SuperLenny Casinoのレビュー

The player, James deposited £547 and won £3,587 in total. He wanted to request a withdrawal but learned that his account had been closed because he had previously closed an account at the casino's sister casino, Thrills. The casino said that the player had self-excluded himself from the sister casino, now claiming it was a different casino, Kaboo. The player said that he closed his account and provided evidence that he had received advertisements from Kaboo casino, which shouldn't happen to self-excluded people. After some back-and-forth discussion, the casino hadn't provided enough evidence to support their claims of self-exclusion of the player and the complaint stays unresolved.

The player, Iand, complained that he wanted to deposit £20 but deposited £100 by mistake. He contacted the live support and asked for a refund. However, his account got closed and when he asked for a reason, the live support replied to him that he had self-excluded himself from a sister casino site. He asked why his account hadn't been closed in the past eight months or why they had accepted his deposit. The casino then replied in the complaint that his deposit would be returned to him. There is no more information on this case available.

The player, Pandrop22, won and submitted a withdrawal for £1,400 and kept playing with his remaining balance. He was disconnected from the site and when he tried to log back in, he failed and when he tried to reset his password, he couldn't get a proper response from the support. After that, he got refunded £400 (assumed to be his deposit) and was told that his account had been closed because of a previous self-exclusion in a sister casino, Kaboo. The player said he merely closed his account there because of his losses and didn't self-exclude himself. The casino told him to forward it to an authority and that they wouldn't continue in the discussion.

The player played with a bonus and managed to complete the wagering requirements with €5,700 in total winning and sent his documents for verification. About two weeks later he received an e-mail about his account being suspended due to the evidence showing his account used the same IP address as the accounts which breached the terms and conditions of the casino. The player denied these claims and the casino replied that there's nothing more they could do and he should contact MGA if he wanted to pursue this further. There is no more information provided.

The player, Annmarryafool, had played at the casino for a few days, made multiple deposits and received multiple bonuses some of which she managed to roll over and ended up with a total of £2,728 in winning. During the few days of her playing, her withdrawals were all canceled and after she finished playing, all of her money had been removed and she was left with a £200 balance. The casino never responded to the complaint and it remains unresolved.

Player complained the casino had transferred the money to a wrong bank account. Player didn't understand this as two days prior to this withdrawal he had successfully received one withdrawal. Casino replied they had asked a bank to track down the payment and that it might take up to 16 weeks. Player was very upset about this fact, we don't know what was the final resolution of this case.

Player complained that after he had achieved some winning from a free bonus and made a deposit prior to the withdrawal of his winnings his account was suddenly blocked and the deposit returned to him. When he asked the casino for a reason they replied that the user was a fraud. Player refused strictly such accusation and provided proofs of him being in theright. He was advised to turn to the licensing authority.

Player complained he played in the casino with his real money but as his wife had already had an account there so he was not eligible for a welcome bonus. After he made some winnings his account was blocked. Casino replied this was because only one account is permitted per a household and later they also pointed out to the fact that the player had self-excluded himself from the group of casinos that belong to the same brand. Player's deposit was returned.

Player complained that after he opened an account, made a deposit, won and asked for a withdrawal his winning was seized as it turned out he had been playing from a restricted country and his winning was canceled, only the deposit returned. Player didn't understand how come he had been able to play despite being from a restricted country. Casino replied that it was stated in the terms and conditions and the situation of him being able to play was temporary, then they said it was due to a technical issue. Player was advised to seek further help with the licensing authority.