ThePogg logo unclaimed offers
Turn geolocation on
Locale settings

Currently viewing:

English in United Kingdom – your source for reliable information about online gambling.

  • Over 2k complaints managed and $2 million returned to players.
  • The largest collection of detailed casino reviews available online.
  • Bonus value reports to tell you how bonuses really compare.
  • Detailed game guides to help you learn to play.

I certify that I am over 18 years of age and I have read and agreed to the:

We respect your privacy and won't share your email address.
[X] Close this form and return to site

Casino Complaints Important Rulings

This article details the significant rulings that this site has made while dealing with the various casino complaints that have been submitted to us. These rulings have been gathered into a single page to ensure that similar future complaints are handled in a consistent manner.


Player Responsibilities

Casino Responsibilities

Player Responsibilities

It is the player’s responsibility to ensure that they can receive email communications from any casino they sign-up to

During a case that arose at InterCasino we had to look at how we would respond to a player claiming not to have received an email communication from a casino. Here is what we concluded;

In the case of email communications – it is the player’s responsibility to ensure that they can receive emails from any casino they interact with, and if the emails do not go directly to their inbox, to monitor their junk mail folders in case of important communications. Excluding circumstances wherein the email is returned as undeliverable to the casino, it will be assumed that the player has received and understood the communication regardless of response.

You can read the full details of this case at

It is the player’s responsibility to ensure that any reasonable requests for permission to discuss their account with our mediation team is accommodated.

During a case that arose at Casino Midas the casino requested that the player provide them with written permission for them to discuss the details of their account. The player refused to provide requested permission. Here is what we concluded;

I’ve had to think long and hard about how this case would be marked up. In the case where a casino refuses to provide supporting evidence related to a complaint yet claims that the player has breached terms a complaint would usually be marked as ‘Unresolved’ as we have a he said/she said situation wherein there is not enough available evidence to support either party.

This is the first instance we’ve encountered of a player creating the obstacle to continued discourse. My first thought was to treat this in the same fashion as the casino refusing to share evidence, but there is one critical difference – in any complaint proceeding the casino is completely identifiable while the player is completely anonymous. This leads to an imbalance wherein the casino who refuse to communicate is subject to a report that highlights ambiguity regarding their behaviour which has the potential to negatively impact their reputation while the player who choose to impede the discussion can just dispose of the username they posted the complaint under and start fresh under another assumed name, allowing a player with a grudge to inflict potentially damaging press exposure on a casino while ensuring that they suffer no negative consequences even in a social sense.

As such I’ve made the decision that in the situation where a complaint cannot be fully addressed due to the player choosing to be the obstruction to the mediation process the complaint will be marked in not in favor of the casino, but as Resolved.

As such complaints where the player refuses to provide permission to discuss their account will automatically receive a ‘Resolved’ status.

You can read the full details of this case at

Bonus features triggers/rounds commenced while playing with a bonus may not be postponed until after the bonus wagering requirement is reset to zero.

During a case that arose at Platinum Play the issue of a player delaying bonus feature triggered during play with a bonus until after the associated wagering requirement was reset was raised. Here is what we concluded; will not support players who delay or withhold playing bonus features or claiming winnings on any game until after the wagering requirement has been reset. Any player that engages in this strategy is creating a false positive to reset the wagering requirement that they are contractually obliged to complete. Casino softwares are usually programmed to reset the wagering requirement at a player balance of zero to prevent the carry over of the wagering requirements on to non-connected deposits.

Where we find a player has engaged in such a strategy, we will support the confiscation of bonus and winnings. The only funds that we will support the return of are the involved deposit.

You can read the full details of this case at

Where several complaints from apparently unrelated players appear to be connected this will reflect negatively on the complainant.

During 3 cases that came in close succession against Lucky247 – 2 complaints coming in shortly after the resolution of the first, all about the same problem and with the first not having been published – it quickly started to appear as if the players in question were either colluding or the accounts were being run by one individual. Here is what we concluded;

From this point on situations where I find suspicious associations between complaints are likely to be held against the submitting players. I will do my best to ensure that coincidental factors are ruled out but had I been aware of all of the facts prior to dealing with these complaints my recommendations to the casino would likely have been different.

You can read the full details of this case at, and

Where a player breaks promotional terms and conditions they will void their rights to any benefits received from use of the promotion.

In May 2015 we were asked to review a case where a player had their winnings voided after breaking the maximum allowed bet rule at Leo Vegas. The player accepted that they’d broken the rule, but as there was no specific reference to the consequences that would result if they broke the term that they should be allowed to keep their winnings less the winnings from bets that actually breached the term. Our conclusion was as follows;

Where a player break the rules that they agreed to in order to receive a promotion from a casino, the contract is considered null and void. At this point the starting conditions for the contract should be re-applied (i.e. the bonus and any winning will be removed and the deposit returned). Casino’s may vary from this position but that is at their discretion.

The justification for this is simple – if the casino had intended only the bets that breached terms and conditions to be discounted from wagering requirements or voided, they would have clearly stipulated that. The rule in place simply stated that the player was not allowed to bet over a pre-defined limit. Read the full report here –

Casino Responsibilities

It is the casino’s responsibility to ensure that if the convey any important information to the player via a phone call or other verbal communication that this information is then followed up in an email

During a case that arose at InterCasino we had to look at how we would deal with a situation wherein a casino claim to have communicated information vital to the outcome of the case via a telephone call which the player denies having received or having been told. Here is what we concluded;

Important communications from either party should always be conducted over email to leave a paper trail. If a communication occurs verbally, it should always be followed up with written correspondence summarising the content of the communication. This is essential to ensure that all important communications are documented in case of future dispute.

You can read the full details of this case at

All terms and conditions must be easily accessible to players if they are to be enforced

During a case that occurred at Boyle casino we had to consider how we would react to a situation where a casino is enforcing a rule that is difficult of count intuitive for the player to locate or familiarize themselves with. Here is what we concluded;

If a casino wishes to enforce any term or conditions, the term in question must be easily accessible to the player. This means that the rule either has to be included in the General Terms and Conditions or be attached to the specific promotional page related to the promotion. The exception to this is if the player is prompted in software at the time they receive said promotion with a link to the terms and conditions.

You can read the full details of this case at

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland sits to the north-west of mainland Europe. The United Kingdom shares a border with The Republic of Ireland and has coasts on the Atlantic Ocean, Celtic Sea, North Sea, Irish Sea and English Channel. The population of the UK is approaching the 67.6 million mark leading to a fairly densely populated land mass. The gambling sector in the United Kingdom is entirely regulated and licensed by the UKGC – the United Kingdom Gambling Commission. Should players resident In the UK wish to gamble with foreign based operators there is no history of this being treated as a criminal offence, but high levels of protection exist for UK residents playing with UK licensed operators.


The above information is what we believe to be the the legal status of online gambling, however information on this topic is limited and hard to find. We accept no liability for any errors or ommissions. It is the reader’s responsibility to ensure that they know the legality of online gambling in their country before engaging with any online gambling service.