Hi guys,
I want to make one thing clear, 99% of all documents uploaded to our site is approved with no further actions, we also approve a lot of foreign documents. A small part of the documents uploaded to our site our security team must either reject or in some cases ask them to be notarized like in the OPs case.
If OP don't want to notarize his document, he is welcome to upload a new utility bill, bank statement, government issued letter, neteller screenshot or skrill screenshot of his account. All documents would go through the same process and if we are able to verify it, there is no need to take any further actions like notarization. Currently the only document we requested to be notarized was the specific utility bill the OP uploaded as we had some concerns with it. We rarely ask for this, but yes in some cases we do.
Our high security level is due to the regulations we need to follow and also to protect ourselves and our customers from any payment frauds. The less fraud we have, the cheaper rates we get to process payments. This is one of the major reasons why we do not need to take out a fee on deposits for our customers as many other casinos do.
Regarding bank reference, we have so far never asked for it as we rarely need to reject any bank statements. After reading all the feedback from this thread, this is something we will never ask for as we understand your feedback regarding the privacy issues. Thank you for all the ongoing feedback we get from you guys, we really appreciate it!
//Philip
Perhaps your CS haven't communicated properly with the player on this. As far as it appears from this thread, the issue was down to the utility bill being in a language the casino staff could not understand, and further, they could not see the date of this bill, even though it was in a universal format such as 09/02/2015 for today. CS also rejected the previous bill for being "too old", which means they COULD read the date. Is it any wonder therefore that the player saw this as "jerking around" rather than there being a specific issue as described. Since both bills are effectively the same, why was the earlier one also not rejected on the grounds that the staff couldn't understand it and also could not read the date?
The "99% are OK" argument is a very common one that companies resort to when things like this happen. It avoids them having to answer the question "why me then?" from an ordinary customer, who sees no reason why he is not also "one of the 99%" mentioned.
If it's a utility bill, then this should be standard enough for the player to be in the 99%. The 1% should really be those players who have a non standard lifestyle, such as living off the mains grid (thus no utility bill), perhaps relying on mobile phone and broadband as their only link to the outside world.
Players don't like notarised documents because this isn't something one comes across in normal everyday life, not even for some of the most security conscious activities like opening a bank account where regular documents are fine.
It is starting to look like this player WAS getting the run around simply because they questioned the level of intrusion involved when it was suggested a bank statement would be fine, but only if they provided details of someone at the bank the casino could phone.
Saying that a mere screenshot of their Neteller or Skrill account would be fine after all this seems very odd indeed. The account holder would of course be verified as per Neteller/Skrill procedures, but we know that this does NOT suit casinos, who MUST conduct their own checks. There is also no address shown on screen, so it's possible that the screenshot could be of someone else's Neteller account.
If genuine documents are getting rejected, then there is a deficiency in the verification process. Casino security teams also seem to be less effective than the average notary when it comes to determining whether or not a document is genuine.
Maybe the root of the problem is that players do not have a decent guide on how to prepare their documents, scan or photo them, and send them off in a suitable format for casinos to verify.
The document in question here was accepted at a number of competitor casinos before it got rejected here. Either those others were fooled by a dodgy document, or the security team here got it wrong.
One of the main impacts such problems can have is that it makes players reluctant to sign up at new casinos when they are just fine at the ones they are playing at. This achieves the opposite effect to that of the expensive marketing efforts being used to bring in new players, which includes persuading players to ditch their current casino in favour of something new. The impact is not just on the 1% of players affected, it's also on the 99% who have so far not run into problems, but feel that because there is no consistency in approach, they are just as likely to suffer their first problem at the next casino they sign up to as any other player, rather than because they have non-standard documents.
This is WHY there have been calls for a universal standard and scheme for players getting a one-time verification that will then work like a passport to each and every casino on the web. Since the ultimate aims of the process are the same, it shouldn't be hard to create a universal standard and solution. The sticking point seems to be that nobody trusts anyone else, and that's on the industry side, not the players, who are expected to trust the industry to always play fair.
Am i just too naive, maybe. In nearly 2 decades of online gaming i never even thought about opening multiple accounts to claim the bonuses multiple times. How often and how much can you realistically win considering that withdrawals are mostly limited to an X amount of the bonus&deposit. Sitting there grinding bonuses all the time for a few hundred bucks seems like wasting time to me and all the time you have to be careful not to raise any red flags...
