Seven Casino Review

The player from the UK won 274,000 euros and, despite providing all necessary documents, had his account closed due to the casino's terms and conditions prohibiting UK players. All attempts to communicate the issue were unsuccessful.

The player from the United Kingdom had requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting the complaint. The payment hadn't been processed yet. We had advised the player to be patient, cooperate fully with the casino, and wait at least 14 days after requesting their withdrawals before submitting a complaint. We also extended the timer by 7 days for the player to respond. However, due to the lack of response from the player, we were unable to investigate further and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Spain had faced issues with Seven Casino. After depositing and playing with a bonus, the player had accumulated winnings of €15,000. However, attempts to withdraw had been blocked, and winnings were confiscated due to an alleged violation of bonus rules. The casino then closed the player's account after he threatened to complain. We had attempted to engage the casino in dialogue to resolve the matter, but they were unresponsive. We suggested the player contact the Curaçao Interactive Licensing (CIL) authority as the validity of the casino's license was uncertain. The complaint was marked as 'unresolved' due to the casino's lack of cooperation. Despite the unsatisfactory resolution, we had advised the player to only play in licensed and well-rated casinos in the future to avoid similar issues.

The player from the United Kingdom had requested a self-exclusion from an online casino via email. However, instead of closing the account, the casino had provided a bonus and allowed continued gambling. The player had claimed to have specified his desire to stop gambling as the reason for the request. We had explained the distinction between account closure and self-exclusion, and advised him to clarify his reason for self-exclusion, indicating a gambling problem for a permanent account closure. Despite extending the complaint's resolution time twice, the player had failed to provide the requested clarification. As a result, we couldn't assist further and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Italy had his winnings of 11,400 euros confiscated by the online casino, claimed that he had violated the bonus gameplay terms. Despite his deposit of 2,000 euros, only his initial balance of 200 euros had been returned. The player disputed this, asserting that he hadn't played with an active bonus when he won. The Complaints Team had attempted to mediate the situation, however, the casino did not respond to their inquiries. As a result, the complaint was marked as 'unresolved', potentially impacting the casino's rating negatively. The player had been advised to contact the Curaçao Interactive Licensing (CIL) authority for further assistance.

The player from the United Kingdom was unable to log into her online casino account. Despite having proof of account ownership, the casino's live chat support claimed she didn't have an account. The player had deposited a total of £1,157 into the account, which was lost before the account was blocked. We concluded that since there were no real money funds in the player's account when it was closed, there was nothing we could do. The complaint was therefore rejected.

The player from the United Kingdom, after depositing 3000 euros, had his withdrawal cancelled due to alleged rule violations of betting over 2 euros per spin while using a bonus. The player disputed this, claiming that his winnings were not from these higher bets. The casino had verified his account and refunded his 50 euros from the bonus offer, but had since closed his account and banned his email. The player had requested a breakdown of his wins and losses, as well as a refund of all his deposits. He also claimed that the casino was not allowed to accept UK players. However, we had clarified that it was the player's responsibility to follow their country's gambling laws and adhere to the casino's terms and conditions. Since the player had confirmed betting over the allowed limit, we concluded that the casino had the right to void his winnings. The complaint was subsequently closed.

The player from Austria had issues with an online casino, stating that her emails were not properly addressed and she was blocked from the chat after raising concerns. She had registered her account in May 2023 and had successfully completed account verification. The player mainly played games like Book of Dead and Lara Croft, and the disputed amount represented her deposits. She claimed the casino had fake games and a fake license, and insisted on a refund. However, we explained that we did not handle complaints related to licensing regulations and policies, and therefore, could not assist in her request for a refund based on these grounds. We had suggested her to check our list of recommended casinos for future gaming needs. As a result, this case was not pursued further.

The UK player successfully withdrew winnings before, but now, a withdrawal of 915 euros is delayed for 14 days. The casino has requested passport photos even though they had already accepted her driver's license for verification. The player finds the situation suspicious. The complaint was closed as the player stopped responding.

The player from the United Kingdom is facing difficulties in account verification for a withdrawal, despite submitting numerous documents. We closed the complaint because the didn't reply to our messages and questions.