Vauhdikas Casino Review

The player from Sweden had been waiting for a withdrawal for less than two weeks. Unfortunately, their payout had not been received yet. The player reported that their KYC was fully verified and their bank account was approved for withdrawal. Despite this, the casino blocked them from all games and delayed communication. The issue was resolved when the casino finally paid out the winnings.

The player from Sweden had won and attempted to withdraw his winnings, but his account had been closed due to a reported gambling addiction at his address. Despite the casino having confirmed they would manually pay out the winnings and having received the necessary documents, they were still investigating the payout. The player had provided all the necessary information and confirmed that his account had been verified. Later, the casino confirmed that the player's withdrawal had been approved and the money was on its way. The player confirmed that the issue had been resolved, and we then marked the complaint as 'resolved'.

The player from Finland had her account blocked without any further explanation. The player had escalated this case to the regulator, so the complaint had been temporarily closed while we awaited the outcome of their investigation. We reopened this case as it had been three months since it had been initially submitted to the Licensing Authority for their decision. The player had been a member of the casino for about 2 years and had played various games with both her own money and bonuses offered by the casino. After weeks of internal discussions and communications with the casino, no progress had been made. Therefore, we had recommended the player to seek assistance from the Licensing Authority, specifically eCOGRA. The player had contacted eCOGRA and after some time, confirmed that the issue had been resolved and she had received her funds. We had marked the case as 'resolved' following the player's confirmation and the successful intervention by the official Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR).

The player from Netherlands has requested a self-exclusion due to a gambling problem. Afterwards, he was able to open an account in other casino owned by the same company. After an extensive communication with the casino representatives we have come to a mutual agreement and the complaint is now resolved.

The player from Sweden who had self-excluded from justspin.com for 60 weeks had signed up and deposited 4600 SEK on Rapid Casino, not knowing it was owned by the same company. When the player had requested a refund, it was denied on the grounds of violating terms and conditions by opening another account. After the player had complained, we had reached out to the casino for clarification. Despite initial non-responsiveness from the casino, we had managed to mediate the situation. Eventually, the casino had agreed to refund the player, resolving the issue to the player's satisfaction.

The player from Finland had her account blocked without any further explanation. The player had escalated this case to the regulator, so the complaint had been temporarily closed while we awaited the outcome of their investigation. We reopened this case as it had been three months since it had been initially submitted to the Licensing Authority for their decision. The player had been a member of the casino for about 2 years and had played various games with both her own money and bonuses offered by the casino. After weeks of internal discussions and communications with the casino, no progress had been made. Therefore, we had recommended the player to seek assistance from the Licensing Authority, specifically eCOGRA. The player had contacted eCOGRA and after some time, confirmed that the issue had been resolved and she had received her funds. We had marked the case as 'resolved' following the player's confirmation and the successful intervention by the official Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR).

The player had primarily played slot games at Rapid Casino and had his account closed on the 14th of the month. The casino had been unresponsive to his inquiries about the closure. The Complaints Team had attempted to mediate the issue but made no progress after several weeks of internal discussions and communication with the casino. Consequently, the player had been advised to seek assistance from the Licensing Authority, specifically eCOGRA. The player had followed this advice and also considered seeking legal assistance. After six months and a resubmission of his complaint to eCOGRA, the player had received communication from the casino asking for his banking information. The player had then received his outstanding funds and considered the case closed, despite reservations about the casino's handling of the situation. The complaint had been resolved and marked as such in our system.

The player from Canada had had an issue with withdrawing his winnings of $596 from 21.com. The casino had claimed that technical issues were the cause of the failed payment, while the player had suspected it was an attempt to avoid payment. The player had had no access to his account due to self-exclusion and thus couldn't cancel the withdrawal and make another request. After the Complaints Team had intervened and communicated with the casino, the player had finally received his winnings and requested the complaint to be closed. The issue had been successfully resolved.

The player from Finland had her account blocked without any further explanation. The player had escalated this case to the regulator, so the complaint had been temporarily closed while we awaited the outcome of their investigation. We reopened this case as it had been three months since it had been initially submitted to the Licensing Authority for their decision. The player had been a member of the casino for about 2 years and had played various games with both her own money and bonuses offered by the casino. After weeks of internal discussions and communications with the casino, no progress had been made. Therefore, we had recommended the player to seek assistance from the Licensing Authority, specifically eCOGRA. The player had contacted eCOGRA and after some time, confirmed that the issue had been resolved and she had received her funds. We had marked the case as 'resolved' following the player's confirmation and the successful intervention by the official Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR).

The player from Finland had reported that he was blocked from his accounts across five different online casinos, namely XLbet, RapidCasino, JustSpin, 21.com, and CasinoFest, without a clear explanation. The player had claimed that the casinos confiscated his deposits, which were not bonus money. Despite several attempts to communicate with the casino, the issue had remained unresolved. The Complaints Team had advised the player to submit separate complaints for each casino and had suggested seeking assistance from eCOGRA, the official Alternative Dispute Resolution of the casino. The player then reported that he had received communication from 21.com support, requesting his banking information, and subsequently received the outstanding funds from all the casinos involved. The complaint had been closed as resolved.

The player from Norway played on Nitrocasino, won 10113nok, and requested a withdrawal. After logging into their account, they found only 1000nok remaining. The support team claimed this was due to the player having used their welcome bonus on other sister casinos. The player claims this rule was absent from the Norwegian terms listed on the site. The casino replied and stated that the winnings had been confiscated due to an error on their part, and would be reinstated. The player received their payment and the case was resolved.

The player from Finland had her account blocked without any further explanation. The player had escalated this case to the regulator, so the complaint had been temporarily closed while we awaited the outcome of their investigation. We reopened this case as it had been three months since it had been initially submitted to the Licensing Authority for their decision. The player had been a member of the casino for about 2 years and had played various games with both her own money and bonuses offered by the casino. After weeks of internal discussions and communications with the casino, no progress had been made. Therefore, we had recommended the player to seek assistance from the Licensing Authority, specifically eCOGRA. The player had contacted eCOGRA and after some time, confirmed that the issue had been resolved and she had received her funds. We had marked the case as 'resolved' following the player's confirmation and the successful intervention by the official Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR).

The player from Finland had her account blocked without any further explanation. The player had escalated this case to the regulator, so the complaint had been temporarily closed while we awaited the outcome of their investigation. We reopened this case as it had been three months since it had been initially submitted to the Licensing Authority for their decision. The player had been a member of the casino for about 2 years and had played various games with both her own money and bonuses offered by the casino. After weeks of internal discussions and communications with the casino, no progress had been made. Therefore, we had recommended the player to seek assistance from the Licensing Authority, specifically eCOGRA. The player had contacted eCOGRA and after some time, confirmed that the issue had been resolved and she had received her funds. We had marked the case as 'resolved' following the player's confirmation and the successful intervention by the official Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR).

The player from Finland had an issue with his account having been blocked by an online casino, XLBet, without any explanation. Despite attempts by the Complaints Team to clarify the situation with the casino, no substantial progress had been made. The player had been advised to contact eCOGRA, the official Alternative Dispute Resolution of the casino. After six months of communication with eCOGRA, the player reported having received his outstanding funds from the casino. The Complaints Team had marked the complaint as resolved. However, the player had expressed concerns about the casino's handling of the situation.

The player from Finland had her account blocked without any further explanation. The player had escalated this case to the regulator, so the complaint had been temporarily closed while we awaited the outcome of their investigation. We reopened this case as it had been three months since it had been initially submitted to the Licensing Authority for their decision. The player had been a member of the casino for about 2 years and had played various games with both her own money and bonuses offered by the casino. After weeks of internal discussions and communications with the casino, no progress had been made. Therefore, we had recommended the player to seek assistance from the Licensing Authority, specifically eCOGRA. The player had contacted eCOGRA and after some time, confirmed that the issue had been resolved and she had received her funds. We had marked the case as 'resolved' following the player's confirmation and the successful intervention by the official Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR).

The player from Peru requested a withdrawal more than three weeks ago. It hadn’t been received. The withdrawal was then canceled, so the player requested another payment but to a different bank. The casino required further documentation to verify the payment, and the player sent this as requested. The casino then responded to say that the account was now verified and that the player should request the withdrawal again. The player did so and after a short time received their payment.

The player from Luxembourg is struggling to pass the verification. The casino claims that documents are not of a sufficient quality. The casino blocked the player’s account. The player managed to provide a sufficient documents for verification and together with the help from the casino representatives the complaint is resolved.