WestCasino Review

The player from Ireland had experienced withdrawal issues with West Casino that had been ongoing for six weeks. The Casino had rejected his passport pictures, claiming they were not clear enough or appeared edited, despite his insistence that they were not. He had sought help to retrieve his winnings. We reviewed the documents and suggested a verification call to resolve the issue, but the Casino insisted on receiving a high-resolution photo as per their requirements. Since the complaint was with eCogra, we had temporarily closed the complaint, awaiting the regulator's decision. After multiple exchanges, the player reported a court ruling in his favor against a sister company of West Casino, but the Casino maintained that only decisions from relevant authorities would be binding. The player had refused to submit more documents, asserting he had already provided ample evidence. Ultimately, the complaint was rejected due to the player's lack of cooperation in providing additional requested documentation.

The player from Germany faced technical issues with the game 'Fair in The Hole 2' on the casino's website. The game functioned sluggishly, and the player considered legal action due to this malfunction. We informed the player that the casino was not responsible for such technical issues as they were caused by the game provider. The player was advised to contact the game provider directly to resolve the issue. The complaint was rejected as it was not related to the casino.

The player from Netherlands had issues with failed withdrawals, as the casino claimed a wrong coin address was provided despite the player's insistence that it was correct. The player also alleged that their withdrawal limit had not been increased as it should have been upon reaching the diamond tier. The casino, however, maintained that the player used an invalid address for withdrawal and suggested the player deposit using the same address to verify it. The player refused to make another deposit and claimed to have lost all funds due to the casino's actions. We concluded that since the player lost their winnings, there wasn't much we could do as players were solely responsible for their account, balance, and bets. The complaint was rejected.

A player from Finland self-excluded due to a gambling issue in 2020. He continued to email reminders of his gambling restriction but was allowed to play in November 2023, leading to losses of roughly 600€. His account was closed in April 2023 He hasn't received responses to his emails in over a month. The casino responded in the complaint not receiving any email from the player, and defended their actions explaining the player's account was closed immediately after being informed of the player's gambling problem. We reviewed the circumstances and concluded the player was ultimately not eligible for a refund. After the player stopped responding to the complaint, we closed it as 'rejected'.

The player from the Netherlands had requested a withdrawal less than two weeks before submitting this complaint. Their money had not been received yet. The casino confirmed that the withdrawal of EUR 300 was processed and paid on 15/05/2024. Despite multiple follow-ups, the player did not respond. The complaint was rejected due to lack of response.

A German player had experienced a delay with a €2000 withdrawal at Westcasino. The payout had been pending since 03.05.2024, exceeding the typical 5-day processing period. The casino's finance team had been unresponsive, and the winnings were not bonus-related. The player confirmed that the delay had been due to incomplete verification, and upon completion, the funds had been successfully transferred. The complaint was then closed as resolved.

The player from the Netherlands experienced difficulties withdrawing money from a casino. She was accused of breaching the maximum allowed bet rule and bonus stacking terms. The casino provided evidence of these breaches and voided her winnings, returning only her initial balance. We confirmed that the casino's actions aligned with their terms and conditions, and the complaint was rejected due to the player violating the rules.

The player from the United Kingdom had his account blocked because he had multiple accounts, and his winnings were confiscated. He confessed to having multiple accounts but was unaware that it violated the rules. His account was being verified when it got blocked. He accepted the loss of his winnings according to the casino's Terms and Conditions but asked for a refund of his deposits, which totalled £60. We clarified that most online casinos forbid having more than one account and asked for pertinent communication between him and the casino. However, the player did not respond, resulting in the dismissal of his complaint.

The player from Finland had made a withdrawal request on 21.3 which was later rejected by the casino. They had demanded bank account confirmation which had already been provided earlier, leading to a delay in payment. The player had used different methods for deposit and withdrawal, which had caused confusion. After communication with the casino and our team, the player's account had been verified again. The casino had clarified its procedures and timelines for withdrawal processing. The player eventually received their withdrawal. The issue has been resolved successfully.

The player from Austria had struggled with the verification process at an online casino, despite having provided numerous proofs of identification and address, including her driver's license. The verification issues had prevented her from making her first withdrawal after successful deposits. After she submitted additional documents, such as her insurance card and proof of citizenship, the casino finally verified her account. The player had thanked the Complaints Team for their assistance. However, the complaint was eventually rejected due to a lack of further response from the player, although it could be reopened anytime.

The player from Japan had struggled to verify his address as part of the casino's Know Your Customer (KYC) procedures. Despite having submitted multiple documents, the casino had continually rejected them due to poor photo quality and the documents not being in the player's name. The casino had suggested submitting a bank statement in PDF format. After the player complied, the casino confirmed the successful verification of his account. However, since we hadn't received final confirmation from the player, we had to reject the complaint. Later the player confirmed that the issue was resolved.

The player from India had joined the casino's Telegram channel after being promised no deposit free spins, but the casino had failed to credit these spins. The player had lodged a complaint, but we had clarified that casinos had the right to restrict or withdraw bonuses at any time without notice. We had also explained that our focus was on cases where casinos wrongly credited bonuses and then denied winnings. As the casino had declined to grant the bonus, we could not compel them to do so. Therefore, the complaint had been deemed unjustified and was rejected.

The player from Germany had been unable to withdraw winnings since he joined Westcasino.com, experienced continuous losses, and believed the games might have been manipulated. He was concerned about the transparency and fairness of the games and the unprofessional account verification process. Additionally, he pointed out that Westcasino.com did not hold a German gambling license. The player also noted technical issues that affected the gameplay, and a discrepancy between the advertised RTP values and his gaming experience. However, we informed the player that we could not take action without concrete evidence of unfair practices and reminded him that it was the player's responsibility to comply with their country's gambling regulations.

The player from Afghanistan had deposit issues with the casino and claimed a loss of 750 Euro. We reached out to the player, sought clarification on his issue, and asked for relevant documentation. The player later responded that his issue had been resolved. Consequently, we marked the complaint as 'resolved'.

The player from Rhineland-Palatinate had been waiting for a payout of 100 euros that had been delayed for over a month. Despite the casino having claimed the payout was completed, the player had not received any money. After back and forth communication, the player had provided a bank statement as proof of non-receipt of the funds. Finally, the player had confirmed that the money had arrived, resolving the issue. We had marked the complaint as 'resolved' in our system.

The player from Tunisia had deposited $22 in response to a promotional email offering 350 free spins. Despite confirmation from the casino that there were no restrictions for his country, the bonus had disappeared from his account and he had been informed that he was restricted from using bonuses. The player had requested a refund of his deposit but the casino had suggested he wager his deposit instead. However, the player had been concerned about the casino's minimum withdrawal limit of $100. We had advised the player that we couldn't compel the casino to offer bonuses if players from his country were not eligible. We had suggested he complete the mandatory wagering of his deposit . The player had decided to play with his deposit and asked for the complaint to be closed.

The player from the Netherlands had initially complained about a lengthy KYC verification process at the casino. However, after the verification had been successfully completed, the player's concern had shifted to the casino's delay in processing his withdrawal request of €4100. The player felt that the casino had been intentionally stalling the process, and his suspicion grew when the casino cancelled his withdrawal due to multiple requests. The player then made a new withdrawal request which remained pending. Although the casino had processed one of his withdrawals, the player still had €18000 pending. Despite our team's efforts to assist and request more information, the player stopped responding, leading us to reject the complaint due to lack of further information.

The player from the Netherlands had requested a refund of his deposits, claiming that the casino had allowed him to gamble despite being from an unsupported country and having a gambling addiction. The player had been excluded in the past and his account was automatically reopened. The casino had continued to send him promotional materials despite his deposit limit being reached. The player also alleged that the casino had intentionally delayed his withdrawal process. The casino closed the player's account after he threatened to take action. However, without proof of the player informing the casino about his gambling issues, we could not assist him further in asking for any compensation or deposits. Therefore, the complaint was rejected.

The player from Germany requested a withdrawal from Westcasino, but despite being previously verified, they were asked to re-verify their identity. After providing the requested documents, the withdrawal has been delayed for 14 days, far longer than the player expected.

The player from Croatia is experiencing difficulties withdrawing his winnings due to ongoing verification. Based on the player's explicit request, we have closed this complaint. We’ve reopened this complaint as per the player’s request. We contacted the casino, adnd its representative stated the player was requested to upload new photos of ID, proof of residence and notarized copies of these documents. When we asked the player if he followed the caisno's instructions, he didn't reply. After 2 weeks of no reaction, we were forced to reject the complaint.

The player from North Rhine-Westphalia requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting this complaint. The payment hasn’t been processed yet. We were forced to close the complaint because we couldn't proceed without cooperation from the player's side.

The player from Germany has been accused of opening multiple accounts. We were unable to find evidence that the player was not using two accounts at the same time and therefore the complaint was closed as "rejected".

The player from British Columbia submitted a withdrawal request less than two weeks prior to contacting us. Winnings haven’t been obtained up to this day. The player later confirmed that the withdrawal was processed successfully, therefore we marked this complaint as resolved.

The player from Germany was asked to complete additional wagering of his funds, even though the player considers the requirement unwarranted and wants to withdraw his winnings. The player confirmed the withdrawal was successful.

The player's requesting a refund of his deposits as he was not supposed to play in the casino. Although the player was registered from his jurisdiction in the past, he simply lost his funds by playing in the casino, so a refund is not possible. The casino also refused to provide him with the reward from a tournament (bonus money), which we accept because General Bonus terms and conditions apply - the casino has the right not to provide it. The casino acted correctly and in accordance with its terms and Conditions. After gathering all the necessary data and details, we decided to close the complaint as unjustified.

The player from India has requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting this complaint. The payment hasn’t been processed yet. The player later confirmed that the withdrawal was processed successfully, therefore we marked this complaint as resolved.

The player from Hesse has requested a withdrawal prior to submitting this complaint. Unfortunately, their winnings haven’t been received yet. It came to light that the player had used her friend's device and e-mail address to register her account. Unfortunately, this is directly against the terms and conditions of the casino, so the complaint was ultimately rejected.

The player from North Rhine-Westphalia has submitted a withdrawal request less than two weeks prior to contacting us. Winnings haven’t been obtained up to this day. The complaint was rejected because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from the Netherlands has been accused of breaching bonus terms by placing single bets greater than the allowed ones. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Germany has tried to block her account on several occasions. Unfortunately, all the enquiries were ignored. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Germany has requested a withdrawal. The payment has been split into smaller installments as per weekly withdrawal limit rule. We’ve rejected this complaint as per the player’s explicit request.

The player from Italy had deposited €20 to receive a bonus and submitted verification documents on 11/11/2024, but she had not received a confirmation email. She sought to know the status of her account verification and to withdraw her winnings of €100. The issue was resolved as her account had been verified, and the player had received her winnings after a review process that took up to 5 business days. The Complaints Team marked the complaint as 'resolved' following confirmation of payment receipt.

The player from Finland was unable to complete KYC verification as the casino consistently rejected the passport pictures she provided, citing unclear images. She highlighted that the same pictures had been accepted by other casinos and felt frustrated, suspecting this might have been a tactic to delay withdrawals. The issue was resolved when the player submitted a new clear photo of the passport, which was accepted, and her account was verified. The complaint was marked as 'resolved' by the Complaints Team.

The player from Germany had been awaiting a withdrawal of 906 Euros since 13th May. He confirmed that he was KYC verified and had not made any previous withdrawals. The winnings were accumulated after using a bonus received for verifying his phone number. The player later confirmed that he had received his withdrawal. We had marked the complaint as resolved following the successful resolution of the player's issue.

The player from Germany had been waiting for her winnings for over two months. Despite completing the verification process and being promised expedited service by the support team, she had not received her winnings. The issue was resolved after the player confirmed receiving the payout. The complaint was marked as 'resolved' by us, acknowledging both the player's and the casino's cooperation.

The player from France had had an issue with a delayed withdrawal at the casino. After fulfilling all wagering requirements and verifying his account, his withdrawal had been delayed for five days due to issues in the casino's finance department. The casino had responded stating that the player, who was from Ukraine, had a withdrawal request that was under review by the Finance team and would be updated within five business days. The winnings, which were from a free sign-up bonus, were to be adjusted to EUR 100 plus the amount of the verification deposit. The player later confirmed that the issue had been resolved and the funds had been withdrawn. We had marked the complaint as 'resolved' in our system.

The player from Norway had experienced delays with account verification at Betmaximus, which also affected his withdrawal process. Despite having submitted all required documents, he hadn't received a prompt response from the casino. After several days of waiting, the player's account had finally been verified, but his withdrawal was still pending. Eventually, the player had received his money and requested the case to be closed. The issue had been successfully resolved by the Complaints Team.

The player from Ireland, who had relocated to England, was unable to withdraw €430 from Goldwin Casino due to additional verification requests. Despite having provided the required documents, the casino had stopped responding. The player expressed dissatisfaction with the resolution process, citing concerns about the casino's legality in the UK. The player stated that he table matched the money out, leading to the conclusion that the issue was resolved.

The player from New Zealand had deposited $20 to Goldwin 32 hours prior via Skrill. Despite the funds being withdrawn from the Skrill account, the casino claimed the issue was being escalated, while Skrill confirmed the problem was on the merchant's side. The casino later credited the missing deposit and informed the player. The player expressed frustration over not receiving a bonus initially added to the deposit. The casino clarified that a bonus could not be activated post-bet but offered 40 free spins as a goodwill gesture. The Complaints Team closed the complaint as resolved since the deposit was credited.

The player from Canada faced difficulties verifying his account due to a disagreement with the casino on the required documents. Despite enjoying the selection of games, he couldn't deposit or withdraw his $1700 winnings because of the ongoing verification issue that lasted for 2 weeks. The issue was resolved after the player provided an official bank statement showing the transactions made to the casino, which the casino then approved. The player confirmed receiving his winnings, and the complaint was marked as resolved by us.

The player from Germany had complained about a pending withdrawal request made on 26th March. The player had been fully verified and had used a credit card for transactions. She had described the withdrawal process as unsmooth and felt the casino's support team was unhelpful. However, the issue was resolved when the player received her winnings. Consequently, we had marked this complaint as 'resolved'.

The Australian player had won a significant amount of money, which upon attempting to withdraw, was informed that the winnings had been forfeited for not playing the free spins that were part of their deposit. They felt the stipulation of using free spins was being used by the casino as an excuse not to pay out winnings. After reviewing the case, we found that the player had not fulfilled the wagering requirements of the bonus within the stipulated time frame. However, the casino representative had clarified that the player had chosen a regular wagering bonus for the first time and failed to meet the wagering requirements. As a one-time exception, the casino had agreed to reinstate the confiscated balance. The player had confirmed the receipt of his winnings and the issue had been successfully resolved.

The player from Germany had had a problem with a delayed withdrawal request of €1650 from Goldwin Casino since 06/02/24. The casino had initially confirmed the transaction on 20/02/24, but it had allegedly been rejected by the player's bank two days later. The player's subsequent attempts to withdraw had been unsuccessful due to an invalid BIC Swift code. After several interactions and clarifications from the casino and the complaints team, the player had been able to correctly request the withdrawal. Eventually, the player had confirmed that the full amount had been successfully transferred to his account.

The player from Germany had encountered issues with a €250 withdrawal from an online casino due to verification problems. The casino had requested a gas, water, or electricity bill for verification, which the player only received annually. After nine days, the player had confirmed that the verification issue was resolved. Consequently, we had marked the complaint as 'resolved' in our system.

The player from the United Kingdom had had an issue with her withdrawal request of £500 due to her having lost her bank card. The casino's finance team had requested proof of ownership for the lost card, which she had provided through bank statements and photographs, but these had been rejected. She had then been blocked from accessing her account and emailing customer support. After several correspondences between the player, the casino, and the Complaints Team, she had been able to provide the necessary documents and information to verify her account. The player had then been advised to cancel and resubmit her withdrawal request, which she did. Despite some frustration over the time it had taken for the process, the player had eventually received her withdrawal. The issue had been successfully resolved.

The player from Norway is attempting to have his account closed due to gambling issues but the casino is not complying with his requests. The casino informed us that the player's account has been blocked on the same day, so we closed this complaint as resolved.

The player from North Rhine-Westphalia submitted a withdrawal request less than two weeks prior to contacting us. Winnings haven’t been obtained up to this day. The casino started processing withdrawals in weekly installments, therefore we marked the complaint as resolved.

The player was dissatisfied with the casino tournament as there is a maximum win limit for the prize. The casino had informed the player that upon gaining the second place prize in the tournament, the prize money of EUR 3600 must be wagered 50 times and would have a maximum cashout of EUR 100, because it was classed as a "free bonus'. There was no mention of this in the promotional terms and conditions, and due to these restrictions, it would be easier to achieve the maximum winnings of EUR 100 by coming in last place, as you would have to wager a smaller amount of prize money. We considered this to be very unfair and stated that the player should be paid their prize in full. The casino refused to change its position on this, and instead offered the player the same amount of prize money with a smaller amount of wagering and a larger amount of maximum cashout. We still considered this to be unfair, but eventually the player begrudgingly decided to accept the offer as there was no better option. As the player and the casino came to an agreement, the complaint was closed as 'resolved'.

The player from Sweden has requested a withdrawal back in January 2021. Unfortunately, winnings haven’t been received yet. We were not able to receive any relevant information or evidence from the casino, other than some claims about legal procedure, which was not confirmed by the player. The player decided to submit the complaint to the licensing authority of the casino and we have closed this complaint as unresolved. We have reopened the complaint and learned that the issue has been resolved successfully.

The player from New Zealand requested a withdrawal 2 weeks prior to submitting this complaint. It has not been received. The player later confirmed that the withdrawal was processed successfully, therefore we marked this complaint as resolved.

The player from Ukraine had experienced difficulties withdrawing her promotional winnings. After a thorough investigation, we had determined that the casino's system failed to enforce bonus restrictions properly. Initially, the casino had insisted that the player breached the terms and conditions by claiming a bonus with a code, which should not have been available to her due to her jurisdiction. However, we found that the enforcement was based on IP address rather than the country in the registration form, and VPN usage was not prohibited by the casino. Despite the casino providing evidence of a bonus code being used, the player consistently denied this. Ultimately, we reopened the complaint to give the casino another chance to resolve the issue. The casino then decided to make an exception and credit the confiscated amount back to the player's account. The player agreed to this proposal and confirmed the receipt of funds. Consequently, we marked the complaint as resolved.

The player from the Ireland was experiencing difficulties withdrawing their funds, because the option to withdraw via their preferred payment method was not available. Later, she was able to request a withdrawal via bank transfer. She confirmed she had received her funds a few days later.

The player from Switzerland had had their bonus winnings cancelled due to a violation of promotional rules. The player had disputed the casino's claim of bonus abuse and the complaint had been taken to the regulator, which had ruled in favor of the casino. The casino had offered a partial payment of $1,000, which the player had initially declined. After further discussion and reevaluation by the casino under new management, the offer had been upheld and the player had accepted. The player's account had been verified, and they had successfully received the $1,000 settlement. The complaint had then been marked as resolved.