Betsson/BetSafe..too stringent?

[dionysus]

If I understand correctly, Betsson acquired Nordic and Maxino.
Both places I've withdrawn, docs approved.
Since Betsafe is part of the group, sent my ID/documents; denied! Odd, since it's the SAME ID I'm already using at their sisters. Are the standards higher now that Betsson has acquired them? Will Nordic and Maxino want new docs now?

 

[mrmark21]

If I understand correctly, Betsson acquired Nordic and Maxino.
Both places I've withdrawn, docs approved.
Since Betsafe is part of the group, sent my ID/documents; denied! Odd, since it's the SAME ID I'm already using at their sisters. Are the standards higher now that Betsson has acquired them? Will Nordic and Maxino want new docs now?

That's weird, I've had a similar issue though at Nordicbet... I gave them copies of the ID i've given other casinos (including 32 Red and Intercasino) and apparently they need new identification, I didn't ask what they wanted because honestly I'd prefer to stick casinos that don't give me the run around.

 

[dionysus]

Casinos are strange. I have the same ID and doc on my computer to send. The vast majority go, 'ok, all good' like 32Red, JetBull, WillHill, while a couple like CW, Betsafe go 'no, sorry, so sad'

 

[mrmark21]

I have the same ID and doc on my computer to send.

Same here

 

[Tirilej]

So you guys can waste your time here writing all these posts, discussing how strange casinos are.
But you can not take the time asking why the documents are not good enough, send them in another format, or just maybe talk to a rep or something?

In my eyes you look more strange than the casinos

 

[dionysus]

So you guys can waste your time here writing all these posts, discussing how strange casinos are.
But you can not take the time asking why the documents are not good enough, send them in another format, or just maybe talk to a rep or something?

In my eyes you look more strange than the casinos

Or, YOU could ask and not presume. I am in contact with the casino. Just because I post here for feedback and opinions does NOT mean I'm not pursuing other avenues. I was curious, because some players play at Bettson, so I was curious if their standards were higher.
I'm not wasting MY time. If I'm wasting yours, you arent obligated to post.

 

[Tirilej]

Or, YOU could ask and not presume. I am in contact with the casino. Just because I post here for feedback and opinions does NOT mean I'm not pursuing other avenues. I was curious, because some players play at Bettson, so I was curious if their standards were higher.
I'm not wasting MY time. If I'm wasting yours, you arent obligated to post.

I wouldn't have to presume anything if you had told in your first post. Now I know, and can reply to your post in another way.

I don't think that Nordic or Maxino would ask every player they have to send in new documents. I see no reason to.
I sent in the same documents to Betsson as to Nordic. Both were approved.

 

[dionysus]

and I've sent the same to Nordic and Betsson, one place approved, one not; hence, my post.

 

[mrmark21]

I sent in the same documents to Betsson as to Nordic. Both were approved.

What did you send into nordic?

 

[Tirilej]

What did you send into nordic?

Don't remember but probably the same as to every other place.
Drivers license, and I think it was a screenie from my Neteller to show my adress.
I don't have a utility bill to show in my name, and I don't use any card.

Sounded too easy I know

 

[vinylweatherman]

It shows a lack of consistency in document verification. Given the nature of the checks, this should not be happening. ID verification is supposed to be governed by external KYC regulations, so unless these change, there should be consistency in application across all casinos operating from the same jurisdiction.

This shows that document verification is not done scientifically, but that an element of "guesswork" is being used, and one person would say OK to a specific set of documents, whilst another would say "suspicious, denied" to the very same set.

Often appeals to the rep will get denied documents accepted, an indication that it is not an absolute denial, but an opinion of one staff member that is overturned when the rep gets involved and another staff member takes a look.

It really shows that the current systems for validating players are not necessarily fit for purpose. Casinos need to move from the current system towards something more robust. The main problem is that the player is in charge of what the casino gets to see in the way of documents, so this is a conflict of interest. The slightest suspicion, even a "gut feeling", could mean that the player is a clever fraudster that is trying to exploit the system, and able to do so because they get to choose and prepare the documentation seen by the casino.

 

[dunover]

It shows a lack of consistency in document verification. Given the nature of the checks, this should not be happening. ID verification is supposed to be governed by external KYC regulations, so unless these change, there should be consistency in application across all casinos operating from the same jurisdiction.

This shows that document verification is not done scientifically, but that an element of "guesswork" is being used, and one person would say OK to a specific set of documents, whilst another would say "suspicious, denied" to the very same set.

Often appeals to the rep will get denied documents accepted, an indication that it is not an absolute denial, but an opinion of one staff member that is overturned when the rep gets involved and another staff member takes a look.

It really shows that the current systems for validating players are not necessarily fit for purpose. Casinos need to move from the current system towards something more robust. The main problem is that the player is in charge of what the casino gets to see in the way of documents, so this is a conflict of interest. The slightest suspicion, even a "gut feeling", could mean that the player is a clever fraudster that is trying to exploit the system, and able to do so because they get to choose and prepare the documentation seen by the casino.

Or have a central independent entity to verify documents for any player, used by all casinos similar to a credit reference agency. If the place says 'yes' then no casino can quibble; the benchmark would be standard and all a player would need to do is periodically update any changes in card/details in one place. Saves casinos hassle (for a small fee) and players can have no worries about the integrity of documents and casinos using docs submission as an excuse for delays/reversing w/d's back to accounts/non-payment etc. will not have the excuse any longer. As part of the players' registration they will have a right to be told of any casino the OK has been given to on their behalf, to prevent casinos lying about 'not having verification' yet. This means the player can just complete one stringent docs process for all accounts.
Rip-off casinos will hate it, the good ones will love it. And so would players ultimately. All they would have to do is submit their unique account number at the independent verification entity when opening a casino account. They would then know by e-mail from same that the casino has accessed the verification, which by agreement from the casinos enrolled in it cannot be quibbled with.

 

[dionysus]

It seems silly one casino accept it, another does not.
But even more so, it seems ridiculous one casino in the SAME GROUP accept it, and another of the SAME GROUP does not.

 

[just play]

It seems silly one casino accept it, another does not.
But even more so, it seems ridiculous one casino in the SAME GROUP accept it, and another of the SAME GROUP does not.

Of course I can't play these casinos. But at certain RTG's, I just talked to them and asked them to verify me with whatever casino I wanted to play at, and it was done. I have done it years and years ago, and then most recently a few months ago. Both were done with little problem.

For instance...CasinoA...I was verified at. Wanted to play at another casino in their same group, emailed/pmed them and asked for my documents to be verified (sent over) at CasinoB. I didn't have to send one piece of document, they just transfered it I assume.

I don't understand what the problem is? You are verified at one of their casinos but they wont verify you at THEIR other casino??? What was their reply? This seems very odd?

 

[dionysus]

that the documents weren't clear enough; simple enough reason
but when I joined Nordic, they were accepted; from there, they were migrated to Maxino and accepted.
Betsson (Betsafe) OWN Nordic and Maxino now, so I don't understand a) why suddenly the quality isnt good enough and b) they arent migrated over or c) why id need to send them at all if im verified already at 2 in the group (and have already withdrawn)...it's not like I'm even trying to WD at Betsson, just get verified

btw, the reasoning was they need to be a minmum 300 dpi..the images are 400 dpi

edit: and theyre the same docs (not new ones) AND I even sent additional scans

 

[mrmark21]

It seems silly one casino accept it, another does not.
But even more so, it seems ridiculous one casino in the SAME GROUP accept it, and another of the SAME GROUP does not.

I agree, that's why I didn't post in regards to the matter until seeing this thread. Nordicbet has some really good customer service, I've just had the same issue

Btw the documents that were provided to Nordicbet are copies of my passport and utility bill.

 

[P.V.]

Documents rating system

A centralized system for players works but the biggest challenge is getting multiple operators to get signed on.

I don't think you'll see a system where one system itself approves or denies the documents as that's the obligation of the operator. I sure wouldn't want that kind of responsibility or liability.

Although, there are in fact many other benefits to centralized systems which I can't and won't get into here.

As for the OP's question/problem.

A centralized system can in fact rate your documents which is then applied to the credibility of each players documents. I've added that feature.

Example: Let's say you've sent the same documents to 10 different sites within the system for approval and all 10 sites approved your documents. When a new site requests your documents, then within your profile it shows that the exact documents have already be approved by 10 other operators which to me gives your documents a great deal of credibility.

Therefore not allowing any valid reason for the new site to say we deny your documents due to bla bla reasons when 10 within your profile have approved the same exact unchanged documents.

 

[vinylweatherman]

that the documents weren't clear enough; simple enough reason
but when I joined Nordic, they were accepted; from there, they were migrated to Maxino and accepted.
Betsson (Betsafe) OWN Nordic and Maxino now, so I don't understand a) why suddenly the quality isnt good enough and b) they arent migrated over or c) why id need to send them at all if im verified already at 2 in the group (and have already withdrawn)...it's not like I'm even trying to WD at Betsson, just get verified

btw, the reasoning was they need to be a minmum 300 dpi..the images are 400 dpi
edit: and theyre the same docs (not new ones) AND I even sent additional scans

So, it complies with the stated requirement, yet they decline them. The reason given is obviously not the correct one. There is something else wrong. Even odder that it's the SAME set of people looking at the SAME set of documents, yet they can't make their minds up and give a consistent answer.

This situation is not fair on players, as they have no way of knowing where they stand. If this whole verification is done to "gut feeling" of whoever happens to be on duty at the time, rather than a set of defined criteria that ALL verification staff have to apply, then the system is not fit for purpose.

Maybe this explains those many cases where players get a run of "please send again" followed by the OK, even when they have simply been resending the exact same documents over and over again. It could be whoever is on duty at the time making their own personal decisions, and try often enough as you get the same person who gave them the OK the last time around for a different casino in the group. It also seems that where the SAME documents are passed over internally within the group to a new casino account, they get the OK, but where the player sends in the same documents themselves, they sometimes get denied. This is the same document, but two different routes. This means that the document itself is not being verified, but it's provenance. Trusted when it comes internally, not trusted when the player sends it in again.

 

[Mouche12]

Don't remember but probably the same as to every other place.
Drivers license, and I think it was a screenie from my Neteller to show my adress.
I don't have a utility bill to show in my name, and I don't use any card.

Sounded too easy I know

Could it be that they are easier on Nordic players (Scandinavia that is)? Just a thought. I had sent a copy of my passport and utility bill to Redbet, which they accepted in the end, but it took a short while because of the intials in front of my name instead of my full name...

 

[Mouche12]

So, it complies with the stated requirement, yet they decline them. The reason given is obviously not the correct one. There is something else wrong. Even odder that it's the SAME set of people looking at the SAME set of documents, yet they can't make their minds up and give a consistent answer.

This situation is not fair on players, as they have no way of knowing where they stand. If this whole verification is done to "gut feeling" of whoever happens to be on duty at the time, rather than a set of defined criteria that ALL verification staff have to apply, then the system is not fit for purpose.

Maybe this explains those many cases where players get a run of "please send again" followed by the OK, even when they have simply been resending the exact same documents over and over again. It could be whoever is on duty at the time making their own personal decisions, and try often enough as you get the same person who gave them the OK the last time around for a different casino in the group. It also seems that where the SAME documents are passed over internally within the group to a new casino account, they get the OK, but where the player sends in the same documents themselves, they sometimes get denied. This is the same document, but two different routes. This means that the document itself is not being verified, but it's provenance. Trusted when it comes internally, not trusted when the player sends it in again.

I can't help but agreeing fully with many of your posts vinylweatherman, very well put!

 

[Mouche12]

A centralized system for players works but the biggest challenge is getting multiple operators to get signed on.

I don't think you'll see a system where one system itself approves or denies the documents as that's the obligation of the operator. I sure wouldn't want that kind of responsibility or liability.

Although, there are in fact many other benefits to centralized systems which I can't and won't get into here.

As for the OP's question/problem.

A centralized system can in fact rate your documents which is then applied to the credibility of each players documents. I've added that feature.

Example: Let's say you've sent the same documents to 10 different sites within the system for approval and all 10 sites approved your documents. When a new site requests your documents, then within your profile it shows that the exact documents have already be approved by 10 other operators which to me gives your documents a great deal of credibility.

Therefore not allowing any valid reason for the new site to say we deny your documents due to bla bla reasons when 10 within your profile have approved the same exact unchanged documents.

I like your suggestion P.V.!

 

[Mouche12]

It seems silly one casino accept it, another does not.
But even more so, it seems ridiculous one casino in the SAME GROUP accept it, and another of the SAME GROUP does not.

That's what initially happened to me at Redbet, exact same docs accepted by Maxino (true, not the same group) without any issues and a problem arose at Redbet because my utility bill states my initials rather than my full first name... When I posted about this many CM members were on the defence... Redbet did accept my docs in the end and indeed with the help of Red Andy.

 

[Tirilej]

Could it be that they are easier on Nordic players (Scandinavia that is)? Just a thought. I had sent a copy of my passport and utility bill to Redbet, which they accepted in the end, but it took a short while because of the intials in front of my name instead of my full name...

I don't know really because Sweden is also known as a county full of players that are abusing bonuses as fast as they can.
I have read forums in Swedish where they really helped eachother out, and it was not about fair play.
It made me sad because I thought we were honest people. We do like money though

When it comes to this thread and verifying players maybe we shouldn't assume that just because Betsson has bought up Nordicbet that they have taken over all verification of players.
I believe Nordicbet still have the same people working there and Betsson is the same as they always have been.
It has also just been three weeks yet so I have a hard time seing them as sistercasinos yet.

 

[vinylweatherman]

That's what initially happened to me at Redbet, exact same docs accepted by Maxino (true, not the same group) without any issues and a problem arose at Redbet because my utility bill states my initials rather than my full first name... When I posted about this many CM members were on the defence... Redbet did accept my docs in the end and indeed with the help of Red Andy.

Well, I don't expect utility companies considered the problems this causes when trying to verify yourself with an online casino. Perhaps utility companies should be required to use a standard form of address for their customers so that such problems don't arise in future

This "hair splitting" on the part of the verification teams is going to affect more and more players. It seems pedantry knows no bounds, and unless a better way is found, pedantic verification procedures that take little account of how things are done in "real life" will start driving players away.

I find my name in many different forms regarding the initials and name, and even the title of "Mr" gets dropped on rare occasions. My first name is sometimes in full, or sometimes just the initial. My middle name is often not given, or is just the initial. It is rare to have it given in full. My last name is at least consistent, always in full.

With Microgaming registration, the middle name/initial can't even be entered, only first and last name.

Those with non standard names may find this a serious problem as they would not necessarily enter it in a form that matched both the registration form requirements, and the requirements of the verification teams.

Why do we need the utility bill at all, why can't the casino simply send a letter to the player that when received acts as proof of address?

 

[dionysus]

I've just decided I can't be arsed to give them any more $. If my docs are good enough to WD at Miaxino and Nordic but not them, part of the same group, then I'll play with those who not only accept my money (and they dont have problems with this), but will pay it out too

 

[chazmj6]

I'm now having the same problem - I uploaded docs to betsafe a week ago - all verified and clear - I uploaded the same documents to Betsson half were approved and half were not - all scans, jpegs and all 500 dpi. They are crystal clear, colour. On their site they say they require:


A quick way to upload your files to secure your account.
To upload a file, the file must be:
- file type JPG, PNG, GIF or PDF
- not larger that 3MB (three megabytes) in size
Unsure how to scan? Help on scanning documents.

They can't give me a reason why and have asked me to take photos n my mobile phone and send them. is this legit? It's bizarre, that's for sure.

I'm tired of this group. It's a good way to lose business.

 

[vinylweatherman]

I'm now having the same problem - I uploaded docs to betsafe a week ago - all verified and clear - I uploaded the same documents to Betsson half were approved and half were not - all scans, jpegs and all 500 dpi. They are crystal clear, colour. On their site they say they require:


A quick way to upload your files to secure your account.
To upload a file, the file must be:
- file type JPG, PNG, GIF or PDF
- not larger that 3MB (three megabytes) in size
Unsure how to scan? Help on scanning documents.

They can't give me a reason why and have asked me to take photos n my mobile phone and send them. is this legit? It's bizarre, that's for sure.

I'm tired of this group. It's a good way to lose business.

Maybe the rep can. This is bizarre, and shows serious inconsistencies in what is supposed to be a consistent approach to an important matter, verification of a player's ID.

Taking photos on a phone is likely to give a LOWER quality than a 500dpi scan.

One other possibility is that at 500dpi, the files are simply too big, but surely they would have been able to say so, not say they can't give a reason why.

Are they suggesting that they actually PREFER photos taken by a phone over 300dpi colour scans? If so, it is very odd as I have always considered a photo as a back up "second best" option for those without scanners.


It is helpful to discover what the problem is, as it would not only help this player, but others. It could lead to a better guide of how to effectively scan documents than the one they already have.

 

[chazmj6]

Nope I can see all uploaded fine - within their 3mb size.

The plot thickens - I made a withdrawal request back to my VISA and they rejected it - they requested I withdrew using the bank transfer method as that was they way I apparently deposited. It wasn't and their online, useless chat person has admitted I used my visa to deposit. I can see I deposited using my visa on the statement page.

And now it's 7 working days to go to my bank ...... Once it's verified.

Please put me in touch with their rep - this appalling.

Maybe the rep can. This is bizarre, and shows serious inconsistencies in what is supposed to be a consistent approach to an important matter, verification of a player's ID.

Taking photos on a phone is likely to give a LOWER quality than a 500dpi scan.

One other possibility is that at 500dpi, the files are simply too big, but surely they would have been able to say so, not say they can't give a reason why.

Are they suggesting that they actually PREFER photos taken by a phone over 300dpi colour scans? If so, it is very odd as I have always considered a photo as a back up "second best" option for those without scanners.


It is helpful to discover what the problem is, as it would not only help this player, but others. It could lead to a better guide of how to effectively scan documents than the one they already have.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Nope I can see all uploaded fine - within their 3mb size.

The plot thickens - I made a withdrawal request back to my VISA and they rejected it - they requested I withdrew using the bank transfer method as that was they way I apparently deposited. It wasn't and their online, useless chat person has admitted I used my visa to deposit. I can see I deposited using my visa on the statement page.

And now it's 7 working days to go to my bank ...... Once it's verified.

Please put me in touch with their rep - this appalling.

If they put the bank transfer through, at least you get your money, even if it is a longer wait. You can then have the money on your side of the argument, and it will be a case of the casino convincing you they can be trusted to receive further deposits from you, rather than you having to convince them to pay.

It seems their CS is not all that good, as it should be easy to tell the difference between a VISA deposit and a bank one. If anything, by getting this wrong they have EXPOSED themselves to a "security risk" through allowing the money to come in via one method (a method that can be charged back), and out via another. This means that as far as VISA is concerned, you didn't even get your deposit back, let alone any winnings. The potential for exploitation of this situation by fraudsters is WHY casinos are so insistent that withdrawals go back to the method of deposit.

7 days may seem a long time, but you could easily spend more than this arguing the case with CS and the rep for a withdrawal back to your VISA.


I have had a similar situation on a few occasions, with casinos saying they can't pay back to Neteller even though this is how I have deposited. If they suggest a cheque, I say "go ahead", if they don't, I suggest they send a cheque. I get the cheque relatively quickly through the post, and in a week have the money in the bank. I can THEN mark them down as being "awkward", perhaps uninstalling them, or telling CS that the reason they haven't seen me around for a couple of weeks is that they jerked me around over my most recent withdrawal.

When Betsson/Betsafe send that "we miss you" email in a couple of weeks, you can tell them WHY you haven't been back