This Mr Spin review is a retrospective record of a UK mobile casino that closed in September 2023. It explains the closure, the former product, its regulatory history and bonus terms, while giving legacy account holders practical direction on unresolved balances and complaints.
Mr Spin Casino launched in 2016 as a mobile-first, GBP-only slots site operated by In Touch Games Limited. Its £3 phone-payment threshold was its clearest point of difference for players comparing pay by phone casinos UK, but the casino and its apps no longer operate following the surrender of the operator’s licences on 4 September 2023.
| Detail | Info |
|---|---|
| Licence | Bingo (Remote), Casino (Remote) and Gambling Software (Remote); all surrendered 4 September 2023 |
| Operator | In Touch Games Limited, Great Charles Street, Birmingham |
| UKGC account number | 2091 |
| Established | 2016 |
| Status | Closed; mrspin.co.uk no longer operates |
| Game count | Around 70 exclusive in-house slots, plus one roulette title |
| Welcome bonus | 50 free spins with no deposit required, plus a 100% first-deposit match up to £100 |
| Bonus code | No Mr Spin bonus code was published for the recorded welcome offer |
| Minimum deposit | £3 by Pay by Phone; £5 by every other method |
| Withdrawal speed (stated) | 1 to 5 business days for cards; up to 24 hours for e-wallets |
| Withdrawal speed (player-reported) | Usually 2 to 7 days, often longer when identity documents were requested again |
| Wagering requirement | 40x |
| Currencies | GBP only |
| Languages | English only |
| Mobile | Former iOS and Android apps; both are no longer supported |
| Support | Telephone 24/7, plus live chat and email while operating |
Quick verdict: we cannot recommend Mr Spin because it is closed and has no active operating licence. Its strongest feature had been genuinely low-entry mobile play, led by a £3 Pay by Phone minimum, but its greatest drawback was the operator record that culminated in suspension and the surrender of all three licences.
Mr Spin Casino was operated by In Touch Games Limited under Gambling Commission account number 2091, under operating licence 002091-R-104264-033. The company head office was on Great Charles Street in Birmingham. It held Bingo (Remote) and Casino (Remote) licences from 24 December 2010, followed by a Gambling Software (Remote) licence from 3 August 2014.
That historical licensing should not be confused with present authorisation. A licence suspension was announced on 1 September 2023, and In Touch Games surrendered all three operating licences on 4 September 2023. Mr Spin subsequently stopped operating, so an old account, advert or app installation does not represent access to a currently licensed casino.
The surrender also took mFortune, PocketWin, Dr Slot, Cashmo, Jammy Monkey, Bonus Boss, Casino2020 and Slot Factory offline. These names belonged to the same operator and are not independent alternatives. Our archived mFortune casino review therefore provides related historical context rather than somewhere to move an account or balance.
The closure followed a substantial enforcement record. In Touch Games received regulatory penalties of £2.2 million in 2019, £3.4 million in 2021 and £6.1 million in January 2023. The £11.7 million combined total related to social-responsibility and anti-money-laundering failures. That sequence matters more than the mere fact that the business once possessed licences: it shows repeated regulatory intervention before the final suspension and surrender.
For that reason, a current safety assessment is straightforward. Mr Spin Casino cannot be treated as an active, licensed destination, and readers should not attempt to deposit through an old page, saved payment instruction or unsupported application. Its past licence provides a regulatory record, but it does not make the closed service available today.
A person who still believes Mr Spin owes them money should treat the matter as a legacy balance claim, not as a routine withdrawal request. Preserve account emails, screenshots, transaction references, bank or e-wallet statements, identity-document requests and any complaint correspondence. Record the amount claimed and the dates of the last deposit, withdrawal request and operator response so that the issue can be explained consistently.
Old support details may help establish what communication previously occurred, but they should not be regarded as a guaranteed live resolution channel. If a payment provider was involved, the player can ask that provider what evidence and dispute options remain available. Regulatory concerns can also be reported to the relevant authority, although reporting misconduct is different from obtaining an individual payment decision.
Cashmo closed through the same licence surrender, so information about the Cashmo brand family should be used to understand the common operator history, not to redirect a claim. Moving between related brand names would never have changed the company responsible for the account.
No current Mr Spin dispute process can be relied upon now that the casino has closed. A former player should avoid paying anyone who promises guaranteed balance recovery, should not send fresh identity documents to an unconfirmed address and should never make another payment supposedly required to release old winnings. Independent legal advice may be appropriate where the sum is material or the ownership of a demand is unclear.
Mr Spin’s former account controls cannot be accessed or relied upon as current protections. A closed account also does not remove the need to address gambling-related financial or emotional harm. Players should review recent payment activity, place practical limits on any gambling elsewhere and avoid trying to recover a Mr Spin loss through larger stakes at another casino.
Anyone affected by harmful gambling can use GamCare counselling resources for confidential support. Practical safeguards can include a fixed entertainment budget, a firm time limit, payment blocks offered by a bank and a complete break when gambling is no longer enjoyable or affordable.
The regulatory penalties against In Touch Games included social-responsibility failures, so this subject is central to the historical assessment rather than a routine disclaimer. Even when an account dispute is genuine, chasing the disputed amount through further play is not a recovery strategy. The balance claim and the decision whether to gamble elsewhere should be treated as separate matters.
The Mr Spin welcome bonus belonged to the closed casino and cannot now be claimed. Historically, it combined a no deposit casinos UK offer of 50 free spins with a 100% first-deposit match up to £100. The headline sounded generous, but 40x wagering and separate win caps sharply limited the value.
The deposit side can be followed as a complete numerical chain. A player depositing £100 received a 100% match of £100, producing a resulting balance of £200 before play. Applying the stated 40x Mr Spin wagering requirements to the £100 matched bonus created £4,000 of required turnover: £100 multiplied by 40 equals £4,000.
At a stated example stake of £1 per spin, that turnover represented 4,000 spins. Completing those spins did not make every resulting pound withdrawable because winnings attributable to the bonus credit were capped at £50. A player could therefore meet £4,000 of turnover and still face the £50 maximum-win restriction on the bonus portion. Our wagering requirements guide explains why required turnover and withdrawable value must be considered separately.
The Mr Spin no deposit bonus formed a second chain. It began with 50 free spins, carried the same 40x wagering requirement, and ended at the same £50 ceiling that applied to winnings converted from bonus credit. If those spins produced £5 of provisional winnings, for example, multiplying £5 by 40 created £200 of required turnover before any of it could be withdrawn. Clearing that turnover did not lift the ceiling: whatever survived the playthrough was still capped at £50.
This hypothetical £5 result illustrates the arithmetic without assigning a per-spin cash value the operator never published. The decisive terms were the number of spins, the 40x multiplier and the £50 conversion ceiling. The combination meant that the apparent headline quantity was not a reliable measure of cash value.
The 50 Mr Spin free spins required no deposit, but any winnings arrived as bonus funds carrying 40x wagering, and the amount that could ultimately be converted was capped rather than open-ended. Which titles the spins could be played on was never recorded consistently across the sources that survive, so this page does not present a single eligible game as settled fact. Those conditions made the promotion materially different from free spins that credit uncapped real-money winnings without turnover.
Players comparing historical promotions through our free spins casinos UK page should therefore compare eligible game, wagering multiplier and win cap alongside the number of spins. Fifty spins could look stronger than a smaller headline, yet a firm conversion ceiling limited what they could actually return.
The matched-deposit element had a different ceiling. It matched the first deposit by 100% up to £100, while the maximum win from the free bonus credit was £50. The same £50 ceiling governed both routes, because winnings from the no-deposit spins were themselves credited as bonus funds before they could be converted.
In retrospect, the Mr Spin welcome bonus was easy to notice but difficult to rate highly. The no-deposit route removed the need for an initial payment, yet 40x wagering and the £50 conversion ceiling placed a low limit behind the 50-spin headline. The deposit match offered more bonus credit but imposed £4,000 of turnover on a fully matched £100 bonus and capped the bonus-derived win at £50.
The offer’s strongest point was access: a person could play without depositing at all. Its weakness was the relationship between effort and possible return. Thousands of pounds of turnover could be required in the £100 worked example while the maximum permitted result from the bonus credit remained much smaller than the turnover.
There is no live decision to make now because the casino is closed. An old promotional email does not reactivate the terms, and any displayed bonus graphic should be treated as historical content rather than an invitation. No payment should be made in response to a message claiming that the former offer can still be released.
The Mr Spin sign up process was designed around the mobile-first product. The desktop site required a mobile number before a user could reach the full game set, while iOS and Android apps supported the intended mobile journey. Registration and bonus use belonged to the period when the casino was operating; neither route should be attempted through an unsupported app today.
Readers searching “Mr Spin register” are often looking for an old account rather than a genuine new-registration page. They should search their own email and payment records for account identifiers, preserve any balance evidence and avoid entering credentials into pages reached through unsolicited messages. Passwords reused on another service should be changed there as a precaution.
No Mr Spin promo code was published for the recorded welcome package. The promotion was defined by the 50 free spins, the 100% match up to £100, the 40x requirement and the ceiling that applied to winnings converted from bonus credit. A legacy advert asking for a new code or deposit does not alter the fact that mrspin.co.uk no longer operates.
Mr Spin’s verified promotional record establishes the former welcome package, but it does not establish exact recurring weekly or monthly rewards. Related branding should not be mistaken for a separate promotional network: the Jammy Monkey casino review concerns another closed In Touch Games brand, not an independent casino where Mr Spin rewards survived.
No dependable schedule of weekly or monthly offers remains applicable to the closed site. Consequently, it would be misleading to assign values, wagering terms or expiry periods to recurring deals. The only promotion that can be described numerically is the welcome package: 50 no-deposit spins and a 100% match up to £100, both carrying 40x wagering and a £50 ceiling on winnings converted from bonus credit.
The phrase Mr Spin cashback also appears in searches, but the verified product facts do not provide a cashback percentage, qualifying-loss calculation or payment schedule. It should not be used as a reason to follow an old advert. Any claimed continuing cashback arrangement would require a functioning operator and active terms, neither of which exists for Mr Spin.
No numerical points rate, tier threshold or loyalty conversion value can be stated for Mr Spin. That limitation matters because a loyalty programme cannot be evaluated without knowing how much play generated a reward, how long points lasted and what restrictions applied when they were exchanged.
Former players should treat any remembered status or points as part of their legacy account evidence. Screenshots and dated messages may support a balance enquiry, but they do not make rewards redeemable through another In Touch Games brand. Every named sister brand taken offline by the surrender shared the same operator event.
Mr Spin games centred on a compact selection of exclusive in-house slots rather than broad casino coverage. The catalogue ran to roughly 70 titles. The historical Bonus Boss casino review covers another brand removed through the same surrender and should not be read as a current alternative.
Mr Spin slots came almost entirely from the In Touch Games in-house studio, which built its own exclusive titles rather than licensing a broad third-party catalogue. The emphasis on exclusive internal content helped give the casino a recognisable identity, but a range of roughly 70 games was narrow even before considering the categories it omitted.
The small library could suit a player who wanted a focused mobile slots product, and this was the strongest aspect of the content offer. It also created obvious limits: someone wanting hundreds of games, several independent studios or a broad mixture of casino formats would have exhausted the available choice more quickly.
Slot Factory also appeared among the brands taken offline when In Touch Games surrendered its licences. Its appearance in the provider record should not be taken as evidence that any associated service remains accessible. The same caution applies to cached game pages and unsupported app listings.
There was no Mr Spin live casino. The site offered no live-dealer lobby, and the verified product consisted of its limited slots catalogue. This was not a hidden category or a mobile-only feature; players looking for streamed tables needed a genuinely different operator even while Mr Spin was active.
The absence of live casino games was a material disadvantage because it removed an entire style of play rather than merely reducing the number of tables. It also made comparisons based solely on welcome bonuses incomplete: game coverage was substantially narrower than at a mixed-category casino.
Mr Spin did not offer blackjack or baccarat. Table-game coverage extended only to a small selection built around a single roulette title, Roulette Gold, so it never filled the gap left by the missing live casino. AskGamblers also recorded no progressive jackpot wins at the brand, so the site should not be remembered as a jackpot destination despite marketing that suggested otherwise. The defensible description is therefore a mobile slots casino, not a full-service casino with slots as one department.
There was also no sportsbook, and omitting sports betting from the assessment is deliberate. A person searching for one account covering slots, tables, live games and betting would not have found that range at Mr Spin.
The defining product feature was mobile access. Dedicated iOS and Android apps existed, and the desktop experience required a mobile number to unlock the full game set. That structure reinforced the brand’s phone-led identity, especially alongside Pay by Phone deposits starting at £3.
No additional numerical tool set can be attributed to the game lobby. The meaningful comparison points are the exclusive catalogue size, the provider list and the categories that were absent. Both former apps are now unsupported, so an old installation should not be treated as a safe or functioning route to games or account data.
The Mr Spin minimum deposit was £3 through Pay by Phone and £5 through every other listed method. Visa, Mastercard, PayPal, Skrill, Bank Transfer, Paysafecard, Apple Pay and Pay by Phone were available while the site operated. The following times keep operator statements separate from the broader experience reported by players.
| Method | Minimum Deposit | Withdrawal Time (Operator Stated) | Withdrawal Time (Player Reported) | Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Visa | £5 | 1 to 5 business days | 2 to 7 days overall, often longer after repeated identity requests | None published |
| Mastercard | £5 | 1 to 5 business days | 2 to 7 days overall, often longer after repeated identity requests | None published |
| PayPal | £5 | Up to 24 hours | 2 to 7 days overall, often longer after repeated identity requests | None published |
| Skrill | £5 | Up to 24 hours | 2 to 7 days overall, often longer after repeated identity requests | None published |
| Bank Transfer | £5 | The operator did not publish a method-specific time | 2 to 7 days overall, often longer after repeated identity requests | None published |
| Paysafecard | £5 | The operator did not publish a method-specific time | 2 to 7 days overall, often longer after repeated identity requests | None published |
| Apple Pay | £5 | The operator did not publish a method-specific time | 2 to 7 days overall, often longer after repeated identity requests | None published |
| Pay by Phone | £3 | The operator did not publish a method-specific time | 2 to 7 days overall, often longer after repeated identity requests | None published |
Maximum-win restrictions and withdrawal rules answered different questions and should be kept separate. The following table records the former caps without implying that the operator published weekly or monthly payout ceilings.
| Limit | Position when the site operated |
|---|---|
| Maximum win cap on winnings converted from bonus credit | £50 |
| Wagering requirement on bonus and free-spin winnings | 40x |
| Weekly withdrawal limit | The operator never published a figure |
| Monthly withdrawal limit | The operator never published a figure |
| Withdrawal fees | No fee schedule survives in a retrievable published source |
A search for a Mr Spin withdrawal limit should not produce a guessed weekly or monthly amount. No weekly cap was stated in the published terms, and the operator never published a monthly figure. No fee schedule for small withdrawals survives in a retrievable published source either.
The stated Mr Spin withdrawal time was 1 to 5 business days for cards and up to 24 hours for e-wallets. Player experience was less favourable: withdrawals were consistently reported at 2 to 7 days, with longer waits where identity documents were requested again.
That distinction is essential when comparing historical claims with fast payout casinos. The operator’s published processing window described its intended service, whereas the player-reported range showed what customers said they actually experienced. The repeated-document issue could extend the process beyond either headline.
The Mr Spin payout record was therefore mixed at best. E-wallet users were shown an attractive 24-hour maximum, but reports of 2 to 7 days undermined that promise as a dependable expectation. Card users had a wider stated window from the outset, and business days could make the elapsed calendar wait feel longer.
Identity checks became particularly important around withdrawals because players reported being asked to provide documents again. The available facts do not establish a fixed document checklist or guaranteed verification period, so neither should be invented. What can be said clearly is that repeated requests were associated with waits beyond the usual 2-to-7-day reports.
A legacy account holder should preserve every request and response in date order. The casino payment dispute guide explains how to organise transaction evidence and distinguish an ordinary processing delay from a payment dispute. Any fresh request for sensitive information should be checked carefully because the former casino itself is no longer operating.
Useful evidence includes the amount requested, the destination payment method, the date of the request and copies of earlier verification correspondence. Documents should not be sent to a new address merely because a message uses the Mr Spin name. A former customer should first establish who controls the channel and why the information is needed.
No withdrawal fee schedule survives in a source that can still be retrieved. Payment tables recorded by third parties during the trading period list no charge on any method, and the operator terms that would settle the question are no longer reachable, so this page does not assert a fee it cannot evidence. A former customer who believes a charge was applied should raise it with the payment provider that processed the transaction.
Mr Spin supported GBP only and operated in English only. That simplified currency presentation for UK players, but it offered no alternative currency choice. No separate foreign-currency calculation should be added to the historical record.
The absence of published weekly and monthly caps remains a transparency weakness. It prevented players from knowing whether a larger balance would be paid in one transaction or divided over time. A precise figure cannot responsibly be supplied where the operator never published one.
Mr Spin mobile access was the centre of the product rather than a secondary version of the desktop site. Dedicated iOS and Android applications existed, and a desktop visitor needed to provide a mobile number to reach the full selection. The £3 Pay by Phone deposit reinforced that phone-first design.
The Mr Spin app is no longer supported. It should not be installed from an unofficial archive, used to submit payment details or trusted as a route to a legacy balance. Historical pages about sites like Dr Slot describe another brand affected by the same surrender, not an active replacement app.
For account recovery, an old handset may still contain useful screenshots, emails or transaction notifications. Those records should be copied to a secure location without attempting to make the application function again. A remembered login screen does not demonstrate that an operator remains behind it.
Mr Spin customer service previously consisted of telephone support available 24 hours a day, plus live chat and email. Published chat hours were recorded inconsistently across the sources that survive, with AskGamblers listing round-the-clock availability against narrower windows elsewhere, so no single chat window is asserted here. That was broad channel coverage on paper, particularly for a compact slots casino, but it represents historical availability rather than a current service promise.
A former customer should use existing correspondence to document earlier contact attempts and responses. If a telephone number or email address appears in an old message, its present ownership should be confirmed before personal or financial information is shared. The closure means that response expectations from the operating period no longer apply.
The user experience prioritised mobile play, a limited in-house catalogue and low-deposit access. That focus could make the proposition easy to understand: it was a GBP slots product rather than a large mixed casino. However, requiring a mobile number to reach the full desktop game set added friction for anyone who preferred browsing on a computer.
The narrow library also reduced the value of navigation tools because there were only about 70 games to explore. The more serious current UX problem is final rather than cosmetic: the website no longer operates and the apps are unsupported. Any surviving interface is a historical artefact, not a usable casino journey.
Third-party records captured in July 2026 give sharply conflicting impressions. Mr Spin Trustpilot sentiment was overwhelmingly weak, Casino Guru had no user-review sample, and AskGamblers showed a high player rating beside a very low site rating and a terminated listing. Reddit adds context but should not be treated as a scored review platform.
| Source | What Players Praise | What Players Criticise |
|---|---|---|
| Trustpilot, captured July 2026: 1.4 out of 5 from 787 reviews, labelled “Bad” | The 787-review profile did not produce broad positive sentiment at an overall score of 1.4 out of 5 | The source’s combined player verdict was the “Bad” rating of 1.4 out of 5 |
| Casino Guru, captured July 2026: Safety Index 7.9, “Above average”; entry refreshed May 2024 | No player praise was recorded because the page had no user reviews and said “Not enough data” | No player criticism was recorded because the page had no user reviews; the source separately marked the casino closed |
| Discussion served only as corroborating colour and carried no review count or numerical score | Discussion corroborated reports of withdrawals taking 2 to 7 days and sometimes longer after renewed identity requests | |
| AskGamblers, captured July 2026: player rating 8.3 out of 10 from 70 reviews | Players produced an 8.3 out of 10 rating from 70 reviews; response averaged 1 day across 3 complaints | AskGamblers gave its own rating of 1 out of 10 and terminated the listing for being unresponsive |
The Mr Spin Trustpilot profile was claimed in May 2017 and stood at 1.4 out of 5 from 787 reviews in July 2026. That is the largest supplied review sample and carries the platform’s “Bad” label. It should not be converted to a ten-point score or blended with ratings from another source.
Casino Guru’s Safety Index was 7.9 and labelled “Above average”, not “High”. The page also stated that the casino was closed and contained no user reviews at all, displaying “Not enough data”. Its safety assessment was therefore not a player-sentiment score, and the absence of reviews prevents any claim that Casino Guru users praised or criticised particular features.
AskGamblers presents the most striking split. Its player rating was 8.3 out of 10 from 70 reviews, yet AskGamblers’ own rating was only 1 out of 10 and the listing was terminated for being unresponsive. Across 3 Mr Spin complaints, the average response time was 1 day. The quick historical response figure did not prevent the later termination.
No single rating should override the closure and regulatory record. The scores answer different questions, use different scales and come from different sample sizes. Trustpilot reflects 787 reviews, AskGamblers reflects 70 player reviews, and Casino Guru contains no user-review sample at all.
The largest failure was not the size of the game catalogue or the design of the bonus. It was the operator’s repeated regulatory record. Penalties of £2.2 million in 2019, £3.4 million in 2021 and £6.1 million in January 2023 reached £11.7 million in total and concerned social-responsibility and anti-money-laundering failures. Suspension followed on 1 September 2023, with every licence surrendered three days later.
Withdrawal performance was another major weakness. Cards were stated at 1 to 5 business days and e-wallets at up to 24 hours, yet players consistently reported 2 to 7 days, sometimes longer when identity documents were requested again. No weekly or monthly withdrawal ceiling was ever published either, so a player holding a larger balance had no way to know whether it would be paid in one transaction or split across several.
The bonuses placed severe caps behind eye-catching headlines. Fifty no-deposit spins carried 40x wagering and a capped conversion. A full £100 match created £4,000 of turnover at 40x while bonus-credit winnings were capped at £50. The Mr Spin casino review record must give those restrictions equal prominence to the number of spins and percentage match. A 40x requirement would not be permitted at all today: from 19 January 2026 the Gambling Commission capped bonus wagering at ten times the bonus value under Social Responsibility Code 5.1.1.
Product breadth was also weak. There were only around 70 slots, with no blackjack, baccarat or live casino. Anyone tracing what became of the wider group can use our page on Cashmo sister sites, which maps the In Touch Games family rather than pointing readers towards a live replacement.
That narrowness mattered commercially as much as editorially. A player who wanted roulette variants, a live dealer room or a jackpot network had to hold a second account elsewhere, which undercut the convenience argument the mobile-first design rested on. Comparisons with other mobile-first brands of the same era remain instructive, provided they are read strictly as history. Readers using the Jackpot Mobile Casino review for that purpose should judge each operator record separately and should not assume that an archived mobile brand remains available.
Finally, the third-party picture was too poor and inconsistent to provide reassurance. Trustpilot showed 1.4 out of 5 from 787 reviews, AskGamblers terminated the listing for being unresponsive and gave it 1 out of 10, and Casino Guru had no user reviews despite its 7.9 Safety Index. The eventual closure makes those weaknesses conclusive for present-day readers.
MrQ is the relevant current comparison because it combines UK slots with mobile-oriented payments, but it is genuinely independent. MrQ is operated by Tek Fox Ltd under Gambling Commission account number 60629, whereas Mr Spin was operated by In Touch Games Limited under account number 2091. Our full MrQ casino review covers the live product in greater depth.
On bonus value, Mr Spin offered 50 no-deposit spins plus a 100% match up to £100, both carrying 40x wagering and a £50 ceiling on winnings converted from bonus credit. MrQ offers 100 free spins after a first deposit of £10. Those spins are restricted to Big Bass Splash, valued at 10p each and must be used within 48 hours, but MrQ states that there is no wagering requirement and winnings are uncapped and credited to the real-money balance.
On game count, the difference is decisive. Mr Spin carried around 70 exclusive in-house slots, a single roulette title and no live casino, blackjack or baccarat. MrQ has over 900 games across slots, Megaways, Slingo, live casino, table games and bingo. MrQ therefore wins both numerically and in category coverage.
On withdrawal speed, Mr Spin stated 1 to 5 business days for cards and up to 24 hours for e-wallets, while players consistently reported 2 to 7 days and sometimes longer. MrQ advertises processing within 60 seconds or it pays the customer £10, with payouts typically reaching customers in under 24 hours. The active commitment is substantially clearer than Mr Spin’s former service.
On support quality, Mr Spin ran a 24-hour telephone line alongside live chat and email. MrQ provides live chat and a help centre, and its public response record supplies the stronger current measure: it replies to 96% of negative Trustpilot reviews, typically within 24 hours.
Overall experience also favours MrQ. In July 2026, Mr Spin held a Trustpilot rating of 1.4 out of 5 from 787 reviews and was labelled “Bad”. MrQ stood at 3.9 out of 5 from 15,590 reviews and was labelled “Great”. MrQ also operates now, while Mr Spin closed after its operator surrendered every licence.
MrQ is consequently the stronger option on bonus value, game count, withdrawal speed and overall experience, and it is the only one of the two still trading. Support is the one axis where the comparison is not one-sided: Mr Spin carried a 24-hour telephone line, which MrQ does not advertise, even though MrQ answers public complaints far more consistently. That does not make any casino suitable for every reader, and the £10 MrQ minimum is higher than Mr Spin’s former £3 Pay by Phone threshold, but the operational and regulatory distinction is fundamental.
This page is for former customers, people encountering an old Mr Spin advert and readers trying to understand why the casino disappeared. Mr Spin Casino is closed, its apps are unsupported and In Touch Games Limited surrendered all three licences on 4 September 2023. Nobody should attempt to register, deposit or revive the former bonus.
A person who believes money remains outstanding should preserve transaction records, account messages, screenshots and identity-request correspondence. They should verify any contact channel before sharing personal information, ask the relevant payment provider about available dispute options and obtain independent advice where the balance is substantial.
Readers seeking a live replacement should choose a genuinely separate licensed operator and compare current terms rather than moving between old In Touch Games brands. Our coverage of new casinos UK can help with that comparison, but licence status, withdrawal rules, wagering and maximum-win caps should always be checked before any payment.
The final verdict is negative: Mr Spin’s low £3 phone deposit and focused mobile slots experience were distinctive, but they cannot outweigh £11.7 million in regulatory penalties, reported withdrawal delays, restrictive bonus caps and permanent closure. If gambling causes stress, financial pressure or an urge to chase losses, stop, set firm payment and time boundaries, and seek confidential support before playing anywhere else.
Dermot Heathcote
Senior Casino Analyst
Dermot covers UK-licensed online casinos for WagerPals, focusing on UKGC compliance, payment safety, and bonus terms. He spends most of his time reading licence registers, withdrawal terms, and player-complaint forums so readers don't have to.
