They didn't beat around the bush. They told him what he needed to do and why he needed to do it. But he was too busy being abusive.
There is no excuse to lose one's cool. It's like a wife beater blaming his wife for making him hit her. "You made me punch you!" It's a lack of self discipline and there is no excuse to behave this way.
And members who abuse customer service reps jeopardize their accounts in this forum. I won't stand for it.
I was referring to this part of the PAB
In any case, since I resubmitted my documentation I received absolutely no further requests for additional documentation. I can and will prove this as I have retained all of my email correspondence with support. Some time after my account was re-opened I got a "You must have a faxback form on file to perform a transaction - please contact customer service" message and contacted support to inform them that I did indeed have a faxback form on file. I was told, again, that I did not have a proper form on file. I proceded to ask for what exactly more I needed to send to support three times in three subsequent email exchanges and was given vague answers such as “We have told you several times that we need some additional info to complete the verification process,” and, “We have told you exactly what is needed but you seem determined not to send us this,” despite the fact that they never told me what it was that I needed to send in.
Simply saying "you need a proper form" to a player who has already sent in a form is NOT telling him "exactly what is required". This creates a circular "catch 22" situation, where sending in the faxback form the player thinks is what is required is NOT what the CASINO wants, hence the request for more SPECIFIC guidance as to what needs to be done DIFFERENTLY this time.
The obvious answer in this case seems to be "sign it properly this time", but this was not SPECIFICALLY stated. Given that the player could see no reason for such a request, believing he had ALREADY "signed it properly" the first time, the request kicked off his outburst of insults.
Whilst an unusually extreme reaction, the documentation procedure IS flawed in the industry as a whole, and CONSTANTLY creates conflict. This is made worse because SOME casinos deliberately use the documentation procedure as a "rogue" means to deny payments when they "don't like the way a player played". This means that any problems in the process makes players suspect they are being "set up" for an eventual screwing over.
Were the signatures different in the end, or was a mistake made by the casino in processing the documents?
Why did the casino drop the issue even though the documents were not considered "proper"?
Surely they should have sent further requests, and NOT unlocked the account a SECOND time until the documentation was sorted.
Unfortunately, they DID unlock the account, yet did NOT ask for further documentation alongside this. This lead the player to believe that the issue really WAS "sorted" at last. Unfortunately, it came back some months later with further requests for documentation, which lead to a further round of insults.
If the verification process was less confrontational, this kind of response would be less likely.
The other problem with iNetBet is that you cannot actually "discuss" an issue in real time, but rather have to do it over several email exchanges over several days, and with DIFFERENT PEOPLE representing the casino during the process of a single discussion. This is a perfect environment for misunderstandings to develop, and has constantly been highlighted as a shortcoming at iNetBet.
Whether this would have made any difference in this case is not known, the CS rep may STILL have been called an a******e by the player on the phone, rather than in an email.
There is no way iNetbet can risk opening the account again, but the matter of "$100 still in the account" needs closure so that the player no longer has anything to moan about, nor cause to ask for the account to be reopened.
The OP should also realise that calling CS reps an *&^%%$£ is likely to result in even WORSE service, if not a locked account.
Maybe iNetBet was too FORGIVING early on, when they should have demanded "proper" documentation from the outset BEFORE unlocking the account for the player to complete WR. This would have provided clarity that the issue was NOT "sorted", and that it had to be "sorted" before any unlocking of the account.
Once requirements had been met, and the account was empty, they could then have decided whether this player was "worth the bother" for future deposits, and acted accordingly with no actual monies being "confiscated".
With this problem seemingly over, CM also has a chance to decide whether this member is "worth the bother" in the future.
This would have to start with the OP recognising what a HUGE mistake they made in the way they dealt with iNetBet, and resolving to do things differently in the future.
This would then be a complaint of "I insulted CS, and later when I had no money in my account, it was locked". There would be little to moan about, but more importantly, no "confiscated funds" to make a big fuss over.
That caught my eye and then I knew it was going to be another slam against another good casino, Inetbet is as fair as they come when it comes to player issues imo.
