Redbet-Andy
Dormant account - New account: AndyB-MrGreen
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2010
- Location
- Malta
The Electoral Register just doesn't work. It takes too long to get on it, as you say, annually , too long to change, and while most people in the UK are on it, a lot are on at addresses that don't match their real address. Fine or no fine, nobody's worried about it.
Especially in London and large cities. People rent, move often etc
The only way to do it is to verify a players docs.
"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."
On the contrary. That was yesterday's method. The current method is different we won't boot anyone for not being on 192/ other registers. We don't only use 192 of course.
Andy
Especially in London and large cities. People rent, move often etc
The only way to do it is to verify a players docs.
"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."
On the contrary. That was yesterday's method. The current method is different we won't boot anyone for not being on 192/ other registers. We don't only use 192 of course.
Andy
The OP said later
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.