied. We had asked the player to forward the same documents to us for further review. However, the player did not respond within the given timeframe, which resulted in the complaint being rejected.

The player from India had deposited 1350rs into his casino account, but the funds were not credited. Despite having provided necessary proof and contacted customer service, the issue had remained unresolved after 48 hours. We had recommended that he contact his payment provider for further investigation, as the issue could have taken approximately one month to resolve. We had advised against making any more deposits until the issue was resolved. Due to the player's lack of response, we were unable to investigate further and had to reject the complaint.

The player from India had been waiting for a withdrawal for less than two weeks. Unfortunately, their payout had not been received yet. The player had confirmed that their account was fully verified. Despite our team's attempts to assist by extending the complaint response period twice, the player had failed to provide additional information about the status of their withdrawal request or their previous communication with the casino. Due to this lack of response, we were unable to investigate further and the complaint was rejected.

The player from Germany lost 800 euros and got immediately blocked by chat advisor afterward. They asked for a bonus and faced the same issue. The player has now appointed a lawyer. The complaint was closed as the player stopped responding.

The player from Norway had requested a withdrawal prior to submitting this complaint. Unfortunately, his winnings hadn't been received yet. Despite multiple approvals of his withdrawal request by the casino, the funds kept getting refunded back to his account. The player confirmed that all his KYC documents were in order and there were no missing verifications. However, the player stopped responding to our messages, leading to an inability to investigate further. Consequently, we had to reject the complaint.

The player from the Netherlands was dissatisfied with Qbet Casino, citing a lower than expected return rate and frequent technical glitches. The player claimed that the casino's VIP team was not consistently providing the promised 10% cashback on losses. We requested additional information and documentation from the player to investigate this matter further. However, the player did not respond to our inquiries, leaving us unable to continue the investigation. Consequently, the complaint was rejected due to lack of response from the player.

The player from the Netherlands had reported difficulties in obtaining a list of his deposits and had faced account closure. The user stated that he had registered and verified his account around February or March of that year, and had played slots without active bonuses. The player's issue revolved around lost deposits and an inability to receive a list of his transactions. He claimed to be registered with Cruks, a gambling control system in Netherlands, and accused the casino of still allowing him to play despite this. The casino, however, held a Curaçao license and did not share a registry with Cruks. The user's account had been blocked, but he insisted on obtaining a list of his transactions and a refund for his losses. We were unable to assist with the refund request as it was based solely on his registration with Cruks and there was no evidence of the casino being informed about his gambling problem. Furthermore, we lacked the legal authority to compel the casino to provide a comprehensive report of the player's deposits and withdrawals. As such, the complaint was deemed unjustified and was rejected.

The player from Sweden had an active self-exclusion in a sister casino due to a gambling problem. The player believed that they should have been banned from this casino too. We explained to the player that self-exclusion from one casino did not automatically apply to sister casinos, especially when both casinos were under a Curacao license, which did not enforce group exclusions. We advised the player to request self-exclusion directly from the specific casino in question. The player claimed to have done so, however, they failed to respond to further inquiries, leading us to reject the complaint due to lack of communication.

The player from Germany requested a refund of his deposit amounting to approximately 1,000€ from Qbet, citing the lack of a German license by the casino, which makes their services illegal. After a closer examination, we ended up rejecting this complaint as unjustified.

The player from Sweden requests more information about the casino license and any possible connection to another gambling establishment. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Sweden is dissatisfied that his account has been reopened despite having active self-exclusion. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't provide the self-exclusion request and his account was blocked after contacting the casino.

The player from Germany had deposited €100 at Mangacasino and won, but a technical issue caused the withdrawal to revert back to the casino. Mangacasino claimed it was the player's fault, despite the player providing evidence of the error. The player sought for the casino to send the money back to them. The issue was resolved when the player confirmed receipt of the funds.

The player from Sweden had had an issue with Manga Casino where his second deposit using cryptocurrency had not been reflected in his account despite being successfully processed. The player had provided evidence of the transactions and had contacted the casino's customer service, but had received no response or account credit after a week. After the player had submitted his complaint to us, we had engaged with the casino and facilitated communication between both parties. The casino had initially failed to provide a satisfactory response, however, after further investigation, they had credited the missing deposit back to the player's account. The player had confirmed the resolution.

The player from Norway had requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting the complaint. The payment hadn't been processed yet. The Complaints Team had advised the player that it was common for withdrawals to take a few days or weeks to process, possibly due to pending KYC verification or high withdrawal request volume. The team extended the response time by seven days for the player to provide more information. However, due to the player's lack of response, we were unable to further investigate and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Germany deposited 80€ two days ago, but neither her bank account nor casino account have been credited with the funds. She is not receiving responses to her emails and no longer has access to the live chat feature. The complaint was resolved as the player's deposit got credited.

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.

The player from Norway faced ongoing issues with 30bet regarding a payout of $28,000, with a lengthy verification process that began on July 10. Despite having submitted multiple documents to prove their identity, deposits, and source of funds, the casino continued to request additional information that was difficult to provide. The player felt frustrated as they threatened account closure and confiscation of funds. The issue was eventually resolved when the player successfully withdrew their winnings after a prolonged verification process, and the account was subsequently closed by the casino.

The player from Norway had deposited 4,000 NOK and received a matching bonus but claimed to have never used the bonus money, accumulating around 40,000 NOK in winnings. Despite this, the casino mistakenly started the wagering requirement. The player had requested gameplay history from live support to prove she never used the bonus, but the request was denied, and emails went unanswered. The Complaints Team facilitated communication with the casino, which ultimately credited her account with 17,340 NOK after confirming the separation of real and bonus funds. The case was then considered resolved, although the player expressed dissatisfaction with the handling of her complaint and the final amount credited.

The player from the Netherlands, who had previously been banned from Manga Casino due to a gambling addiction, managed to register and deposit €3000 at the sister casino, 30 Bet, without KYC verification. He believed that 30 Bet should have recognized his gambling problem and prevented his registration and deposit. After we reviewed the case, we found that the player had not requested self-exclusion directly from 30 Bet Casino. As such, we concluded that he was not eligible for a refund of his lost deposits. However, the casino decided to refund the player as a gesture of goodwill.

The player from Germany, who self-excluded from Manga Casino due to gambling addiction, was able to register and deposit €220 in 30Bet, a sister casino. The player has requested a refund which hasn't been given yet.

A player from Germany won 400 Euros on the Bloodaxe game on 30bet.com but the game froze and the winnings were not credited. It's been more than 6 days and despite promises of a response within 24 to 48 hours, the player feels that no resolution is in progress. The complaint was resolved as the player's money got credited.