Okay, I understand now. Thank you for explaining everything from a different perspective and angle. Yes, I did mention SRIJ and the specific online gambling license required in Portugal. As I stated, I don't have concrete evidence, and I won't fabricate any. This occurred during a chat conversation, and I can assure you that I repeatedly requested they thoroughly investigate the legality of betting in Portugal on Housebets. I asked them to have a specialist to review the information, and that I would only place bets after confirmation. Some time later, I received the email in question.
I have repeatedly requested both my complete betting history and chat logs, but all my emails and chat inquiries have been consistently ignored. I hereby authorize you to request any and all information related to my account that you deem relevant, including chat logs and betting history. As previously mentioned, I can provide you with access to my email address or Housebets credentials if you find it useful. I have nothing to hide and, unlike Housebets, I am not avoiding any questions. It is indefensible to support a casino that engages in such practices. They have misrepresented my account balance, falsely claimed ignorance of my location, and provided fabricated reasons for closing my account (Richard Hoggs), citing non-existent terms and conditions. I believe this situation arose from errors related to incorrect odds or similar issues. Would you be willing to propose a 50% settlement to them? If they refuse, we should demand the aforementioned evidence. I am exhausted by this matter and deeply appreciate your continued assistance.
I'm a bit confused. Weren't you earlier managed to get to your account? That withdrawing 10 EUR and pending for 24 hours situation? Were you not able to access them now? If you still can, wouldn't the chat session is neatly stored in your chatting history?
About account balance, again, it is already 0 due to you burning it out through wagering them. They are not "misrepresent" your account balance. It was 0 --at least fro what they explained here and to me-- the fund that you had in your account when you logged back in, was from bonus. And the term [2.1.1. is not non existent, it's there, I've read it soon after we had a talk about it being clause of "gender or color of skin" thing].
I've inquired, and they stand firm with their initial statement, what's eligible to you is what on your account. Thus, safe to say they refuse. Though it'll be "I" [you] instead of "we" that could demand for the evidence. I have no power over it, and on the high likelihood of chance, even with the authorization you gave me, it still won't work.