This is vegas not paying me RE: documents

[bryand]

You never know Chuchu......CM carries a big stick

[jerrylee]

$100 deposits $700 something withdrawal, no bonus.

I've had my documents rejected 3 times due to it being unclear. I've never had to resend my documents at other casinos before. The 3rd time at this casino I made sure it was extra clear (see attachment). I don't see how this can be unclear. I would like maxd to mediate something if possible because my scanner can not get any clearer I've tweaked the settings as best I can.

I've PMed the rep here to see what he has to say about this.

there seems to be a communication breakdown between the casino and the player. The casino customer service could have been more explicit in their request instead of saying send a clearer document.
however giving them the benefit of the doubt, RipRidah how about you paste your correspondence with them here?

I agree with Rhyzz, this so called CC statement has no identifying information, not even your name, address, account number (for privacy reasons you can probably cover up most digits). Most casino verification teams would want to see the whole page, not a snippet like this.

[winbig]

there seems to be a communication breakdown between the casino and the player. The casino customer service could have been more explicit in their request instead of saying send a clearer document.
however giving them the benefit of the doubt, RipRidah how about you paste your correspondence with them here?

I agree with Rhyzz, this so called CC statement has no identifying information, not even your name, address, account number (for privacy reasons you can probably cover up most digits). Most casino verification teams would want to see the whole page, not a snippet like this.

If you read above, he told us that he only posted *part* of the document that he sent the casino.

[jerrylee]

If you read above, he told us that he only posted *part* of the document that he sent the casino.

yeah I just realized that and was going to edit. you beat me to the punch.

suggestion for future posters: include all your pertinent info in your first post, then people won't assume stuff if they haven't read further

[elscrabinda]

In this case, I believe its coincidence rather than CM. I have said this before. Rival casinos dont use this as a tactic for non-payments. My own experience was that my docs were approved within 24 hours.

They most definitely do use this as a tactic, maybe not for non-payment but for delayed payment. I had an almost identical issue with them where i went to ever greater lengths to ensure that the documents were completely legible (despit my initial scans being perfectly acceptable in my eyes). Their funniest reason for rejecting them was that they were the wrong way up! I guess they haven't heard the joke about the person sacked from the M&M factory for throwing away the Ws.

[thisisvegas]

I haven't been here in a while, busy with business side of the industry and life too but making an effort to post. This isn't CM at work and that screenshot to me doesn't tell me anything other than a person has a credit card limit with Bank of America. Either way I am glad it is sorted out but documents are rarely rejected unless there is a good reason such as insufficient information such as displaying name and address or sometimes the documents can be low quality and barely visible. Again this is a rare event but the CSR and security team handle that. I can sometimes mediate if players need help. If you have my email then I can get on top of it.

Cheers,

John

[vinylweatherman]

I haven't been here in a while, busy with business side of the industry and life too but making an effort to post. This isn't CM at work and that screenshot to me doesn't tell me anything other than a person has a credit card limit with Bank of America. Either way I am glad it is sorted out but documents are rarely rejected unless there is a good reason such as insufficient information such as displaying name and address or sometimes the documents can be low quality and barely visible. Again this is a rare event but the CSR and security team handle that. I can sometimes mediate if players need help. If you have my email then I can get on top of it.

Cheers,

John

The OP said that he EDITED what was sent to Rival, and that the FULL statement was what was sent. From the clarity of the segment posted, I would expect the rest of the image to exhibit similar clarity.
When CS reply to a player that a document is "unclear", they then try to fax or scan it in a better way, so if it is MORE than simply "unclear", such as not being the correct document, then CS SHOULD SAY SO.

Not all named documents actually contain what the casino REALLY wants, it is down to the individual company that sends the bill. Sometimes, bills cover more than one page, and the information the casino wants may not be on the page the PLAYER believes is the one the casino wants.

Often, a copy of a government ID and utility bill is requested, but often nothing about WHY. The request should be more specific, such as asking for the utility bill page showing the ADDRESS of the player, and similarly with credit card bills, maybe it is the ADDRESS that is wanted, and NOT the statement page containing transactions and credit limits.

Often, it seems player and casino get stuck in a loop, with the player trying all sorts of ways to get a clear copy of a document, only to be forever told it is "unclear" by the casino. If "unclear" means that the page does not contain the address, for example, than no amount of retrying is going to result in a "clear" document. This then soon looks like a stalling tactic to the player, who believes their document is more than clear enough already, and then takes the dispute public.

It would help no end if you could say WHY the OP initially had the documents rejected as "unclear", and then suddenly accepted later when he posted this thread and showed us how "unclear" the image quality of the document was by posting a segment that does not contain his personal details. The conclusion drawn was that it was "pressure from CM" that pushed this through, and this implies that the document that was previously "unclear" has miraculously become "clear" after this thread appears.
You say this is not the case - but this is how it looks.