Player dispute resolution centre

If a licensed operator is holding your money, you have more leverage than you think — but only if you use it in the right order and keep the paperwork. This centre is free, open to any player, and works the same way whether or not the operator is a commercial partner of ours. Read the escalation section before you send anything: the regulator that licenses the platform is usually the party that can actually change the outcome.

File a dispute

Fill in the form below. Complete it after you have raised the matter with the operator and received an answer — or waited a reasonable time for one — because that is the first thing any regulator or ADR body will ask about. If you have not contacted the operator yet, read What to do first with the operator further down this page and come back.

What this centre is — and what it is not

We are a publisher with a research desk, not a regulator and not a court. That distinction decides what we can realistically do for you, so we would rather state it plainly at the top than let you discover it in week three.

The five disputes we see most often

1. The withheld withdrawal

A withdrawal sits 'pending' or 'processing' indefinitely, is silently reversed back into the playable balance, or is repeatedly re-queued while support recites the same processing window. Reversal into the balance is the dangerous version: it is designed, deliberately or not, to be played back. If it happens, stop playing immediately and re-request the withdrawal, because a balance you have gambled away is a dispute you can no longer win.

2. The verification deadlock

Documents are rejected without a reason, or accepted and then re-requested; a source-of-funds check appears only after a win; the operator asks for material you cannot lawfully or practically supply. Identity checks are a legal obligation and are not in themselves misconduct. It becomes a dispute when the requests are open-ended, arrive only after a payout is requested, or the operator will not state in writing what specific document would close the check.

3. Winnings voided on a bonus term

The most common single cause of refused payouts. A maximum-stake breach while wagering, a game that turns out to be excluded, a deposit method that disqualified you from the promotion, or an undefined 'irregular play' clause invoked after the win. Some of these are genuine breaches; some are terms so vague they can be applied to any winner. The bonuses page explains which clauses are normal and which are red flags.

4. Account closed with a balance in it

The account is closed or frozen for an alleged terms breach — duplicate account, a shared address or payment instrument, a prohibited country, arbitrage or advantage play — and the balance is confiscated with it. Closing an account is usually within an operator's rights. Keeping the player's own deposited funds very often is not, and the two questions must be argued separately: first the closure, then the money.

5. Self-exclusion that was not honoured

You self-excluded, and the operator let you deposit and play again — through a new account, a sister brand, or a self-exclusion that quietly expired. This is the most serious category on the list and the one regulators treat most severely, because it is a licence-condition failure rather than a commercial dispute. Report it to the regulator directly as well as to the operator, even if you do not want the money back. Our responsible gambling hub lists national self-exclusion schemes that cover every licensed operator at once.

What to do first with the operator

Almost every regulator and every ADR body will refuse a case that has not been through the operator's own complaints procedure. That step is not a formality to be endured — it is where you build the record that decides the case later.

1. 1

   Move the conversation into writing

   Live chat is fine for the first question, but download or screenshot the transcript before you close the window; many platforms delete chat history when an account is closed. Then send the complaint by e-mail so there is a dated record neither side can edit.

2. 2

   Use the words 'formal complaint'

   Regulated operators must run a defined complaints procedure with escalation stages. Naming it triggers that procedure and starts the clock. Ask explicitly for the name of their approved ADR body and their complaints reference number.

3. 3

   State the facts, the clause and the remedy

   One page: what happened, on what dates, the amount, the clause you say applies (or the one they have invoked), and precisely what you want — payment of a stated sum, or a written final response. Do not argue, threaten or send twelve e-mails; a calm one-page complaint is far harder to deflect.

4. 4

   Ask for a final response in writing

   A written refusal is worth more to you than a vague delay. ADR bodies and regulators generally need either a final response or evidence that a reasonable period has passed without one — in the UK that period is eight weeks from the date of your complaint.

5. 5

   Preserve everything, immediately

   Export your transaction and bet history, save the terms and the bonus terms as they stand today (a PDF print with the date visible), and keep the e-mail thread intact. Evidence disappears when an account is closed, and it is nearly impossible to reconstruct afterwards.

The evidence that decides cases

• The exact domain you played on, and the operating company named in its terms — brands run multiple domains under different licences, and the wrong one sends your complaint to the wrong regulator.
• A full transaction history: deposits, withdrawal requests, reversals and their timestamps, exported rather than screenshotted where the platform allows it.
• Bet or game history covering the disputed period, including the specific spins or hands the operator says breached a term.
• The complete terms and conditions and the promotional terms, saved as they were on the day you deposited, with a visible date.
• The entire support thread: chat transcripts, e-mails with full headers, and every ticket reference.
• Verification correspondence: which documents you sent, on what date, in what format, and the exact wording of any rejection.
• Payment-side proof: bank or card statements, or the on-chain transaction hashes for crypto deposits and withdrawals.
• For a self-exclusion case: the date and method of the exclusion, the confirmation you received, and proof that you were subsequently allowed to deposit.

Screenshots should show the full window including the URL and system clock. A cropped image of a balance proves nothing; a full-window capture with the address bar visible is hard to dispute.

How our process runs

1. 1

   Day 0 — you submit

   Use the form above or e-mail the disputes desk directly. Attach what you have; a case with evidence attached moves several days faster than one without.

2. 2

   Within 2 working days — acknowledgement and scope check

   We confirm receipt and tell you whether the case is one we can help with. If it is out of scope — an unlicensed operator with no register entry, a matter already before a court, or a request for legal advice — we say so immediately and point you to the body that can help, rather than leaving you waiting.

3. 3

   Within 5 working days — assessment

   We identify the licensing regulator for that specific domain, read the clause the operator is relying on against the terms as they stood on your deposit date, and tell you in plain language how strong your position is. If evidence is missing, you get a precise list of what to obtain.

4. 4

   Within 10 working days of a complete file — we write to the operator

   A written summary of the facts, the clause at issue and the remedy sought goes to the operator's complaints or partner contact, on the record, with a requested response window of 14 calendar days. You are copied on everything; nothing is agreed on your behalf.

5. 5

   Mediation, or escalation

   If the operator responds, we relay the offer and give you our honest view of whether it is reasonable. The decision is always yours. If there is no resolution within 30 calendar days of our first letter, we close the mediation stage and hand you a complete file formatted for the regulator or ADR body — that is the point where the leverage shifts.

6. 6

   Outcome and publication

   Outcomes feed back into the operator's score under the Ranking Protocol. A verified pattern of non-payment opens a blacklist investigation. We never publish your name, account details or documents without your written consent.

These are stated targets for a small editorial team working European hours, not a contractual guarantee. If a target slips, reply in the same thread rather than opening a new case — a duplicate submission restarts the triage. Other desks and their response times are on the contact page.

Escalating to the regulator or an ADR body

This is the part most players skip, and it is the part with actual force behind it. First find out who licenses the domain you played on: the licensee's name and licence number are in the platform's terms and, if the licence is genuine, on the regulator's own public register. If you cannot find the operator on a public register, there is no regulator to escalate to — which is precisely why our Ranking Protocol refuses to score a platform whose licence cannot be verified.

Two practical notes. First, file with the regulator that licenses the domain you actually played on, not the group's best-known licence — global brands operate different entities for different markets, and the wrong filing is simply returned. Second, keep filings factual and dated; adjudicators read documents, not adjectives. Our comparison tables and brand guides show which licence each platform we test operates under.

What outcomes are realistic

• Full payment. Most common where the operator's own terms do not support its refusal, where verification simply stalled, or where a strong regulator is watching. Many cases resolve at the moment a written, evidenced complaint arrives.
• Partial or goodwill settlement. Frequently the deposit is returned but bonus-derived winnings are not, or a capped amount is offered. This is often the rational outcome to accept where the term genuinely was breached — but decide it on the evidence, not on fatigue.
• Refusal upheld. Sometimes the operator is right: a maximum stake was exceeded, a duplicate account existed, the country was excluded. We will tell you when we think that is the case, because a case you cannot win is better abandoned early than pursued for months.
• Regulatory action without personal recovery. Especially with the UKGC route: your report contributes to enforcement and licence conditions even when it does not return your balance. Self-exclusion breaches often end here, and they still matter.
• Nothing recoverable. With an unlicensed or legacy-offshore operator this is the likely result. The honest advice is to check the register before depositing — an unverifiable licence is the single strongest predictor of a payout problem.
• Publication. Verified non-payment patterns lead to a blacklist entry and a score revision. That is the one outcome we control entirely, and it is why the case record matters even when a single player cannot be made whole.