Velobet Casino Review

The player from Brazil was unable to verify her account due to the system logging her out whenever she attempted to upload her documents. Despite multiple attempts, the issue persisted, and she sought an alternative verification method to process her withdrawal. The issue was resolved with the help of the casino's support team, who assisted her in completing the verification process quickly. The complaint was marked as resolved by us.

The player from the United Kingdom was registered with Gamstop but managed to open an account with Velobet. Despite engaging in risky gambling behavior, including spending thousands of pounds and losing £3400 in winnings plus £1200 from their bank, the casino failed to implement safeguarding measures and allowed continued transactions. We explained that Velobet operated under a Comoros license and was not subject to UKGC regulations, thus not accessing the Gamstop register. The complaint was rejected due to the player's lack of response.

The player from Thailand had his account verified and made successful withdrawals totalling €3113. Later, the casino voided his winnings due to his country's ineligibility for promotions, which he had not been informed about beforehand. He sought a review of this decision. The Complaints Team reviewed the case and concluded that the player had breached the casino's terms and conditions. Consequently, the complaint was closed as unjustified, and the player was advised to withdraw his last deposit. He was not eligible for winnings accumulated in such a way.

The player from Bavaria struggled with gambling addiction and had requested the casino to close their account, but received no response. Since making the requests, they lost another 3000 Euros. We determined that the casino closed the account within a reasonable time frame after receiving the self-exclusion request, considering the weekend delay. Therefore, a refund was not deemed justified. The player was advised to use our Self-Exclusion Assistance Tool and seek professional help for gambling addiction.

The player from the UK struggled to withdraw £741 due to a sudden verification process after a £180 win at Velobet. The casino did not accept his UK driver’s license or bank statement, only an expired passport, causing withdrawal issues. We attempted to assist by requesting further details about the situation. However, the player did not respond to our messages, leading to the complaint being rejected.

The player from the United Kingdom asked Velobet to close his account indefinitely due to gambling harm but was allowed to deposit £3000 after a temporary reopening to review past deposits. He requested a refund of his recent deposits, citing a lack of compliance and responsible gambling measures by the casino. We were unable to assist due to insufficient evidence of the player's explicit request for self-exclusion due to gambling addiction. The complaint was rejected based on the lack of specific documentation required to pursue the case.

The player from Sweden faced an issue with a 69€ deposit to the casino. Despite providing notices and IDs from Jeton proving the money was sent, the casino stopped responding and threatened to block the account. We extended the timeline for the casino to investigate and resolve the issue, but the player did not respond to our messages and questions. Consequently, the complaint was rejected due to a lack of response from the player.

The player from the United States tried to withdraw from Velobet but faced issues with verification as the casino did not accept his driver's license as a valid ID card and required a passport, which he did not have. The player contacted customer support but received no assistance. We requested further communication between the player and the casino for investigation. However, the player did not respond to our messages, leading to the rejection of the complaint due to lack of information.

The player from the United Kingdom had requested a withdrawal prior to submitting this complaint. Unfortunately, their winnings had not been received yet. The player claimed he was required to spend his welcome bonus before withdrawing, resulting in the loss of £223. We explained that this situation likely stemmed from unmet bonus wagering requirements. Since the player had lost his winnings, the complaint was rejected as there was no further action that could be taken.

The player from the United Kingdom had passed address and passport verification but faced repeated rejections of her selfie verification. Despite sending multiple selfies with the required details over the previous 5 days, the attempts had been unsuccessful. We provided detailed guidelines for taking an acceptable selfie, which the player followed successfully. Her verification was completed, and she confirmed that her winnings had been received in her bank account.

The player from the United Kingdom had requested a withdrawal less than two weeks before submitting this complaint. The payment hadn't been processed yet. We had requested additional information and communication history with the casino, but the player did not respond to our messages. Consequently, the complaint was rejected due to lack of response from the player.

The player from Germany could not verify his account because the requested proof of a physical credit card was not possible due to his use of an online bank. Screenshots were not accepted, and emails to the casino went unanswered. Despite providing an ID card and address card, the credit card verification remained unresolved. We suggested obtaining an official bank statement, but the player did not respond. Therefore, the complaint was rejected due to a lack of communication from the player. The complaint was later reopened and closed as resolved after the player informed us that the matter had been settled with the casino.

A player from the United Kingdom had been able to deposit funds at a casino despite being registered with GamStop and having gambling blocks on her debit cards. The transactions did not appear as gambling-related, thus bypassing the bank's blocks. We considered the issue resolved as the casino closed her account immediately after she requested it to be blocked due to a gambling problem. The player was advised to contact the Licensing Authority of the casino for further support and to utilize our Self-Exclusion Assistance Tool for additional protection.

The player from the United Kingdom claimed the casino failed to protect her as a problematic gambler. Despite previously closing an account with a sister site because of her gambling problem, she was able to deposit £2670 within 24 hours at this casino without any checks being made. We requested further information from the player, including whether she had contacted the casino directly, but she did not respond. Consequently, the complaint was rejected due to lack of cooperation from the player.

The player from the UK had won a £301,000 jackpot in a slot game. The casino had refused to pay out the full amount based on their terms and conditions, confiscated the winnings, and closed the player's account. The Complaints Team had sought further information from the player to better understand the situation, but the player had failed to respond. As a result, without the required information, the investigation could not proceed and the complaint was rejected.

The player from the United Kingdom struggled to withdraw winnings due to verification issues. While the casino accepted the player's address and bank card proof, the British passport was rejected. The Complaints Team assisted by contacting the casino, which clarified that the passport selfie was not clear. After the player resubmitted a clearer selfie, verification was successfully completed. However, the player later admitted to spending all the funds and having installed Gamban, leading to the complaint being closed without further resolution.

The player from Germany had experienced difficulties with the verification process at Velobet Casino. He had been asked to provide various documents, including his ID card, bank card photos, and a recent bank statement. However, the casino's requests had kept changing, eventually asking for a bank statement for May 2024, which the player was unable to provide as it was not yet available. The casino had also requested video verification, which the player found unnecessary as his identity had already been confirmed. Despite his frustrations, the player had complied with all requests. After submitting all the requested documents and video, the player reported that the verification had been successful and his payout had been processed. We had marked the complaint as resolved.

The player from Spain had been playing for several months and had deposited money, totaling €645. Suddenly, the casino had blocked the player's account, stating their email was on a blacklist. The player had argued that they shouldn't have been allowed to play and deposit if blacklisted and had sought a refund. We had explained to the player that casinos had the right to restrict or close players' accounts for any reason, including suspicion of irregular play. We also had clarified that our ability to intervene was limited if the casino wasn't holding any of the player's funds. Despite the player's dissatisfaction, we had to reject the complaint due to these reasons.

The player from the United Kingdom had faced an issue with Velobet casino. After winning £3559 and completing the verification process, the player's account had been locked, and upon unlocking, his winnings were reduced to £30. The casino had claimed the player had another account with them before, a claim the player denied. The Complaints Team, after reviewing the evidence provided by the casino, found that the player had indeed created multiple accounts and used the welcome bonus in both of them, a practice considered unfair. Consequently, the player's complaint was rejected. Despite the player's denial of these claims, the decision was made based on the evidence provided.

The player from the United Kingdom, who had a gambling addiction, had an account with the casino that was closed at their request. Despite this, the casino allowed the player to open and verify a new account, where they gambled all their money. The player then requested a refund of all deposits. Upon reviewing the case, it was determined that the player had provided incorrect proof of withdrawal, as the dates did not match the account creation. Due to this discrepancy, the complaint was rejected.

The player from Spain, who had self-excluded due to a gambling addiction, claimed that the casino had opened another account with the same personal information and allowed further deposits and gambling. This caused severe personal distress. The casino acknowledged the error and agreed to refund the deposits from the second account. We confirmed that the casino had blocked all functions except for withdrawal to ensure the player could not use the refunded money for further gambling. The complaint was considered resolved based on this agreement.

The player from the United Kingdom, who suffered from a gambling addiction, was still able to open multiple accounts under the same email with the group Santedas BV, despite having requested account closures for addiction reasons. The player felt Santedas BV acted irresponsibly, costing him over £15,500. We asked the player for evidence of his self-exclusion requests, which he provided. However, these requests had not been sent to the correct email address. We advised the player to contact the casino directly for self-exclusion. The player did not provide any additional information, and thus we were forced to reject the complaint as unjustified. The player accepted this resolution and requested the thread to be closed.

The player from the United Kingdom had requested a withdrawal less than two weeks before submitting this complaint. His money hadn't been received yet. During the investigation, the player mentioned that he hadn't been able to make a withdrawal request, which led him to continue playing and lose over £1200. The Complaints Team had sought clarification on the amount left in his casino account and the status of his ID verification. However, the player did not respond to these queries. As a result, we were unable to proceed with the investigation and had to reject the complaint due to lack of player's cooperation.

The player from the United Kingdom was trying to verify her account by uploading her ID, but it wouldn't load. She had funds to withdraw, but couldn't due to the unsuccessful account verification. The Complaints Team had suggested clearing cookies, cache, and browser history, as well as trying a different browser or email for communication with the casino. The player managed to follow the given instructions. However, due to the player's lack of response to further inquiries, we were unable to proceed with the investigation and the complaint was rejected.

The player from the United Kingdom was grappling with problem gambling and found that despite previous self-exclusion and requests for account closure due to their gambling issues, the same details had been used to open up a new account. The player lost £620 and requested a refund. However, the player was unable to provide evidence of his initial self-exclusion request. As a result, we couldn't verify his claim, and the complaint was rejected due to lack of evidence. The player was informed that without proof of self-exclusion, we were unable to proceed with the investigation.

The player from the UK had requested self-exclusion via email and subsequently asked for a refund of all deposits due to a lack of response. She also reported that she had been unable to withdraw her winnings of £498. The casino allegedly hadn't acknowledged her self-exclusion request and failed to recognize her problematic gambling behavior, despite her extensive playtime and large amounts of money deposited. The player also claimed that the casino had not properly followed the KYC process. However, we had concluded that the player had not informed the casino about her gambling problems beforehand, making her ineligible for a refund. The casino closed her account after she informed them about her gambling problem.

The player from the UK had filed a complaint against velobet.com for having allowed him to game while in the UK, where it could potentially have been considered illegal. He requested that his net losses be refunded. The player had claimed that the casino held his personal details, proving his residence in the UK. However, we had explained that we could only assist if the player's funds or winnings had been confiscated due to being from a restricted country. Since the player was seeking a refund of lost deposits solely because the casino lacked a valid license in his country, we rejected the complaint.

The player from Sweden had signed up at Casino Velobet, deposited money and played. However, during the verification process his driving license was rejected as ID and his selfies with passport weren't approved either, which caused a delay in his withdrawal request. After the player had contacted the Complaints Team, they had explained the importance of the KYC process and asked for more details. Shortly after, the casino had verified the player's account and he was able to withdraw his winnings. The player had confirmed the receipt of his money. The issue was then marked as 'resolved' by the team.

The player from the United Kingdom had trouble withdrawing money because the casino would not accept her driver's license for ID verification. Despite our efforts to assist by extending the response time and asking for additional identification, the player had not responded to our messages. Consequently, we were unable to proceed with any further investigation or provide potential solutions to the issue.

The player from the United Kingdom had an issue with Velobet Casino, where she had requested account closure due to gambling problems but the casino failed to take action. The player had sent multiple requests for self-exclusion, but the account remained active, leading to significant financial loss. The player was then seeking a refund. However, it was discovered that the player had been sending the requests to an incorrect email. After the player sent the request to the correct email, the casino closed the account. The player did not respond to further communication from the Complaints Team, resulting in the rejection of the complaint.

The player from Spain had created another account despite his request to permanently close his initial account due to a gambling addiction. He had accused the online casino of irresponsibly allowing him to open a new account, deposit, and bet, despite being aware of his gambling problem. The player had been uncooperative and failed to provide complete information to support his claims. We had advised him on how to request self-exclusion properly in the future and provided resources for professional help with gambling addiction. The complaint was closed due to insufficient evidence and the player's lack of cooperation.

The player from the UK was facing difficulties in verifying her account because the casino wouldn't accept a driving licence, the document she normally used for KYC verification. She didn't have a citizens card or passport, which were the documents the casino was requesting. Despite our efforts to assist her and extend the complaint's deadline, she did not respond to our messages. Consequently, we could not further investigate the matter and had to reject the complaint due to the lack of communication from the player's side.

The player from the United Kingdom was struggling to recover her deposited funds from Velo Bet after she had requested account closure due to irresponsible gambling concerns. She had not received any response from the online casino despite numerous emails. We attempted to gather more information about the player's account status, the exact amount of her balance, and her communication with the casino. However, the player did not respond to our inquiries, leading to the rejection of the complaint.

The player from Italy had requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting this complaint. The payment hadn't been processed yet. After regular follow-ups with the casino, the player reported that the casino had refunded the money to his gaming account. He then initiated the withdrawal again, and this time, the funds were successfully transferred to his account. We had marked the complaint as 'resolved' following the player's confirmation.

A UK player with a gambling addiction had opened an account with Velobet, believing they could control their gambling behavior. They had requested account closure due to their escalating addiction and unsuccessful attempts to self-exclude. However, they had not received a response and the account remained active. The player had made total deposits of £7,755.36 and was seeking a refund of £5,855.36 after deducting a previous withdrawal. The player also claimed that the self-exclusion process was not clearly stated in the mobile version of the casino site. We had advised the player on the correct procedure for self-exclusion and highlighted the importance of contacting the right department. The player was dissatisfied with our response and decided to take the issue to the CEG. Consequently, we had to reject the complaint.

A GAMSTOP user from the UK had been able to deposit and lose £8,500 at Velobet Casino, despite the fact that UK residents should have been restricted from gambling and from playing NetEnt games according to Velobet's rules. The casino had dismissed the player's concerns and had not addressed its terms violation or provided restitution for the lost funds. We had explained that the player's GAMSTOP registration wouldn't be effective with casinos that were not licensed by UKGC and that we couldn't penalize casinos for miscoding transactions. We also provided the player with a Self-Exclusion Assistance Tool to help with their gambling issues. The complaint had been closed upon the player's request.

The player from the United Kingdom was struggling with multiple withdrawal rejections despite having sent the required selfie video for verification. Despite asking the casino about the rejections via email, she had not received any response. We attempted to reach out to the player for more information and clarification, but received no reply. As a result, unable to investigate the issue further, we had to reject the complaint.

The player from the United Kingdom had alleged that his winnings were confiscated due to an accusation by the casino of duplicating accounts. He claimed he was unaware of having two accounts and only found out about it after he had won a significant amount. The casino had ceased communication with the player and had cited violation of their anti-fraud policy as the reason for denying his withdrawal request. We had attempted to resolve the issue by contacting the casino and asking for evidence. However, we learned that the player had been using his accounts solely for sports betting. As we primarily dealt with online casino complaints, we had to reject the complaint and advised the player to seek assistance from websites that handle sports betting-related issues.

The player from the United Kingdom had created a new account at Velobet after his old account was deactivated. The new account, which had 850GBP in it, had been blocked. The player was seeking resolution and retrieval of the funds. He claimed that his old account was deactivated by his ex-partner who had access to his email. The casino had responded that the player violated their terms and conditions by creating a duplicate account, hence the winnings were deducted. The player had argued that he only created one account per household as per the rules. However, we had concluded that it was the player's responsibility to ensure account security and the KYC verification was usually done when a withdrawal was requested. Therefore, the complaint had been rejected.

The player from Italy had requested a temporary self-exclusion from his Velobet Casino account due to personal reasons. Despite his request, the account had been reopened prematurely. The player, who had previously self-excluded from a sister casino, lost approximately $70,000 and accused the company of not implementing responsible gambling measures effectively. After reviewing the player's self-exclusion request, we found that he had not specified a gambling addiction as the reason for his account closure. Consequently, we concluded that the player was not eligible for a refund, and his complaint was rejected.

The player from the UK was attempting to withdraw her funds from an online casino, but the casino was requesting an ID card or passport for verification. The player only had a driving license and believed it should have been accepted as a valid form of identification. We explained the importance of the KYC process to the player and asked for further information about the casino's response to her driving license. However, the player did not respond to our queries for further information. As a result, we were unable to continue the investigation and the complaint was rejected.

The player from the UK had experienced issues with the verification process at a casino. Despite multiple attempts to upload the required identification documents, they were all rejected without explanation. The player's attempts to contact the KYC and support team had also been ignored. However, the casino unexpectedly verified the player's account. The player then made a withdrawal and confirmed that all winnings had been successfully transferred to their bank account. The only criticism from the player had been the casino's lack of communication during the verification process. The complaint had been resolved and subsequently closed.

A player from the United Kingdom had been struggling to withdraw his winnings from an online casino. Despite having submitted multiple forms of valid identification, the casino had not responded. The player's winnings and gaming history had also disappeared from his account, causing further concern. After the player shared screenshots of the issue, we invited the casino to explain their side. The casino stated that the player had successfully passed the verification process and could now withdraw his funds. However, the player did not respond to our request for confirmation, leading us to close the complaint.

The player from the United Kingdom had faced difficulties with the complex identity verification process on the casino's site, specifically with the selfie requirement, and could not make a withdrawal as a result. We had explained to her the importance of the KYC process and suggested ways to improve the quality of her photograph for verification. The player later reported that the issue might have been resolved. Consequently, we had marked the complaint as 'resolved' in our system.

The player from the United Kingdom had tried to withdraw funds from Velobet. However, his passport was rejected as a form of ID, which led to an error message when he attempted to upload it again. Additionally, he wasn't receiving responses to his emails. After communication with our team, the player confirmed that his account had been successfully verified. Despite this, the withdrawal was still in process and the player was awaiting receipt of his winnings. The Complaints Team extended the timer for resolution by 7 days, but without further confirmation from the player, the complaint was eventually rejected.

The player from the United Kingdom had desired self-exclusion due to gambling addiction. The player had attempted to self-exclude via email, but the provided emails were incorrect, which led to an additional loss of 300 pounds. After communicating with our team, the player had contacted the casino with the correct email address and their account was subsequently closed. The issue had been resolved to the player's satisfaction.

The player from the UK had raised issues with the Velobet Casino platform, suspecting that it was either not legitimate or there was something problematic with it. He had reported poor game performance and a lack of wins, despite substantial deposits of £1,500 in total. We had requested the player's full game history for proper analysis but received no response. Due to this lack of communication, we were unable to proceed with further investigation or provide potential solutions. The complaint was eventually rejected, but the player still retained the option to reopen it in the future.

The player from the United Kingdom had a complaint against Velobet casino, which was owned by the same company as Mystake, from which she had self-excluded due to gambling addiction. She was able to deposit and open an account with Velobet, despite her self-exclusion from Mystake, which she considered irresponsible. The player insisted she had made her gambling addiction known to the casino. Despite this, we had explained that self-exclusion from one casino did not automatically extend to other sites, even if they were owned by the same company. Each casino maintained its own player database and required individual self-exclusion requests. The player was dissatisfied with this response, however, the team had to reject the complaint due to these regulations.

The player from the United Kingdom had requested their account to be reopened during a vulnerable moment and had deposited £4000 in a single day. The player had implied irresponsible behavior from the casino and asked for a refund due to their disability and vulnerability. We had informed the player that casinos could not apply responsible tools that they did not offer and asked if she had informed the casino about her gambling problem in the initial account closure request. The player had not mentioned the gambling problem in her account closure request and did not have access to her casino account at that time. We had advised the player on how to request self-exclusion properly next time, and extended the timer for her response by 7 days. However, the player did not respond, and we were unable to investigate the matter further, leading to the rejection of the complaint.

The player from the United Kingdom is having issues withdrawing his winnings. Each attempt to withdraw through SEPA by entering the IBAN number results in rejection. The complaint was rejected as the player stopped responding.

The player from Germany has banned herself from the mystake.com due to her gambling addiction. Despite her request to block her from all sister casino websites owned by Santenda International B.V., the player was able to register and lose €830 at velobet.com. She claims that the operator violated responsible gaming principles. The compalint was rejected as the player did not request for exclusion in the casino directly.

The player from Azerbaijan had encountered difficulties with withdrawing his winnings from Velobet Casino. Initially, the casino had cancelled his withdrawal, instructing him to change his password for security reasons. However, a bank transfer option was not available on the platform. After the player's complaint, the casino had unlocked his account and allowed him to withdraw half of his funds. The player then requested a temporary freeze on the complaint until all his winnings had been successfully withdrawn. Upon confirmation of the full withdrawal, the issue had been marked as resolved.

The player from Netherlands has requested a withdrawal prior to submitting this complaint. Unfortunately, their winnings haven’t been received yet. The complaint was rejected because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from the United Kingdom had signed up at Velobet for their 10% cash-back feature but wasn't able to receive it. The player reported unresponsiveness on Velobet's part and a non-functioning live chat. We had asked the player to provide more information about his account and the specific promotion he was referring to. However, we had to reject the complaint due to the player's lack of response to our inquiries.

The UK player had faced issues during the verification process as the casino had initially refused to accept her driver's license as ID. Despite her attempts to request a refund of her £150 deposit through customer service and email support, she had been unsuccessful. However, the casino eventually agreed to accept her driver's license. We therefore closed the complaint as resolved.

The player from the UK had claimed that an online casino had been targeting her despite her gambling addiction and her requests for self-exclusion. She had also reported that the casino had allowed her to continue creating accounts using the same details and had not respected its responsible gambling tools. After the player had provided evidence of her self-exclusion request, the casino had closed her account. However, due to a lack of evidence that she had requested self-exclusion from this specific casino in the past, we had adjusted the disputed amount from £157 to £0 as she was not entitled to any refund. The complaint was then marked as resolved.

The player from the United Kingdom has experienced an account closure after winning 200 euros. The casino has refused to pay out winnings, claiming that the player has breached their rules, but declines to disclose the specifics. We rejected the complaint because the casino provided evidence confirming the player was in breach of the T&Cs by having made multiple chargebacks.

The player from Italy, after experiencing serious gambling problems, requested to be self-excluded from Mystake Casino and all associated casinos as well. The Velobet Casino refuses to reimburse his deposits. After gathering more information we rejected the player's complaint.

The player from the United Kingdom had opened and closed an account with Velobet within the same day due to suspicion of fake slots. The player had deposited 500 euros, lost it all, and was questioning the legitimacy of the casino. Players from the UK were restricted from playing real money games. However, the casino held a valid license, and without further evidence from the player, we determined there was no reason to doubt the legitimacy of the casino's games. Despite extending the complaint's timeframe, the player was unable to provide additional information.