Fuming!!!! Redbet locked account midplay!

[amourgirl]

Had a redbet account for a good while, and after seeing the praise they got decided to throw caution to the wind and deposit £15 this afternoon. Happily playing then my account was suddenly locked midplay.

Spoke to live help she told me to read my emails.

Turns out, they just want i.d. Ok, no problem, however my argument is i have never had to give i.d over immediately after a first deposit. Ever!! First withdrawal maybe, even a second deposit, but not first. If it is a stern requirement of theirs then they should not allow me to deposit until they receive the documents in the first place but if they did that a lot of people wouldn't bother. Anyway I requested my remaining funds all £3 of it (principle of the matter) to be refunded to the card I used, they refused without i.d. so I said ok, fair enough how about you let me play my remaining balance and should i have a win, i will happily give you all the documents you need. her reply was "I already gave you reply unfortunately nothing else I can help you with Sorry. Bye for now and have a very nice evening. Please reply to email we sent you and your account will be reopen"


Luckily I come here and I know they are accredited, however, I found their argument to be pretty poor and untrustworthy, had I not come here I would have easily assumed they were rogue. and that's a hell of a lot of information being requested that some other unscrupulous casinos could use in a not so genuine way.

I do realize I'm being a bit difficult, but ive never been asked this in this way before. and to refuse to return the remaining balance to the method it was received or to allow me to complete play makes me feel it is little more than theft.

 

[dionysus]

Andy's a good guy; pm him here: https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/members/ and see if you can sort it GL

 

[amourgirl]

Thank you for your advice. Much appreciated.

Ps. if i had a clue how to do a thank you I would, lol

 

[Jasminebed]

I think you may have to get used to ID requests if you play online.

If I understand correctly, the issue seems to have arisen because there was a gap between your joining and your first deposit, and the casino had sent emails requesting ID which you ignored. Don't think I'm faulting you for ignoring them, but I know that when I joined I had to submit ID. Because I had a certain timeframe to do so and I deposited the day I joined, I was at no point locked out myself.

then they should not allow me to deposit until they receive the documents in the first place

Perhaps. I know I delayed joining Nordicbet until I had money in Skrill rather than a credit card, because I would have had to provide everything upfront in order to deposit via credit card, and without a scanner I didn't have a recent utility bill available. Nordicbet is also NetEnt which is one of the reasons I mentioned them.

I suggest you research whether a casino is rogue or not before depositing. While delays to play are frustrating, you need to trust that CM accredited casinos will resolve issues. If you don't have that trust, maybe joining new casinos is not something you should be doing.

There are ever increasing amounts of fraud going on... not the advantage player, but identify theives and credit card scammers.

Casinos (and other online businesses) exercising caution benefits us as well as them. Usually security teams work regular office hours in whatever time zone as well, so don't expect a first withdrawal ID request on a weekend to be dealt with before Monday pretty much anywhere. If it is, it's a plus, not the norm.

Recently data for Ontario Student loans affecting at least half a million people was stolen, apparently the worse privacy breach in Canadian history. My daughter is one of those people, and I'd like to think there was some security in some companies out there.

I am sorry you were inconvenienced, but it's the climate of the world we live in.

PS: The thanks button will appear at the bottom of posts once you have made 10 posts yourself.

 

[aceking123]

there a realy good group with a realy good rep as above someone has posted his link , andy will no doubt sort out any teething problems youve had . to be honest most net ent casino seem to be very good ( rainmaker ) promos them alot & now im just starting to see why he promotes them, hope you get it sorted quickly )

 

[clees42]

Is there really something to sort out with the rep?

Clearly there is a reason they ask you for documents, so just send them.
If they have some suspicion about you, then it is not unexpected the casino would lock out account immediately.
for example when someone is suspected of depositing with stolen credit card,
do you think the casino is going to wait out until the accounts hits 0 before locking the account?
Besides you wont be able to make withdraw before sending anyway.

 

[vinylweatherman]

It doesn't add up. Surely if the OP had ignored emails after joining, the deposit options or account should have been locked BEFORE even the first deposit. By waiting until a miniscule £15 has been deposited, allowing it to be played down to £3, and then locking the account only then, they have made themselves look bad.
Not everyone is experienced enough to know that an ID request is routine, and strictly speaking under UK rules, the KYC procedure should take place BEFORE any play has begun, not during or after the fact.

If anything, for a mere £3 the OP could easily just walk away, after all, they were prepared to lose the £15. This would leave the operator with an unresolved item in the accounts.

The cost of complying with the documentation request could exceed the £3 left over, so it may be more cost effective for the player to just walk away, but with a lingering bad impression of this industry.

Operators should stop cutting corners like this. If their policy is to require ID up front before play, then ensure that deposit options are disabled till the player complies. If they are going to allow the more usual ID at first withdrawal, why the overreaction over £15

£15 isn't even enough for a chargeback, it has to be at least £100 spent on the card before the Consumer Credit Act kicks in, which enables a dispute to be raised.

If the industry does not find a more targetted way to deal with fraud, they are going to end up losing the trust of the majority of honest players, who would expect their own trust to be recipicated by the operator with a minimum of fuss.

The honest will stay away, but the fraudsters won't. This will lead to the overall cost of fraud becoming a greater proportion of the overall turnover or profit, even if the actual cost of fraud in terms of money falls.

 

[Tirilej]

It doesn't add up. Surely if the OP had ignored emails after joining, the deposit options or account should have been locked BEFORE even the first deposit. By waiting until a miniscule £15 has been deposited, allowing it to be played down to £3, and then locking the account only then, they have made themselves look bad.
Not everyone is experienced enough to know that an ID request is routine, and strictly speaking under UK rules, the KYC procedure should take place BEFORE any play has begun, not during or after the fact.

If anything, for a mere £3 the OP could easily just walk away, after all, they were prepared to lose the £15. This would leave the operator with an unresolved item in the accounts.

The cost of complying with the documentation request could exceed the £3 left over, so it may be more cost effective for the player to just walk away, but with a lingering bad impression of this industry.

Operators should stop cutting corners like this. If their policy is to require ID up front before play, then ensure that deposit options are disabled till the player complies. If they are going to allow the more usual ID at first withdrawal, why the overreaction over £15

£15 isn't even enough for a chargeback, it has to be at least £100 spent on the card before the Consumer Credit Act kicks in, which enables a dispute to be raised.

If the industry does not find a more targetted way to deal with fraud, they are going to end up losing the trust of the majority of honest players, who would expect their own trust to be recipicated by the operator with a minimum of fuss.

The honest will stay away, but the fraudsters won't. This will lead to the overall cost of fraud becoming a greater proportion of the overall turnover or profit, even if the actual cost of fraud in terms of money falls.

Don't say that they are looking bad yet please.

We have no idea of why the account got locked yet.
It could be something that's easy to solve or it could be that the deposit immediately made them lock the account suspecting something.

Why don't give both part a little time before judging them?

 

[vinylweatherman]

Don't say that they are looking bad yet please.

We have no idea of why the account got locked yet.
It could be something that's easy to solve or it could be that the deposit immediately made them lock the account suspecting something.

Why don't give both part a little time before judging them?

Where's the communication then. This should never have been an unpleasant surprise for the OP. If dealt with properly, such issues should not blow up into a rant on the nearest forum. This is the casino making a big song and dance over the remaining £3 from a paltry £15 deposit. I wouldn't blame the OP for simply walking away from this £3, rather than going through all this bother just to get the last £3 refunded, which I doubt would happen anyway because of min withdrawal rules.

They should have locked the account either before this, or after the player had finished playing off the remaining £3. In the long term, it would not have made any difference to the risk had anything dodgy been going on, but if there is nothing dodgy, it has massively increased the risk for the casino of receiving bad PR and losing what could have been a good customer.

It is ridiculous for the CS to suggest that the player should have "looked at their emails" during their session of play, most people are NOT permanently welded to their email feed, but check it occasionally to see what awaits them. If an email is sent after a deposit, but during play, it is almost certain that the player has not had a reasonable opportunity to see it, so the rep should have been more helpful, not dismissive, to the query.

This is a casino doing almost EXACTLY what they claim they can't possibly implement because it would cost them too much lost business, which is to verify players' documents at the point of registration.

They should be open about it, and have the uploading of documents form part of the registration process, so that it has to be done before play just as all the other information has to be given before the account goes live. Players would then KNOW that their account is locked for purely routine purposes, rather than taking it as a sign that they are about to get screwed over.

The current system lets PLAYERS down, it is there purely so that the casinos can "cut corners" by getting the deposits in almost immediately, and deal with the KYC requirements later on. This is NOT how KYC is supposed to work, and I don't know of any other legitimate industry that does KYC after the fact, when any potential harm for getting it wrong has already happened. When caught out having not done proper KYC before the fact, banks and businesses find themselves facing hefty fines from the regulators.

 

[Tirilej]

VWM lately it feels like you are haunting Redbet in every singel thread where there are any issues, and no matter what they say it seems hard to accept.

I just wants you to give them a little time before you judge them because you are very fast in doing that.
You are also someone here that people listen to and are respecting which means that you maybe should think a little longer before you accuse every casino for everything without knowing the truth.
It's just speculating but the consequences can be really bad.

 

[vinylweatherman]

VWM lately it feels like you are haunting Redbet in every singel thread where there are any issues, and no matter what they say it seems hard to accept.

I just wants you to give them a little time before you judge them because you are very fast in doing that.
You are also someone here that people listen to and are respecting which means that you maybe should think a little longer before you accuse every casino for everything without knowing the truth.
It's just speculating but the consequences can be really bad.

I am haunting ALL casinos that say one thing, and do another. There was so little of this BS in 2004 when I started, and now there is so MUCH of it. This is despite the fact that almost a decade has passed and that a once young industry has become mature.

They SHOULD be verifying ALL players at the point of registration, a consistent approach for all, transparent and out in the open. If players back off from pre verification, they are probably not the players the casino wants to gain, ones that intend from the outset to be loyal long term depositors.

The type of player likely to be most inconvenienced would be those just taking the SUB and moving on. They will be opening dozens of accounts for just one hit, and so would be irked at having to deal with full document verification every time.

 

[Tirilej]

I am haunting ALL casinos that say one thing, and do another. There was so little of this BS in 2004 when I started, and now there is so MUCH of it. This is despite the fact that almost a decade has passed and that a once young industry has become mature.

They SHOULD be verifying ALL players at the point of registration, a consistent approach for all, transparent and out in the open. If players back off from pre verification, they are probably not the players the casino wants to gain, ones that intend from the outset to be loyal long term depositors.

The type of player likely to be most inconvenienced would be those just taking the SUB and moving on. They will be opening dozens of accounts for just one hit, and so would be irked at having to deal with full document verification every time.

So far I have never heard that Redbet have locked an account in the middle of play or just to get the player verified before, so I assume that this issue is because of something totally different. We don't know what yet.

The discussion of having player verified upon registration is a totally different discussion IMO !

 

[Mouche12]

So far I have never heard that Redbet have locked an account in the middle of play or just to get the player verified before, so I assume that this issue is because of something totally different. We don't know what yet.

The discussion of having player verified upon registration is a totally different discussion IMO !

It surprises me too that the OP's account was locked during play. That didn't happen to me, and I also had a dormant account, had deposited only once in the past.

I think vinylweatherman has a fair point, you have substantiated your opinions well.

 

[miso]

It surprises me too that the OP's account was locked during play. That didn't happen to me, and I also had a dormant account, had deposited only once in the past.

I think vinylweatherman has a fair point, you have substantiated your opinions well.

Well, I`ve had an account with Redbet for two years before making my first deposit. I didn`t like the slots at first to be honest, so I decided against
depositing. But, since newer games look fantastic, I went to chat, asked for my user details and deposited. And I do not send my ID before first deposits, only when it is needed for account verification and requested by the casino (before 1st dep).
The reason I am sharing my experience with Redbet is that it seems very odd, that they would close an account just for that ID reason. I believe
all staff have the same training and therefore all acc holders should get the same treatment. Unless, of course there is something dodgy going on.

 

[amourgirl]

It doesn't add up. Surely if the OP had ignored emails after joining, the deposit options or account should have been locked BEFORE even the first deposit. By waiting until a minuscule £15 has been deposited, allowing it to be played down to £3, and then locking the account only then, they have made themselves look bad.
Not everyone is experienced enough to know that an ID request is routine, and strictly speaking under UK rules, the KYC procedure should take place BEFORE any play has begun, not during or after the fact. If anything, for a mere £3 the OP could easily just walk away, after all, they were prepared to lose the £15. This would leave the operator with an unresolved item in the accounts.

Thank you for seeing my issue vinyl

To explain: There is no issue directly with my card or anything of the like. This was a simple ID verification. In fact, just after this incident I signed up to jackpot party. Immediately after signing i was taken to a page saying my account is restricted until ID is sent. I got straight on to live chat and sent her all my documents, job done.

As above shows, I'm happy to provide docs but in this particular instance, i'm just digging my heals in out of principle. They allowed me to deposit, when I had £3 left I switched games it was at that point a banner came up to tell me it had locked my account. To all intents and purpose they now have my money and unless i hand over my docs they wont refund remaining balance as an alternative I even asked if I could finish playing the £3, and should I win enough to withdraw (lol) then I'll send docs. It was however at the point Live Chat abruptly ended the chat. They don't need my docs to keep the £12 I notice! Cant have it both ways.

This just didn't make sense, sorry, for the fuss guys, I just have a real issue when they do this sort of thing. there is no need for it. Its such a shame, but luckily because of what they did, I signed up to Jackpotparty, and so pleased I did, I love their slots.

 

[Nifty29]

I am haunting ALL casinos that say one thing, and do another. There was so little of this BS in 2004 when I started, and now there is so MUCH of it. This is despite the fact that almost a decade has passed and that a once young industry has become mature.

They SHOULD be verifying ALL players at the point of registration, a consistent approach for all, transparent and out in the open. If players back off from pre verification, they are probably not the players the casino wants to gain, ones that intend from the outset to be loyal long term depositors.

The type of player likely to be most inconvenienced would be those just taking the SUB and moving on. They will be opening dozens of accounts for just one hit, and so would be irked at having to deal with full document verification every time.

Pre verification is unworkable. It has been explained over and over but some just don't get it.

If a new casino opened up tomorrow, and insisted that players be verified before they can play, they will be lucky to last a month. Sure, the players in the know like cm members might give them a try, but the 99% of players who don't visit forums and take any notice will just go play elsewhere and avoid the hassles of doing all the doc stuff when they haven't even made a withdrawal yet.

In addition, let's say this casino gets thousands of signups in the first few days.....very possible. How long do you think it is going to take them to scrutinize all these docs and validate the accounts? It would take a week just to get through the first day's signups, and the players would be disgusted enough with the wait by then to not deposit anyway. As the casino gets more exposure, the docs waiting to be verified will build up and up until new players have to wait 14 days to be able to play. It's totally unworkable.

If an established casino suddenly decided overnight that non-verified players could no longer play, they would lose a large percentage of those players who will just move on either somewhere they are already verified or a place that doesn't require pre-verification. You only have to see how happy players are now when their account is blocked and they get the "we need ID" message...it would be commercial suicide to do it en masse. The only way it is going to happen is if every online casino agreed to adopt it simultaneously, and that ain't never gonna happen.

Yes, preverification is the best way to avoid confiscated payouts etc due to multiaccounting and fraud, but nobody is going to step out from the pack and introduce it. Also, it still won't stop denial of payouts due to bonus issues etc.

When you consider the number of complaints at CM, there really aren't that many that relate to ID verification. Of those, I'm know some of them have turned out to be fraudsters.

At the end of the day, it is up to the player to make sure they have sufficient ID to be able to make withdrawals. If they don't have a licence or other photo ID, they need to check with each casino they join to make sure all will be OK when payout time comes.

IMO it is not an issue that warrants hauling redbet or any other casino over the coals...there are so many more important and relevant issues in the industry besides a relative handful of people who have trouble proving their identity.

I'm not sure why you're quoting yet another Act of Parliament, when the terms of every credit card I have owned state that I can dispute ANY charge for ANY amount if I do believe it to be unauthorised. I doubt very much if you called your credit card provider and said someone charged your visa for $89 they would say "tough bikkies".

 

[P.V.]

I'm sure the rep will respond as to why this happened during mid play, so quickly.

It almost appears as though something was flagged after registration and your first deposit, not sure what?

Something seems odd to them and therefore they have enforced their right to view your hard documents for additional verification. Not speaking for them but JMO.

Internal checks are made during registration and first deposits, something was flagged or just an internal mistake.

I do agree that the request was quick, maybe thats just their procedure, I don't know.

Send your doc's and get unlocked.

 

[Dipity]

While I see your point and agree with it, VWM, in this case I don't think it's that big an issue. Redbet, and specifically Andy himself, have proven to be a trustworthy operator time and again, and very quick to respond to player issues. This is the first time something like this has been bought up (on here at least) and it certainly does look like something was flagged during play.

Sending documentation is standard when you play at online casinos, and I personally feel the OP is kicking up a storm over nothing (sorry OP!). A quick PM to Andy would've sorted this out in no time at all.

 

[Redbet-Andy]

Hi

This is a new one on me to be honest.
I'm waiting for the OPs details so I can look into it fully.
I will of course let you all know what the issue is as far as I can.
Then we can have an informed debate about it if it's at all interesting.

As it is I am guessing that the OP isn't listed in any directories 192 etc so that's why ID was requested.
Why it happened mid way through play is to be determined.

Andy

 

[mrmark21]

I agree, not a big issue... Andy's always willing to help

I always get asked for ID actually everyone does, it's a completely normal part of playing online

 

[Redbet-Andy]

OK got it now.
It's so rare that I never knew we did it and this case is the only one I know of.
As the player couldn't be found in any directories after making a first deposit the account was locked until we received ID docs.
It just so happened that that coincided with the player actually playing on casino.

We've discussed it in light of this and we won't be doing this again based on directories, rather we will ask for docs but not block the account immediately.
The OP account is reopened and I've sorted out a bonus for the upset.
Thanks for everyone's input!

Andy

 

[muziq]

well done andy ...........

 

[vinylweatherman]

OK got it now.
It's so rare that I never knew we did it and this case is the only one I know of.
As the player couldn't be found in any directories after making a first deposit the account was locked until we received ID docs.
It just so happened that that coincided with the player actually playing on casino.

We've discussed it in light of this and we won't be doing this again based on directories, rather we will ask for docs but not block the account immediately.
The OP account is reopened and I've sorted out a bonus for the upset.
Thanks for everyone's input!

Andy

So, in some respects, you DO pre verify players at the point of registration.

The other point, why wait till the first deposit, this delay is what caused all the grief.

If this directory check had been done properly, the account would have been restricted before the OP made it as far as the first deposit.

It is also very odd that you rely on these directories, rather than the OFFICIAL sources, when verifying players electronically.

These directories result from players being careless with their personal data. Someone who is careful can ensure they don't appear on these commercial directories, but only on the official ones. Having an ex directory landline number and ticking the little box on the annual electoral registration form is a good start to keeping off these directories. It is rare because most people are not that careful.

 

[Redbet-Andy]

Hi
No we only verify at deposit or at withdrawal unless the player wishes to verify sooner.
If we verified at registration it would be a massive time waste as a large number of players register but then never deposit (happens everywhere, never figured it out). IMO a pain for players too.
What official sources do you mean? We don't need to credit check someone of course, just verify their address.
In many European countries there is a very well kept register, accessible for free and up to date.
Other countries have ID cards that must be up to date.
The UK's more difficult of course.

Cheers
Andy

So, in some respects, you DO pre verify players at the point of registration.

The other point, why wait till the first deposit, this delay is what caused all the grief.

If this directory check had been done properly, the account would have been restricted before the OP made it as far as the first deposit.

It is also very odd that you rely on these directories, rather than the OFFICIAL sources, when verifying players electronically.

These directories result from players being careless with their personal data. Someone who is careful can ensure they don't appear on these commercial directories, but only on the official ones. Having an ex directory landline number and ticking the little box on the annual electoral registration form is a good start to keeping off these directories. It is rare because most people are not that careful.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Hi
No we only verify at deposit or at withdrawal unless the player wishes to verify sooner.
If we verified at registration it would be a massive time waste as a large number of players register but then never deposit (happens everywhere, never figured it out). IMO a pain for players too.
What official sources do you mean? We don't need to credit check someone of course, just verify their address.
In many European countries there is a very well kept register, accessible for free and up to date.
Other countries have ID cards that must be up to date.
The UK's more difficult of course.

Cheers
Andy

The OP said later

In fact, just after this incident I signed up to jackpot party. Immediately after signing i was taken to a page saying my account is restricted until ID is sent. I got straight on to live chat and sent her all my documents, job done.

Jackpot Party got it RIGHT. It also left the OP singing their praises, even though they just did what Redbet did, finding no match on the directories and asking for ID.

I didn't mean that players would be asked for documents, just that the electronic directory check would be done simply to determine whether the player had to be ID checked straight away, or whether it could wait till the first withdrawal. Clearly in the OPs case, the documents had to be verified before any play could be allowed, but the way it was done meant that the player got booted mid session with only £3 left.

The current method is a guarantee that any player who does not appear in these directories will be booted mid session unless they lose their first deposit faster than the system can process the boot.

The one directory that has to be kept up to date by law in the UK is the electoral register. Everyone who is 18 must appear on it, and failure to register can get you a £1000 fine. The three licensed credit reference agencies have access to this register in order to provide credit and ID checks on potential customers of a business. Directories like 192 are NOT allowed to sell data from the full electoral register, they can only use data that already appears in the public domain, such as the phone directory, edited electoral register, and information passed to it by the agreement of the persons concerned (usually through letting businesses share their data with "selected third parties").

In fact, the UK government believes this system is BETTER in terms of security than having national ID cards which can be forged.

If casinos as an industry have a problem with the current system, take it up with the government via the UK Gambling Commission. The move to compulsory secondary licensing presents an opportunity to lobby for changes that improve the experience for players, and make it easier for casinos to comply with KYC procedures.

The OP is not completely "off the grid", they have a bank card, so would have had to pass the bank's own KYC procedures. Having obtained a card, the OP would then have a credit record with the credit reference agencies which would allow their services to be used for an ID check against the full electoral roll.

This system only really fails if someone has recently changed their address, and this is because the electoral roll works to an annual cycle, updating itself every Autumn. Directories like 192 are even more prone to failure under these circumstances, as they have to wait for the change to appear in the public domain before they can get hold of the data.

I am puzzled as to why this is so rare, a 192 check should be producing duff results more often.

I have (out of curiosity) looked at the 192 records of friends and family, and there have been a number of mistakes in the record, mostly the omission of someone who is over 18 and should appear, alongside the appearance of a minor - which should not be happening.