Qbet Casino Review

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 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 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.