Slotbox Casino Review

The player from Ireland had complained about the casino's responsible gambling tools, specifically the removal of deposit limits and timeouts. The player had set and removed multiple deposit limits and timeout limits regularly, suggesting a potential gambling problem. The casino had closed the player's account without providing a reason or responding to requests for chat history. The player had not explicitly informed the casino about his gambling problem, which was a point of contention. Despite the player providing screenshots and email correspondence, the Complaints Team had concluded that they could not assist with this issue as it fell outside their scope. The player had been advised to communicate his gambling concerns directly to the casino in future instances. The complaint had been rejected as unjustified.

The player from Ireland had requested for their account to be closed, but was able to rejoin three months later using the same details. They questioned whether this should have been allowed. We had explained to the player the difference between account closure and self-exclusion, highlighting that the casino had not violated any rules by allowing the reopening of the account. Despite extending the response time, the player failed to provide further feedback, which led us to reject the complaint due to lack of information.

The player from Finland had expressed dissatisfaction with the online casino for not closing his account despite his request. He had asked for closure due to dissatisfaction with the promotions and losing too much money too quickly. He had also requested a refund of 554€, which he had lost after his account closure request. The casino had refused to refund the money. The player had claimed that he followed the casino's terms and conditions for account closure, but the casino had ignored his request. The Complaints Team had explained the proper procedure for account closure and self-exclusion, and suggested using the Self-Exclusion Assistance Tool for a more effective solution. However, the team could not help the player to resolve the case and get a refund, resulting in the complaint being rejected.

The player from Brazil made a deposit that was debited from his account but not credited to his Slotbox Casino account. Both the casino and Skrill, the payment provider, deny responsibility and no refund or solution has been offered. Unfortunately, we’re forced to reject this complaint as the player refused to cooperate.

The player from Austria was locked out of his account after winning and now cannot log in to access his winnings. The player later informed that he received his winnings, so we closed the complaint as resolved.