Complaint Case
OpenComplaint BCP-2026-0090 — VegasVault 88
The player reported being able to re-register and deposit shortly after a documented self-exclusion, with no cooling-off check applied. This is a player-safety issue rather than a balance dispute. We are pressing the operator on its responsible-gambling controls.
Amount disputed
€0
Outcome (example)
€0
Date filed
25 May 2026
Category
Self-exclusion breach
Case timeline
-
25 May 2026
Complaint submitted by the player
-
27 May 2026
Case verified and operator contacted
-
3 Jun 2026
Responsible-gambling controls queried; awaiting response
Resolution
Unresolved — we are seeking confirmation that self-exclusion is enforced across re-registration. Case remains open.
What to do if this happens to you
Work the problem in order. First, raise it with the casino’s support in writing and keep every screenshot, email and transaction ID. If that stalls, escalate to the regulator named on the operator’s licence or its approved dispute-resolution (ADR) body — that’s who can actually compel an outcome. You can also report the casino to us: we don’t arbitrate, but a pattern of reports feeds an operator’s score on our Trust Index, so it pulls a casino down our rankings. For free, confidential help, see responsible gambling.
What “Open” means here
An “Open” case is still in active mediation: it has been logged and the operator contacted, but no final outcome is confirmed yet. We update this record as the dispute moves forward.
Money you have to fight to withdraw is a reminder that gambling should stay entertainment — never a way to make money or to chase losses. If an operator’s behaviour is affecting you, our responsible-gambling guide lists free, confidential support and self-exclusion tools you can use at any time. 18+ only.
PII-safe record. This case is an illustrative example with no personal data — it refers only to "the player" — and VegasVault 88 is a fictional operator name used to show how our complaint process works. 18+ · Play responsibly.