Nakon nekoliko internih sastanaka u vezi sa ovom žalbom, odlučili smo da je odbijemo.
Naš zaključak proizilazi iz činjenice da rad234 nije pomenuo svoju zavisnost od kockanja u četovanju; tražio je samo pauzu. Izjavio je da se nije samoisključio zbog pravila kazina. Verujemo da je trebalo da prijavi svoju zavisnost od kockanja i da podnese žalbu da mu je kazino zaplenio saldo, za šta je kazino potvrdio da se nikada nije dogodilo, a njihovi uslovi su se promenili ubrzo nakon što smo pokrenuli ovo pitanje.
Shvatamo da može postojati određena konfuzija i ponudili smo rešenje rad234, ali je on odbio i odlučio da nastavi slučaj.
Posle godinu dana, svi kazina koji koriste ovu platformu su revidirali svoja pravila kako bi bila jasnija, što cenimo; međutim, rad234 još uvek nije nadoknađen.
Drugi deo njegove tvrdnje odnosi se na druga kazina koja posluju pod istom kompanijom, a koja ne dele upravljanje i stoga ne dele svoje liste samoisključenja. Stoga, nisu bili svesni da se rad234 samoisključio zbog svoje zavisnosti od kockanja u drugom kazinu. Nakon što su obavešteni, ova kazina su odmah zatvorila račun rad234. Verujemo da bi centralni registar za samoisključene igrače u okviru iste licence/operatera bio od koristi i mogao bi sprečiti takve probleme, ali to nije standardna praksa. Shodno tome, rad234 nema pravo na povraćaj novca.
Iskreno se izvinjavamo, ali nakon godinu dana predanog truda i događaja koji su se desili, nemamo drugog izbora nego da odbacimo slučaj.
After several internal meetings regarding this complaint, we have decided to reject it.
Our conclusion stems from the fact that rad234 did not mention his gambling addiction in the chat; he only requested a break. He stated that he didn’t self-exclude due to casino rules. We believe he should have reported his gambling addiction and filed a complaint had the casino confiscated his balance, which the casino confirmed never occurred, and their terms changed shortly after we raised this issue.
We recognize that some confusion may exist, and we offered a resolution to rad234, but he declined and chose to pursue the case instead.
After a year, all casinos using this platform revised their rules to be clearer, which we appreciate; however, rad234 was still not compensated.
The second part of his claim pertains to other casinos operating under the same company, which do not share management and thus do not share their self-exclusion lists. Therefore, they were not aware that rad234 had self-excluded due to his gambling addiction at another casino. Upon being informed, these casinos immediately closed rad234's account. We believe that a central registry for self-excluded players within the same license/operator would be beneficial and could prevent such issues, but this is not standard practice. Consequently, rad234 is not entitled to a refund.
We sincerely apologize, but after a year of dedicated effort and the events that transpired, we have no choice but to reject the case.
Automatski prevedeno: