Kære Mohammed , desværre har jeg ingen gode nyheder til dig, og den endelige beslutning vil slet ikke gøre dig glad.
Efter at have præsenteret denne sag for mine kolleger og supervisorer, blev det aftalt, at den indledende samtale med livechat-agenten den 23. februar var for vag til at blive klassificeret som en anmodning om selvudelukkelse. Da du ikke har nævnt yderligere problemer med ludomani eller andre spilleproblemer (kun diskuteret lukning af konto og hævning af penge), vil denne samtale ikke blive taget i betragtning i denne klage. Ordet "gamble" er et udtryk, der bruges for meget i spillebranchen, og derfor er det ikke en klar beskrivelse af et spilleproblem.
Derfor er din første officielle omtale af en ludomani fra den 26. februar, ifølge de fremlagte skærmbilleder af samtalen med live chat-agenten - leveret af både dig og casinoet. Ifølge vores politikker burde dette have været undersøgt yderligere af live chat-agenten, da enhver omtale af ludomani bør tages meget alvorligt og ikke overlades til tilfældighederne. Efter den 24-timers periode, som casinoet skal behandle enhver anmodning om selvudelukkelse, burde din konto have været lukket siden den 27. februar 2025. Dette skete ikke, før du sendte en anmodning om selvudelukkelse den 19. marts, og kontoen er blevet lukket inden for 24 timer. Casinoet var enig i, at samtalen den 26. burde have været forløbet anderledes, og din konto burde have været lukket siden den 27. februar.
RTbet har derfor også accepteret at refundere alle indbetalinger foretaget mellem den 27. februar og den 19. marts, hvilket er 100 € (indbetalt den 28. februar), og jeg mener, at du allerede har modtaget beskeden om, at betalingen behandles. Da du har været i stand til at hæve din resterende saldo på 500 € den 1. marts, er der intet andet at refundere. De fremlagte beviser er ikke væsentlige, og det er blevet besluttet, at denne sag skal afvises.
Jeg undskylder dybt for at have vækket dine forhåbninger, men jeg troede (og gør det stadig), at samtalen den 23. burde have været håndteret helt anderledes af live chat-agenten. Nu forstår jeg dog, at hvis vi havde insisteret på denne sag, som jeg gjorde, ville vagheden i din oprindelige udtalelse skabe en dårlig præcedens for uærlige spillere, der forsøger at misbruge reglerne for selvudelukkelse i fremtiden. De kunne misbruge dette med deres klager - og påpege denne sag som et bevis på, at det er nok at sige ordet "gamble" på nogen måde for at få deres indbetalinger tilbage. For at sikre, at reglerne ikke misbruges i fremtiden, vil denne sag derfor blive afvist. Forhåbentlig har jeg forklaret dette godt nok, men hvis du har yderligere spørgsmål, vil jeg besvare dem efter bedste evne - uanset om du lægger dem her eller sender dem via e-mail.
Denne klage har dog afsløret problemer, som RTbet Casino skal håndtere, hvis vurderingen skal forblive så høj, som den er lige nu. Jeg vil fortsætte samtalerne med casinorepræsentanterne for at igangsætte ændringen og gennemføre den, ud over denne klage. Vi mener, at et casino med et sikkerhedsindeks på 9+ bør undersøge enhver omtale af ordet "gamble" eller "gambling", især når man taler med en person, hvis modersmål ikke er engelsk, for at sikre, at intet går tabt i oversættelsen. Det er meget bekymrende, at agenten ikke spurgte om årsagen til anmodningen om kontolukning den 23. februar. For at gøre tingene værre ignorerede live chat-agenten, selv i diskussionen fra den 26. februar, den direkte omtale af ludomani og holdt kontoen åben, hvilket kunne have endt dårligt for spilleren. Da de afhængige spillere ikke kan kontrollere deres udgifter, og deres afhængighed rammer tilfældigt, skal de beskyttes. Dette er imod politikken for ansvarligt spil og skal håndteres, sammen med de urimelige vilkår, der truer spillerne med at miste saldoen, hvis de beslutter at lukke deres konto. Vi vil samarbejde med casinoet om enten at justere vilkårene for en fair version, der beskytter både casinoet og de afhængige spillere, eller justere vurderingen i overensstemmelse hermed.
Jeg holder denne tråd åben indtil videre, i tilfælde af yderligere spørgsmål eller kommentarer. Bagefter vil sagen blive lukket som 'afvist'.
Dear Mohammed, unfortunately I don't have good news for you, and the final decision will not make you happy at all.
After presenting this case to my peers and supervisors, it was agreed that the initial conversation with the live chat agent on 23rd February was too vague to class as a self-exclusion request. As you have not mentioned any further issues with gambling addiction or any other gambling problems (only discussed account closure and withdrawal of funds), this conversation will not be taken into account for this complaint. The word "gamble" is a term too widely used in gambling business, and therefore it is not a clear statement of a gambling problem.
Therefore, your first official mention of a gambling addiction is from the 26th February, according to the provided screenshots of the conversation with the live chat agent - provided by both you and the casino. According to our policies, this should have been investigated further by the live chat agent, as any mentioning of the gambling addiction should be taken very seriously, and not left to chance. Following the 24 hour period the casino needs to process any self-exclusion request, your account should have been closed since 27th February 2025. This did not happen until you have sent a self-excusion request on 19th March, and the account has been closed within the 24 hours. Casino agreed the conversation on the 26th should have gone differently, and your account should have been closed since 27th February.
As such, RTbet also agreed to refund any deposits made between 27th February and 19th March, which is 100€ (deposited on 28th February), and I believe you have already received the message about the payment being processed. Since you have been able to withdraw your remaining balance of 500€ on the 1st March, there is nothing else to be refunded. The evidence provided is not substantial, and the decision has been made that this case will have to be rejected.
I deeply apologise for raising your hopes, but I did believe (and still do) that the conversation on 23rd should have been handled completely differently by the live chat agent. Although, now I understand that if we insisted on this case as I did, the vagueness of your initial statement would create a bad precedence for dishonest players trying to abuse the self-exclusion rules in the future. They could misuse this with their complaints - pointing out at this case as a proof that saying the word "gamble" in any way is enough to get their deposits back. Therefore, to ensure rules are not being misused in the future, this case will be rejected. Hopefully I managed to explain this well enough, but if you have any further questions, I will answer them to the best of my abilities - whether you post them here, or send them via e-mail.
However, this complaint has exposed issues that will have to be addressed by the RTbet Casino, if the rating is to stay as high as it is right now. I will continue the talks with the casino representatives, to initiate the change and see it through, outside of this complaint. We believe that a casino with safety index of 9+ should be investigating every mention of the word "gamble" or "gambling", especially when talking to someone whose first language is not English, to ensure nothing is lost in translation. The fact that the agent was not asking for the reason of the account closure request on 23rd February, is very worrying. To make matters worse, even in the discussion from 26th February, the live chat agent ignored the direct mentioning of gambling addiction, and kept the account opened, which could have ended up badly for the player. As the addicted players can't control their spendings and their addiction strikes at random, they need to be protected. This is against the responsible gambling policy, and will have to be addressed, alongside the unfair terms threatening players with losing the balance if they decide to close their account. We will work with the casino on either adjusting the terms for a fair version that will protect both casino and the addicted players, or readjust the rating accordingly.
I will keep this thread opened for now, in case of further questions or additional comments. Afterwards, this case will be closed as 'rejected'.
Automatisk oversættelse: