Hilsen alle,
For at være ærlig, håber jeg inderligt, at kasinoet laver sjov med os nu.
Så hvis jeg forstår det rigtigt, trak kasinoet processen ud i mere end et halvt år, mens det forsøgte at finde nogen grund til ikke at betale brugerens legitime gevinster og være i stand til at betale mindre eller intet trods alt (selvom vi var villige til at give nogle indrømmelser), men beskyldte derefter brugeren for hans langvarige inaktivitet på deres platform i over seks måneder? Derudover henviste kasinoet til klagerens manglende svar på klagen i en længere periode, mens det var kasinoet, der var årsag til situationen og den forlængede sagsbehandlingstid, fordi vi stort set ventede hovedsageligt på kasinoets udtalelser og endelige afgørelse det meste af tiden?
Med hensyn til den sidste sætning - hvis spillere skulle opleve en jævn og retfærdig spilleoplevelse, skal casinoet i første omgang angive alt klart i sine vilkår og betingelser, bør ikke lade spillere falde i fælder, som det skete i dette tilfælde, og bør håndhæve deres vilkår og betingelser på sin side - ikke for at vælge for hvilke bonusser, hvilke indstillinger/begrænsninger der skal håndhæves, og for hvilke bonusser der ikke må overtrædes, hvilket tillader spillere uden at vide det. Derudover, som det blev forklaret flere/mange gange, er de anvendte regler skabt af nogle grunde, men casinoet har ikke bevist nogen uretfærdig fordel, som spilleren kunne have opnået ved at spille på den beskrevne måde (at spille et begrænset spil med en aktiv bonus) indtil nu overhovedet, og det var en fejl fra casinoets side, at han overhovedet fik lov til at spille et sådant spil med en aktiv bonus. Den anden del af anklagerne var at spille et begrænset spil (et Live Casino-spil), efter at bonusomsætningskravene var fuldt ud opfyldt, og efter at saldoen allerede var flyttet til en saldo med rigtige penge (udtagelig) og fjernet fra alt relateret til den anvendte bonus eller bonusmidler/gevinster. Derfor blev det anset for irrelevant at spille et begrænset spil efter at have mødt WR'erne og opnået muligheden for at hæve midlerne som rigtige pengesaldo uden yderligere begrænsninger som en grund til at konfiskere brugerens gevinster.
Så vi besluttede at tage spillerens side. Vi accepterede i sidste ende kasinoets 'kompromis'/'undtagelse' som en løsning, kun fordi klageren var i stand til og villig til at acceptere det trods alt, selv efter at kasinoet dybest set ikke gav ham noget andet valg (på trods af, at de uden for tråden hævdede, at de kunne have diskuteret og/eller forhandlet løsningen med spilleren videre, hvis han havde insisteret på at udbetale gevinsten end det halve år, hvilket tog mere end et halvt år). (der henviser til retfærdighed og gennemsigtighed på deres side) for at casinoet skal bekræfte, at de kun kan betale halvdelen af de omstridte gevinster.
Pludselig kom casinoet hertil med den genovervejede beslutning om ikke engang at betale halvdelen af brugerens gevinster af ukendte årsager.
Baseret på alt det ovenfor anførte, lukker vi denne klage som 'uløst', hvilket vil påvirke casinoets vurdering på en negativ måde.
Kære dsp99RF ,
Der er endnu en mulighed for, hvordan du kan forsøge at løse dit problem eller fremskynde processen - jeg anbefaler, at du kontakter den spillemyndighed, som casinoet er reguleret af (Comorerne - AOFA) og indsender en klage direkte til tilsynsmyndigheden, eller ADR, hvis casinoet oplyser noget på dets hjemmeside.
Du er velkommen til at finde mere om AOFA's klageproces HER , eller generel information om klageprocesser hos tilsynsmyndigheder i vores artikel HER .
I tilfælde af spørgsmål eller nyheder fra regulatoren, tøv ikke med at kontakte mig på branislav.b@casino.guru .
Jeg ville ønske, jeg kunne være til mere hjælp. Jeg håber inderligt, at du ikke støder på et problem som dette igen.
Kasinoet kan genåbne denne klage når som helst, og jeg tror oprigtigt på, at de vil bruge denne mulighed i fremtiden til at rette op på tingene.
Venlig hilsen,
Branislav, Casino.Guru
Greetings all,
To be honest, I sincerely hope the casino is kidding us now.
So, if I understand correctly, the casino was dragging the process out for more than half a year, while trying to find any reason not to pay the user's legitimate winnings and be able to pay less or nothing after all (although we were willing to make some concessions), but then blamed the user for his prolonged inactivity on their platform for over six months? In addition, the casino referred to the complainant's lack of response to the complaint for an extended period, while it was the casino who caused the situation and the prolonged processing time because we were basically waiting mainly for the casino's statements and final decision most of the time?
As for the last sentence - if players should experience a smooth and fair gaming experience, in the first place, the casino should state everything clearly in its Terms and Conditions, should not let players fall into traps as it happened in this case, and should enforce their Terms and Conditions on its side - not to choose for which bonuses which settings/restrictions are enforced and for which bonuses not, allowing players to breach rules unknowingly. In addition, as was explained several/many times, the applied rules were created for some reasons, but, the casino has not proven any unfair advantage that the player could have gained by playing the described way (playing a restricted game with an active bonus) until now at all, and it was a mistake on the casino's side that he was allowed to play such a game with an active bonus at all. The second part of the accusations was playing a restricted game (a Live Casino game) after the bonus wagering requirements were fully met and after the balance was already moved to a real money (withdrawable) balance and cleared from anything related to the bonus used or bonus funds/winnings. Therefore, playing a restricted game after meeting the WRs and gaining the possibility to withdraw the funds as real money balance, without further restrictions, was considered irrelevant as a reason to confiscate the user's winnings.
So we decided to side with the player. We ultimately accepted the casino's 'compromise'/'exception' as a solution only because the complainant was able and willing to accept it after all, even after the casino basically did not provide him with any other choice (despite claiming outside the thread that they could have discussed and/or negotiated the solution with the player further if he had insisted on paying the winnings in full, which is not true), which took more than half a year of dragging the process out (referring to fairness and transparency on their side) for the casino to confirm they can pay only half of the disputed winnings.
Suddenly, the casino came here with the reconsidered decision not to even pay half of the user's winnings for unknown reasons.
Based on all the above-stated, we are closing this complaint as ‘unresolved’, which will influence the casino’s rating in a negative way.
Dear dsp99RF,
There is one more option for how you can try to resolve your issue or speed up the process - I recommend you contact the gaming authority the casino is regulated by (Comoros - AOFA) and submit a complaint directly to the regulator, or ADR if the casino states any on its website.
Feel free to find more about the AOFA's complaint process HERE, or general information about complaint processes with regulators in our article HERE.
In case of any questions or news from the regulator, do not hesitate to contact me at branislav.b@casino.guru.
I wish I could be of more help. I sincerely hope you will not come across a problem like this again.
The casino can reopen this complaint anytime, and I sincerely believe they will use this option in the future to make things right.
Best regards,
Branislav, Casino.Guru
Redigeret af en Casino Guru admin
Automatisk oversættelse: