Casino Complaint king neptunes casino live chat, hilarious unless it was my money :-(

[Chameleon]

hello friends...
so first, the technical details:
on the 16/12/2010 i opened an account at
king neptunes casino, made a deposit and enjoyed
their 100% match bonus.
i fulfilled the terms and conditions had a alot of luck
and ended with a balance of 2031 poudns which i asked
to withdraw right after.
the casino asked me for documents (ID and utility bill) which
i sent several times becasue they kept claiming they don't recieve them.
i even attached two utility bills for them just so they can be happy...
then suddenly they locked my account without a notice.
from the livechat operator i found out they were supspecting the documents
i supplied were falsified. i asked to speak with
the managers but they refused to supply me with any other email
address but the one of the general support. and told me that the
decision is final and nothing can be done to unlock my account and pay me my winnigs.
few days later i called them at the phone and then
they told me i can send them another utility bill which i did but
again they kept not replying to my emails.
i went for the livechat again and this is the transcript of our conversation.
judge it yourself...
-------------------------------------------------------------------
04 June 2011 09:02:23 PM (2011/06/04 07:02:23 PM - GMT)
Welcome to Casino Support, SairaS will be right with you.

SairaS:
Thank you for contacting Casino Support and welcome to Live Help Facility. How may I assist you today?

Elliott Smus:
hello. i sent you a copy of my utility bill recently but haven't received an answear from you, could you please check if it arrived?

SairaS:
Hello Elliot, please allow me to check on that for you

Elliott Smus:
tnks

SairaS:
Elliot when did you send us the utility bill?

Elliott Smus:
i sent it to [email protected]

Elliott Smus:
on the 30/5

SairaS:
what was the Bill for?

Elliott Smus:
in order to unlock my account

SairaS:
your utility bill which organization was it from?

Elliott Smus:
Barclays, the bank

SairaS:
no we have not received that Elliot

SairaS:
was the size of your e-mail bigger than 3 mb?

SairaS:
if so it would not have come through our e-mail filter

Elliott Smus:
no

Elliott Smus:
it was a file of 265 KB

SairaS:
would you be able to send it through to us again Elliot?

SairaS:
you can send it to my e-mail address?

SairaS:
so i can keep an eye out for it?

SairaS:
personally?

Elliott Smus:
sure, i would love to since it is not the first time you don't receive email from me, it might be better this way

Elliott Smus:
what is your email address?

SairaS:
Elliot i am just chatting with the finance department regarding your account

SairaS:
please allow me a few moment

SairaS:
Ok Elliot our Finance department have actually said to me that we do not require any documentation from yourself

SairaS:
and that your account will remain locked

SairaS:
and will not be unlocked

Elliott Smus:
but you asked me for that

SairaS:
due to negative activity on your account the casino reserves the right to suspend your account

Elliott Smus:
look, i have never received any email from you regarding that, you don't replay to my email and the only way i hear that is by livechat, isn't it weird?

SairaS:
Elliot I am sorry that you have not received any correspondence regarding this, as per the casinos terms and conditions your account is now locked and will remain locked

Elliott Smus:
i would like to speak or write to the managers, is there a way to do that? it is very unacceptable the way you treat me

SairaS:
I am the manager on shift today Elliot

Elliott Smus:
you don't explain nothing and just lock my account without paying me 2000 pounds! do you consider that as a proper way to treat a client?

SairaS:
Elliot the reason why we initially requested the documentation form your self was for verification purposes, you were unable to provide is with satisfactory documentation when we initially requested them from you, and you were unable to comply with the terms and conditions of the casino.

SairaS:
you send us an e-mail around the 2nd of May and I at the time requested further information from you

SairaS:
and that was the 2nd of May and after that you are saying that you sent us a barclay's statement on the 30th of May?

Elliott Smus:
i don't recall that email from 2nd of may

SairaS:
i will copy and paste it to you in that:

Elliott Smus:
i can't find it in my sent items folder

Elliott Smus:
thank you for that

SairaS:
Dear Elliot,

Thank you for your call earlier on today.
Please send us a copy of your bank statement, or Utility Bill containing your name and your address on it. The statement has to be from within the last 3 months.
If you have any further questions or queries, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Thank you

Kind Regards


Saira S
Casino Player Host

Elliott Smus:
one sec

SairaS:
Unfortunately Elliot the casino has made the decision to suspend your account

SairaS:
is there anything else i can assist you with today?

Elliott Smus:
i m sorry, i have just seen this email now

SairaS:
ok

Elliott Smus:
but what matter does it make?

Elliott Smus:
i have already sent you lots of documets before

SairaS:
the documents you have sent to us have not been approved

Elliott Smus:
and i sent another one a couple of days ago

SairaS:
I'm sorry Elliot we have not received any further correspondence from yourself

Elliott Smus:
so have a look at the last one if there is a need, just becasue i didn't notice the email and sent it by delay doesn't say nothing

SairaS:
Elliot regardless of the delay, or even if we had received your documentation your account will remain locked

Elliott Smus:
so i m sending it again right now, give me your personal email and see it right away!

Elliott Smus:
so why did you asked for documents at the first place?

SairaS:
at which incident today pr previously?

Elliott Smus:
i mean on the 2nd of may you asked for a utility bill, why did you ask it?

Elliott Smus:
if not to unlock my account?

SairaS:
because at that time I did not have to the casinos decision regarding the permanent closure of your account

SairaS:
your account is closed and unfortunately will not be opened

Elliott Smus:
ok, but what about my winnings?

SairaS:
your winnings have been confiscated

SairaS:
as per the violation of the casinos terms and conditions by the negative activity on your account!

Elliott Smus:
so that has got nothing to do with the doumcnets?

SairaS:
unfortunately i cannot discuss this matter further than i already have Elliot

Elliott Smus:
ok, don't discuss it but let me talk with someone who can

SairaS:
i'm sorry Elliot

Elliott Smus:
goodbye now Saira, tnks for all

SairaS:
you are most welcome

----------------------------
sorry for the length.... i m not going to give up.
are there any others of you who experienced the same attitude with them?
Elliott

 

[Repro]

They are part of the River Belle group and they ARE accredited.

You can contact their rep HERE.

 

[vinylweatherman]

They get away with this because they are largely unregulated. You have no proper right to appeal the decision, nor even question whether they have made a mistake in the data they have on you.

It is pretty easy to fake a utility bill, but also pretty easy to mistake a genuine one for a fake if it doesn't look like what they think a utility bill should look like.

You could make a complaint to Barclays that your statement has been branded as a fake by an online merchant, and you can also complain now to Trading Standards. All you need to do is demonstrate to the bank and Trading Standards that you sent genuine documents, and the casino could find itself blacklisted for scamming customers by making false representation.

You could even find out who their processor is, and serve them with a data disclosure request (costs £10). Most offshore casinos seem to use UK based processors and verification companies. Proccyber has been the main supplier of such services to MGS casinos when it comes to processing card transactions. You can identify the processor involved from the statement from your deposit method.

Complaining to the regulator is a waste of time, since they have moved to Malta. This still leaves you with eCogra, and maybe even the PAB service - BUT both these options require that you do NOT go public and "bash" the casino before they have had a chance to deal with your request. You have overstepped the mark a little by naming them in your post, rather than just saying "this casino......." when asking for advice.

You could PM Max and ask if he will accept your PAB on condition that you make no further posts about this here, nor on any other forum, and that you refrain from pressuring the casino to "give in" through making threats to CS about what you will do if they don't pay up.

If you DO carry on posting, Max may kick your PAB to the curb, even if he agreed to accept it in the first place.

If you DID try to get away with false documents, you will be "outed" here, and we will all be told that you tried to use this forum to get away with it.

 

[lauram]

I also back in dec 2010 had a large withdraw coming from jackpot. It was just under20k
They did ask me for updated docs. Did forward them off to find out that you must send each doc separate. Each one with your name date of birth and address account number.
I also used 3 different utility bills. Once they did get those and was readable finally.
I must give them credit on a sunday they paid me every hour 5k till it was paid in full.
Just make sure they are within the 3 months of bills. I even sent off cable to show my computer on it and my cell phone bill where they call me from.

 

[P.V.]

hello friends...
so first, the technical details:
on the 16/12/2010 i opened an account at
king neptunes casino, made a deposit and enjoyed
their 100% match bonus.
i fulfilled the terms and conditions had a alot of luck
and ended with a balance of 2031 poudns which i asked
to withdraw right after.
the casino asked me for documents (ID and utility bill) which
i sent several times becasue they kept claiming they don't recieve them.
i even attached two utility bills for them just so they can be happy...
then suddenly they locked my account without a notice.
from the livechat operator i found out they were supspecting the documents
i supplied were falsified. i asked to speak with
the managers but they refused to supply me with any other email
address but the one of the general support. and told me that the
decision is final and nothing can be done to unlock my account and pay me my winnigs.
few days later i called them at the phone and then
they told me i can send them another utility bill which i did but
again they kept not replying to my emails.
i went for the livechat again and this is the transcript of our conversation.
judge it yourself...
-------------------------------------------------------------------
04 June 2011 09:02:23 PM (2011/06/04 07:02:23 PM - GMT)
Welcome to Casino Support, SairaS will be right with you.

SairaS:
Thank you for contacting Casino Support and welcome to Live Help Facility. How may I assist you today?

Elliott Smus:
hello. i sent you a copy of my utility bill recently but haven't received an answear from you, could you please check if it arrived?

SairaS:
Hello Elliot, please allow me to check on that for you

Elliott Smus:
tnks

SairaS:
Elliot when did you send us the utility bill?

Elliott Smus:
i sent it to [email protected]

Elliott Smus:
on the 30/5

SairaS:
what was the Bill for?

Elliott Smus:
in order to unlock my account

SairaS:
your utility bill which organization was it from?

Elliott Smus:
Barclays, the bank

SairaS:
no we have not received that Elliot

SairaS:
was the size of your e-mail bigger than 3 mb?

SairaS:
if so it would not have come through our e-mail filter

Elliott Smus:
no

Elliott Smus:
it was a file of 265 KB

SairaS:
would you be able to send it through to us again Elliot?

SairaS:
you can send it to my e-mail address?

SairaS:
so i can keep an eye out for it?

SairaS:
personally?

Elliott Smus:
sure, i would love to since it is not the first time you don't receive email from me, it might be better this way

Elliott Smus:
what is your email address?

SairaS:
Elliot i am just chatting with the finance department regarding your account

SairaS:
please allow me a few moment

SairaS:
Ok Elliot our Finance department have actually said to me that we do not require any documentation from yourself

SairaS:
and that your account will remain locked

SairaS:
and will not be unlocked

Elliott Smus:
but you asked me for that

SairaS:
due to negative activity on your account the casino reserves the right to suspend your account

Elliott Smus:
look, i have never received any email from you regarding that, you don't replay to my email and the only way i hear that is by livechat, isn't it weird?

SairaS:
Elliot I am sorry that you have not received any correspondence regarding this, as per the casinos terms and conditions your account is now locked and will remain locked

Elliott Smus:
i would like to speak or write to the managers, is there a way to do that? it is very unacceptable the way you treat me

SairaS:
I am the manager on shift today Elliot

Elliott Smus:
you don't explain nothing and just lock my account without paying me 2000 pounds! do you consider that as a proper way to treat a client?

SairaS:
Elliot the reason why we initially requested the documentation form your self was for verification purposes, you were unable to provide is with satisfactory documentation when we initially requested them from you, and you were unable to comply with the terms and conditions of the casino.

SairaS:
you send us an e-mail around the 2nd of May and I at the time requested further information from you

SairaS:
and that was the 2nd of May and after that you are saying that you sent us a barclay's statement on the 30th of May?

Elliott Smus:
i don't recall that email from 2nd of may

SairaS:
i will copy and paste it to you in that:

Elliott Smus:
i can't find it in my sent items folder

Elliott Smus:
thank you for that

SairaS:
Dear Elliot,

Thank you for your call earlier on today.
Please send us a copy of your bank statement, or Utility Bill containing your name and your address on it. The statement has to be from within the last 3 months.
If you have any further questions or queries, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Thank you

Kind Regards


Saira S
Casino Player Host

Elliott Smus:
one sec

SairaS:
Unfortunately Elliot the casino has made the decision to suspend your account

SairaS:
is there anything else i can assist you with today?

Elliott Smus:
i m sorry, i have just seen this email now

SairaS:
ok

Elliott Smus:
but what matter does it make?

Elliott Smus:
i have already sent you lots of documets before

SairaS:
the documents you have sent to us have not been approved

Elliott Smus:
and i sent another one a couple of days ago

SairaS:
I'm sorry Elliot we have not received any further correspondence from yourself

Elliott Smus:
so have a look at the last one if there is a need, just becasue i didn't notice the email and sent it by delay doesn't say nothing

SairaS:
Elliot regardless of the delay, or even if we had received your documentation your account will remain locked

Elliott Smus:
so i m sending it again right now, give me your personal email and see it right away!

Elliott Smus:
so why did you asked for documents at the first place?

SairaS:
at which incident today pr previously?

Elliott Smus:
i mean on the 2nd of may you asked for a utility bill, why did you ask it?

Elliott Smus:
if not to unlock my account?

SairaS:
because at that time I did not have to the casinos decision regarding the permanent closure of your account

SairaS:
your account is closed and unfortunately will not be opened

Elliott Smus:
ok, but what about my winnings?

SairaS:
your winnings have been confiscated

SairaS:
as per the violation of the casinos terms and conditions by the negative activity on your account!

Elliott Smus:
so that has got nothing to do with the doumcnets?

SairaS:
unfortunately i cannot discuss this matter further than i already have Elliot

Elliott Smus:
ok, don't discuss it but let me talk with someone who can

SairaS:
i'm sorry Elliot

Elliott Smus:
goodbye now Saira, tnks for all

SairaS:
you are most welcome

----------------------------
sorry for the length.... i m not going to give up.
are there any others of you who experienced the same attitude with them?
Elliott

The document complaint is a vaild one. As I've posted before they should not be asking for them by email and fax. (Leaves the door wide open for excuses, fruad.) They didn't receive your many emails, correct?.

Everyone should know by whom is viewing their personal information, when it was viewed, approved or denied, for what reason and in real time.

I created a site for this but I generally get that it's not in our business plan, whatever that means from OC's? I think that means we don't care.

Other than complain about current document procedures, demand a better way!

Anyhow good luck and I hope everything works out for you!

 

[SlotMonster]

It once happened with me, but not in KN casino.

I sent requested documents but because they were scanned on monochrome format, the quality was very poor and casino has denied them. I sent once again, now making a photo of every document and added a photo of ME, holding my ID so casino stuff could see the photo attached to the ID and be sure that I'm holding MY documents. No more questions were asked, and my documents were approved.

I also would advise to request a confirmation message to prove they got your email.

 

[mellakka]

hello friends...


SairaS:
no we have not received that Elliot

SairaS:
was the size of your e-mail bigger than 3 mb?

SairaS:
if so it would not have come through our e-mail filter

Elliott

Elliott, did u receive any delivery messages when u first time try to send those docs?
I did have similar situation from the past, when i try to send docs for same address i did receive :

This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification

THIS IS A WARNING MESSAGE ONLY.

YOU DO NOT NEED TO RESEND YOUR MESSAGE.

Delivery to the following recipient has been delayed:

[email protected]

Message will be retried for 2 more day(s)

Technical details of temporary failure:
The recipient server did not accept our requests to connect. Learn more at

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

[mx.fakemx.net. (0): Destination address required]



after several attempts :

This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification

THIS IS A WARNING MESSAGE ONLY.

YOU DO NOT NEED TO RESEND YOUR MESSAGE.

Delivery to the following recipient has been delayed:

[email protected]

Message will be retried for 1 more day(s)



and finally :

Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently:

[email protected]

Technical details of permanent failure:

The recipient server did not accept our requests to connect. Learn more at

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

[mx.fakemx.net. (0): Destination address required]


My problem was i did try to send documents (ID and bill) they was to big together, so i send those in part.
This is not explain why they have lock your account, but check out your email again.

 

[chuchu59]

A few years ago, several of the RB casinos locked me out for no reason whatsoever. I posted on this forum and was told by their rep that i was suspected of fraudulent activity. Though they refused to disclose more, they reopened my accounts though I must emphasise that they did not owe me a single cent at that time. Later on, I won 800 in a tourney and was paid promptly. IMO they are an honest group although I detest their insistence in not coming clean on why they locked my accounts unilaterally.

 

[vinylweatherman]

A few years ago, several of the RB casinos locked me out for no reason whatsoever. I posted on this forum and was told by their rep that i was suspected of fraudulent activity. Though they refused to disclose more, they reopened my accounts though I must emphasise that they did not owe me a single cent at that time. Later on, I won 800 in a tourney and was paid promptly. IMO they are an honest group although I detest their insistence in not coming clean on why they locked my accounts unilaterally.

This shows they DO make mistakes, but refuse to admit that they are anything short of 100% perfect until their hands are forced.

If you were not a member here, you would NEVER have managed to get past their mantra of "you are a fraud, decision is final".

These mistakes, and the arrogant attitude of operators that they "never make mistakes" is why I often take the side of the player unless substantive evidence of wrongdoing emerges, such as a failed PAB and them being banned from the forum.

It's the same with many businesses, and many businesses that think "we don't make mistakes" have made some major howlers, and had to be dragged kicking and screaming by even BIGGER "bullies" such as Trading Standards, MP's, the Financial Ombudsman, etc to the table for their serving of humble pie. Some top staff have even faced CRIMINAL charges as a result of their "mistakes" - Severn Trent water was a case in point.

Business will ONLY look after their customers when they HAVE to, not because it is right. If they can wriggle out of spending money, they WILL.

It seems that mere suspicion leads to a guilty verdict without right of appeal, yet when WE claim that we have spotted something "suspicious" about the activities of the businesses, we are told that we are being "unreasonable" in drawing conclusions of guilt from such unsubstantiated evidence.

Many "suspect" that the evidence of our own eyes tells us that the games are not as random as they are made out to be, but we are told to "prove it beyond doubt" or stop making such ridiculous claims.

Had the poker players done this, AP and UB would STILL be cheating, and getting away with it. Only determined pursuit of their suspicions built a body of evidence that could not be explained away by the operators, and led to them being "busted", but sadly getting off very lightly because of their power and influence.

Players only have "power and influence" through force of numbers, and cooperation in looking at, and discussing, things that just don't look right.

If online operators want us to trust them, they need to show a willingness to trust us as a collective body of customers, and stop looking for opportunities to screw us over when we make minor slip-ups, and claim it is because we as a group harbour a large number of hardened fraudsters, and should simply put up with the fact that the innocent should sacrifice themselves for the good of the OPERATORS.

Even though we know the US argument for prohibition was a load of BS, the behaviour of some operators merely corroborates some of these BS claims that the DoJ tried to use to justify their efforts to rid the world of this industry.

 

[SlotMonster]

Excellent post, vinyl!

If online operators want us to trust them, they need to show a willingness to trust us as a collective body of customers, and stop looking for opportunities to screw us over when we make minor slip-ups, and claim it is because we as a group harbour a large number of hardened fraudsters, and should simply put up with the fact that the innocent should sacrifice themselves for the good of the OPERATORS.

I will print it out and and put on the wall at my workplace.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Excellent post, vinyl!



I will print it out and and put on the wall at my workplace.

(C)

I would also add that OPERATORS as a group also "harbour a large number of criminals and rogues", yet will have a "hissy fit" when players suggest that a particular one of them might be a member of this rogue class, rather than one of the honest one. Can they not understand that an honest PLAYER is also likely to have a "hissy fit" when the operator tells them "we suspect you have tried to defraud us", or even worse "you are a proven fraud - you money is confiscated, now **** off".

Players don't have extensive training to deal with this situation, something that business staff DO, so players are more likely to "fly off the handle" than deal with the false accusation in a controlled manner, as is more lilely when a business has to deal with such an accusation.

The tendency of operators to hide behind "no comment" when the heat is turned on them does nothing to assure us that the accusations are false, if anything it makes it look even MORE credible that the accusations are true, at least in part.

If a PLAYER clams up when being asked questions about their ID, and validity of their documents, operators take this as an instant confirmation of their guilt.

 

[Nifty29]

IMO trust is irrelevant when it comes to the crunch.

It is not at all unreasonable for an operator to require photo ID and some other corroborating document, plus copies of any cards used.

Can you imagine how much fraud would occur if the casinos backed down on the photo ID requirement in general? Anyone can send in dodgy written documents, but it's much tougher to do so with a photo ID issued by Governments.

The only problem with photo ID seems to be with UK players, and this is not due to the fact that it is impossible to obtain Gov photo ID but that it costs money to obtain it. Yes, it's a pain in the butt, but if one is going to spend $,000s gambling online then is it really that much of an impost to spend $100 on a photo licence, or some other kind of photo ID? If you compare this cost to the troubles you might encounter if you don't, it's really a no-brainer IMO.

If you cannot meet the ID standards for online gaming, then don't gamble online. Otherwise, get something that does meet the standards and go on your merry way never having to worry about having winnings confiscated.

I could understand the uproar if it was $500 or $1000 or something, but many people think nothing of depositing $100 so it's tough to for me to see why operators have to lower standards for certain players - as I said, it could open the door to more fraud and that costs everyone in the long run.

It's also important to point out that it is a very small % of honest players who are subjected to ID fraud accusations. In these cases, it is almost always resolved in the player's favor (if dealing with a reliable operator) due to the fact that it becomes clear with further investigation that they are in fact innocent......and you can thank the fraudsters and scumbags who constantly bombard online casinos for the false accusations in the first place.

Sometimes honest players get caught in the dragnet, but I'm OK with that if it means that it catches the fraudsters too. If you make the net too narrow, you're just inviting trouble.

 

[vinylweatherman]

IMO trust is irrelevant when it comes to the crunch.

It is not at all unreasonable for an operator to require photo ID and some other corroborating document, plus copies of any cards used.

Can you imagine how much fraud would occur if the casinos backed down on the photo ID requirement in general? Anyone can send in dodgy written documents, but it's much tougher to do so with a photo ID issued by Governments.

The only problem with photo ID seems to be with UK players, and this is not due to the fact that it is impossible to obtain Gov photo ID but that it costs money to obtain it. Yes, it's a pain in the butt, but if one is going to spend $,000s gambling online then is it really that much of an impost to spend $100 on a photo licence, or some other kind of photo ID? If you compare this cost to the troubles you might encounter if you don't, it's really a no-brainer IMO.

If you cannot meet the ID standards for online gaming, then don't gamble online. Otherwise, get something that does meet the standards and go on your merry way never having to worry about having winnings confiscated.

I could understand the uproar if it was $500 or $1000 or something, but many people think nothing of depositing $100 so it's tough to for me to see why operators have to lower standards for certain players - as I said, it could open the door to more fraud and that costs everyone in the long run.

It's also important to point out that it is a very small % of honest players who are subjected to ID fraud accusations. In these cases, it is almost always resolved in the player's favor (if dealing with a reliable operator) due to the fact that it becomes clear with further investigation that they are in fact innocent......and you can thank the fraudsters and scumbags who constantly bombard online casinos for the false accusations in the first place.

Sometimes honest players get caught in the dragnet, but I'm OK with that if it means that it catches the fraudsters too. If you make the net too narrow, you're just inviting trouble.

Well, OPERATORS will have to live with the fact that WE don't trust THEM either, and stop getting so offended when the odd innocent one is accused of ripping off players because a rogue operator used a "similar operating style", and thus got flagged by part of the player community as "suspect".

The problem with the UK is NOT just about money. You CANNOT simply pay £70 for a driving license, you have to be QUALIFIED TO DRIVE as well, and some are not even allowed to take the exam because they have medical conditions or disabilities that means the law prohibits them from holding a driving license, even if they can pass the test with flying colours. Many common ailments can prohibit one from driving - ever, and include such things as diabetes, sleep apnoea, epilepsy, even a SINGLE episode that MIGHT be epilepsy, even if not diagnosed as such.

The passport is not simply about money either, the application process involves having to travel to appear in person at one of a small number of interview centres, so added to the £100 cost, there is the cost of transport to the centre, a day off work, and this assumes you are not disabled. One UK player here was disabled and lived in a remote part of Scotland. He could afford the £100, but was not able to travel to the interview centre, so clearly did not need a passport for it's intended purpose, going abroad.

Where the fuss is about a small amount, such as $100, it actually costs the player MORE to get a passport than it would cost them to simply walk away from the money.

The last problem is that the casino's terms are often vague about what documents they will accept, so a player may believe they will be able to provide what is needed from the documents they already have, and discover at the last minute that they are not good enough. A passport also takes 6 weeks to arrive once applied for, and the interview has taken place. Players are not that patient.

Proof of address is also a problem, casinos ask for documents that are simply unavailable because of the PERFECTLY NORMAL AND HONEST manner in which the player lives, and pays their bills. It is NOT because the player is trying to hide something.

If you have an online deal with your utilty, the bill sent to your address DOES NOT EXIST, and therefore CANNOT be produced. Operators work ONLINE, yet seem to expect EVERY other business NOT to have kept up with the cost savings of using the internet, and carry on doing everything the expensive old fashioned way.

Back in the 1980's, EVERYBODY had a bill through the post, there was no "online tariff" at all. This is something that evolved this century, and after a decade it has become quite common for people to do many things online. In fact, ONLINE gamblers are MORE likely than others to conduct their other affairs online too, after all, they are happy to gamble with 4 figure sums with the casinos, so would surely not see a problem with the far less risky idea of having the convenience of online billing with Direct Debit.

I find it GREAT. No more having to go into town a couple of times a month to pay a few bills, I can pay all my bills from right here in front of my PC. I can SEE them too, I don't really need to have it through the post some 10 days after I have already seen it online, and probably already paid it online.

UK companies have NO PROBLEM WHATSOEVER with all of this, yet THEY also have to make sure of the ID and address of their customers in order to protect themselves from fraud. If UK companies can do it, there is no excuse for online companies not using the same set of methods to identify their players, and protect themselves from fraud.

Banks and card companies are by far the BIGGEST target for fraud, yet I am NOT repeatedly asked to scan and send in my ID and latest utility bill every time I log on and submit a money movement request. I did not even have to do this when I first opened the accounts, and they are all perfectly happy with the background checks that they do, and all without me having to send in anything, or having any control or influence on the data they receive.

This is where online casinos mess up. They ask the PLAYER to provide the data that they will use for their checks, so of course they are seen as an easy target for fraudsters. The fact that casinos determine whether the document the player has sent in is genuine or not based purely on it's image and other data supplied by the player shows why fraudsters are targetting this weakness. They have considerable control over the data being used. A genuine document is called a fake because the casino do NOT check it's authenticity independently, such as with the company issuing it, or a credit reference agency and/or the electoral roll.

The UK electoral roll has a record of EVERY adult in the UK, it is a legal requirement for anyone old enough to gamble (18) to also have their name registered, and along with their current address. It can be accessed via a credit reference agency under an ID check search.

Casinos don't do this because it COSTS MONEY, and they can get all the information FOR FREE by getting the player to do the legwork of scanning and sending in the documents. They won't even pony up the little bit extra to provide players with a SECURE means of uploading their documents to a https: server, it is all done by email, much less secure, but MUCH CHEAPER for the casino.

So, don't be a HYPOCRITE and say that players should not resent having to shell out a few hundred quid just so that they can be equipped to do all the verification legwork FOR FREE on behaf of the casino, rather than the casino paying the fees asked for by credit reference agencies in order to electronically verify the details.

A credit reference agency is even able to verify that the player owns the credit card registered to the casino account, as it's details will appear on the credit file.

 

[Nifty29]

Well, OPERATORS will have to live with the fact that WE don't trust THEM either, and stop getting so offended when the odd innocent one is accused of ripping off players because a rogue operator used a "similar operating style", and thus got flagged by part of the player community as "suspect".

The problem with the UK is NOT just about money. You CANNOT simply pay £70 for a driving license, you have to be QUALIFIED TO DRIVE as well, and some are not even allowed to take the exam because they have medical conditions or disabilities that means the law prohibits them from holding a driving license, even if they can pass the test with flying colours. Many common ailments can prohibit one from driving - ever, and include such things as diabetes, sleep apnoea, epilepsy, even a SINGLE episode that MIGHT be epilepsy, even if not diagnosed as such.

The passport is not simply about money either, the application process involves having to travel to appear in person at one of a small number of interview centres, so added to the £100 cost, there is the cost of transport to the centre, a day off work, and this assumes you are not disabled. One UK player here was disabled and lived in a remote part of Scotland. He could afford the £100, but was not able to travel to the interview centre, so clearly did not need a passport for it's intended purpose, going abroad.

Where the fuss is about a small amount, such as $100, it actually costs the player MORE to get a passport than it would cost them to simply walk away from the money.

The last problem is that the casino's terms are often vague about what documents they will accept, so a player may believe they will be able to provide what is needed from the documents they already have, and discover at the last minute that they are not good enough. A passport also takes 6 weeks to arrive once applied for, and the interview has taken place. Players are not that patient.

Proof of address is also a problem, casinos ask for documents that are simply unavailable because of the PERFECTLY NORMAL AND HONEST manner in which the player lives, and pays their bills. It is NOT because the player is trying to hide something.

If you have an online deal with your utilty, the bill sent to your address DOES NOT EXIST, and therefore CANNOT be produced. Operators work ONLINE, yet seem to expect EVERY other business NOT to have kept up with the cost savings of using the internet, and carry on doing everything the expensive old fashioned way.

Back in the 1980's, EVERYBODY had a bill through the post, there was no "online tariff" at all. This is something that evolved this century, and after a decade it has become quite common for people to do many things online. In fact, ONLINE gamblers are MORE likely than others to conduct their other affairs online too, after all, they are happy to gamble with 4 figure sums with the casinos, so would surely not see a problem with the far less risky idea of having the convenience of online billing with Direct Debit.

I find it GREAT. No more having to go into town a couple of times a month to pay a few bills, I can pay all my bills from right here in front of my PC. I can SEE them too, I don't really need to have it through the post some 10 days after I have already seen it online, and probably already paid it online.

UK companies have NO PROBLEM WHATSOEVER with all of this, yet THEY also have to make sure of the ID and address of their customers in order to protect themselves from fraud. If UK companies can do it, there is no excuse for online companies not using the same set of methods to identify their players, and protect themselves from fraud.

Banks and card companies are by far the BIGGEST target for fraud, yet I am NOT repeatedly asked to scan and send in my ID and latest utility bill every time I log on and submit a money movement request. I did not even have to do this when I first opened the accounts, and they are all perfectly happy with the background checks that they do, and all without me having to send in anything, or having any control or influence on the data they receive.

This is where online casinos mess up. They ask the PLAYER to provide the data that they will use for their checks, so of course they are seen as an easy target for fraudsters. The fact that casinos determine whether the document the player has sent in is genuine or not based purely on it's image and other data supplied by the player shows why fraudsters are targetting this weakness. They have considerable control over the data being used. A genuine document is called a fake because the casino do NOT check it's authenticity independently, such as with the company issuing it, or a credit reference agency and/or the electoral roll.

The UK electoral roll has a record of EVERY adult in the UK, it is a legal requirement for anyone old enough to gamble (18) to also have their name registered, and along with their current address. It can be accessed via a credit reference agency under an ID check search.

Casinos don't do this because it COSTS MONEY, and they can get all the information FOR FREE by getting the player to do the legwork of scanning and sending in the documents. They won't even pony up the little bit extra to provide players with a SECURE means of uploading their documents to a https: server, it is all done by email, much less secure, but MUCH CHEAPER for the casino.

So, don't be a HYPOCRITE and say that players should not resent having to shell out a few hundred quid just so that they can be equipped to do all the verification legwork FOR FREE on behaf of the casino, rather than the casino paying the fees asked for by credit reference agencies in order to electronically verify the details.

A credit reference agency is even able to verify that the player owns the credit card registered to the casino account, as it's details will appear on the credit file.

Whoa....slow down there Vinyl. I'm not sure I like your tone right there, along with capitalising things such as "qualified to drive" etc as if to infer I am somehow unable to read, or am so stupid to think that they just hand out licences even if you don't have a paper one or can't drive or are 3 years old. I also don't like being called a HYPOCRITE (hope the letters are big enough there) for no reason.

I said nothing personal in my post about you or anyone else so what you said was inappropriate. I'm quite taken aback hearing something like that from you.

You are giving your view as a UK resident. Fine. I'm giving my view as a non-UK resident.

The situations you describe pertain to the UK. Most other countries in the world provide some kind of photo ID. The fact that the UK doesn't isn't my fault, your fault (unless you get elected to parliament I guess), or the casinos' fault. Why would (or should) they introduce a system at extra cost to them just because one country does things differently? Especially in the case where it is winnings from a free chip!

Any extra costs involved would be passed on to players, and I'm not OK with paying for someone else to prove their identity. It's not reasonable.

You state the cost as being prohibitive. As I said, if you can afford to gamble you can afford to spend $100 to get a photo licence (if you drive of course).

You also state the cost of a passport for someone who might live a long way out in the country. Well, I would say we are talking about an extremely small percentage of potential players here and, again, if they can afford to gamble they can afford to purchase the necessary ID to allow them to withdraw. If they can't, or are unwilling to, then they should stick to gambling locally.

I can tell you now, if my government stopped issuing photo ID as standard and I knew I had to have it to prove my identity online, I would purchase it. It would be a necessary cost of gambling online, just like a PC and internet access etc.

Does it suck to have to purchase photo ID? Of course it does, but I don't see why the operators have to incur additional costs to signup with credit agencies etc to prove someones bona fides, and why other players have to take the flowthrough effects.

Maybe UK players who cannot prove their identity can pay a fee to cover the casino's costs? I see that as being reasonable, but after a few withdrawals it may be cheaper just to get your own photo ID.

I'm not hypocritical or anti-UK or anything like that, I just believe that everyone should be held to the same standards. If it were absolutely impossible to meet these standards it is a different kettle of fish - but this is not the case.

 

[GrandMaster]

The UK electoral roll has a record of EVERY adult in the UK, it is a legal requirement for anyone old enough to gamble (18) to also have their name registered, and along with their current address. It can be accessed via a credit reference agency under an ID check search.

A credit reference agency is even able to verify that the player owns the credit card registered to the casino account, as it's details will appear on the credit file.

The electoral roll only contains those who are eligible to vote. The credit reference agencies probably have a more complete record of people living in the UK.

The situations you describe pertain to the UK. Most other countries in the world provide some kind of photo ID. The fact that the UK doesn't isn't my fault, your fault (unless you get elected to parliament I guess), or the casinos' fault. Why would (or should) they introduce a system at extra cost to them just because one country does things differently?

Because the UK is the largest online gambling market in Europe, maybe the largest legal online gambling market in the world. If the casino does not want to deal with people who don't have the sort of documents the casino believes they ought to have, then this should be made clear during the sign-up process and the players should be made to confirm that they have the required documents.

 

[Nifty29]

The electoral roll only contains those who are eligible to vote. The credit reference agencies probably have a more complete record of people living in the UK.


Because the UK is the largest online gambling market in Europe, maybe the largest legal online gambling market in the world. If the casino does not want to deal with people who don't have the sort of documents the casino believes they ought to have, then this should be made clear during the sign-up process and the players should be made to confirm that they have the required documents.

Yes I agree.

The casinos should make it clear at the time of registration exactly what ID will be required, allowing players to decide if they want to go ahead.

Good suggestion.

 

[Chameleon]

I created a site for this but I generally get that it's not in our business plan, whatever that means from OC's? I think that means we don't care.

Anyhow good luck and I hope everything works out for you!

Great idea, however some websites have already start adopting this method
of sending documents from the casino website itself, this might solve some
of the problems sending emails with attachments which many times are blocked
by the company mail settings.

good luck

 

[Chameleon]

Yes I agree.

The casinos should make it clear at the time of registration exactly what ID will be required, allowing players to decide if they want to go ahead.

Good suggestion.

I would go further than that. sending the relevant documents should be the
last stage of registration. the player won't be able to enter the cashier without first approving his identity. if the casino is not sure about the documents he has the right lock the account, but once approved the player would get this winnings without delay and without excuses.

 

[Chameleon]

Elliott, did u receive any delivery messages when u first time try to send those docs?
I did have similar situation from the past, when i try to send docs for same address i did receive :

This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification

THIS IS A WARNING MESSAGE ONLY.

YOU DO NOT NEED TO RESEND YOUR MESSAGE.

Delivery to the following recipient has been delayed:

[email protected]

Message will be retried for 2 more day(s)

Technical details of temporary failure:
The recipient server did not accept our requests to connect. Learn more at

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

[mx.fakemx.net. (0): Destination address required]



after several attempts :

This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification

THIS IS A WARNING MESSAGE ONLY.

YOU DO NOT NEED TO RESEND YOUR MESSAGE.

Delivery to the following recipient has been delayed:

[email protected]

Message will be retried for 1 more day(s)



and finally :

Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently:

[email protected]

Technical details of permanent failure:

The recipient server did not accept our requests to connect. Learn more at

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

[mx.fakemx.net. (0): Destination address required]


My problem was i did try to send documents (ID and bill) they was to big together, so i send those in part.
This is not explain why they have lock your account, but check out your email again.

well, im my case i haven't received those messages. once , in the live chat, they admitted getting them but i haven't received any email about that.

 

[sparkz]

IMO trust is irrelevant when it comes to the crunch.

It is not at all unreasonable for an operator to require photo ID and some other corroborating document, plus copies of any cards used.

Can you imagine how much fraud would occur if the casinos backed down on the photo ID requirement in general? Anyone can send in dodgy written documents, but it's much tougher to do so with a photo ID issued by Governments.

The only problem with photo ID seems to be with UK players, and this is not due to the fact that it is impossible to obtain Gov photo ID but that it costs money to obtain it. Yes, it's a pain in the butt, but if one is going to spend $,000s gambling online then is it really that much of an impost to spend $100 on a photo licence, or some other kind of photo ID? If you compare this cost to the troubles you might encounter if you don't, it's really a no-brainer IMO.

If you cannot meet the ID standards for online gaming, then don't gamble online. Otherwise, get something that does meet the standards and go on your merry way never having to worry about having winnings confiscated.

In all fairness you can fake a photo ID just as easy as some "dodgy written documents".

Lets face it, casinos never know what you look like. Whats to say some "fraudster" didnt steal someones ID card and use their details to gamble? When the casino sees the photo they wont know its the person actually playing... what next? requests of a players face on webcam actually sitting at the pc, spinning the slots?

There is things as such issued by the government such as birth certificates and tax certificates. Now the casino is the business. It should be up to them and their staff to be able to determine what documents look like in each country (i.e a birth cert in usa is different looking to a uk birth cert).

If im not mistaken the pure rule of gambling is that gambling is NOT a way to make money and it should be branded as fun. So lets take your low roller. They could be making barely £30 deposits each time and not worry about winning, just the fun. 1 day they manage to get their balance to £50 and cashout.... If they had to actually go and purchase a passport they would be spending over £100 on it in the UK since its around £100 for a passport and you have to have an interview in another town before getting it (which could be expenses in train/bus/car's) as well as having a few weeks wait for the document. It also says of government websites that passports/driving licences are recommended to be used for the intended purpose only which is to go overseas, proof you can drive or proof of age ID in shops and not to send copys 1000's of miles away to someone you dont even know what they look like let alone who they are.


Its not so much about possible troubles people will encounter regarding ID. The problem with casinos is its 1 set of rules at 1 casino and another set at others. If casinos gave as much of a crap about fraud as they say and if all the documents they request are essential to prevent fraud then why doesnt every single casino ask for ID before you deposit? Or at worst on your 1st withdraw?. Instead some casinos never ask for any ID whatsoever and some ask after your 5th or 6th withdraw. Someone new to gambling could believe that its like being at their local arcade/casino if they start playing at a casino that never asks for any ID but then when they play elsewhere and are asked they end up stuck.


"If you cannot meet the ID standards for online gaming, then don't gamble online. "

As I put above. What do you define as "standards"? Standards refer to all casinos and the general thing of online gaming but since a lot of casinos never ask for ID its far from being any sort of standard and who knows... it could be 1 of the many tactics casinos use to take players winnings. 1st its "You havent played in the spirit on the bonus... winnings void!!" now its "we havent got any documents off you because our/your email is having problems.... too late now...winnings void!!"




Oh and for the suggestion about casinos saying what they require at the time of registration/deposit..... NEVER!!!. It will never in a million years happen. Too many casinos dont care about fraud or whos playing as long as your losing money, but the moment you win something back and its their turn to pay up they are all of a sudden the Spanish Inquisition

 

[Nifty29]

Oh and for the suggestion about casinos saying what they require at the time of registration/deposit..... NEVER!!!. It will never in a million years happen. Too many casinos dont care about fraud or whos playing as long as your losing money, but the moment you win something back and its their turn to pay up they are all of a sudden the Spanish Inquisition

The casinos COULD easily do this, but they either ALL have to do it or NONE of them.

Why?

If you signed up at a casino, registered your account, and then it said "your account will not be playable until 3 forms of ID are sent and verified by our security team", what would YOU do? I'll tell you what most players would do, and that's uninstall and go to another place that doesn't have these measures in place.

Also, consider the case of a new casino opening. How long do you think it would take to go through carefully the ID documents of ,000s of players (most of who are impatient and will email every 13 minutes to ask if their docs are verified which will triple the time taken anyway).

The reason casinos DON"T verify BEFORE play is because it is unworkable, NOT because they want to take your winnings at the other end. A legit casino will always find a way to verify your identity IF you are an honest player. A rogue casino will find a way to rip you off regardless of ID.

I wasn't being mean in saying that you shouldn't play if you don't have sufficient ID - I was just trying to perhaps save a new member from a nasty situation.

 

[chayton]

Reading through the chat a second time it looks as though the ID wasn't the only issue. Anybody have any idea what "negative activity on your account" means...? Or does that just pertain to a request for docs being (in their opinion) ignored?

 

[chuchu59]

Reading through the chat a second time it looks as though the ID wasn't the only issue. Anybody have any idea what "negative activity on your account" means...? Or does that just pertain to a request for docs being (in their opinion) ignored?

they used a similar phrase when locking my accounts. to date they have not explained what it means.

 

[vinylweatherman]

If the casinos want to market into MY country, they should expect to work by OUR way of doing things.

Why should WE subsidise the costs that should be incurred by the businesses that want to market into the UK, and costs that other players do NOT have to incurr because the casinos have built a system that takes the burden off the players, and on to the casino.

They should NOT be telling players to forward their passports by email in any case, and this has nothing to do with "business choices" it is a NATIONAL SECURITY issue for ANY country, as the governments are relying on private companies registered mostly in offshore "tax havens" to secure such documents to the standards required.

I am surprised that the US did NOT use this argument to drive out the offshore operators, instead of dressing up protectionism as consumer protection.

It is an accident waiting to happen, and one day a major leak of passport copies held on file will be traced back to one of these offshore operators, and it could cause an "international incident" followed by draconian measures that would deprive operators of their current means of checking the ID of players.

Many major dataleaks HAVE happened, and with such "secure" companies as Sony based in major powers such as the US. If the likes of Sony can't keep our data safe, we must assume that offshore operators are even LESS able to achieve this, amply demonstrated by the fact that many STILL rely on email to transmit sensitive information.

I suspect the reason this has gone on for so long is that those in charge at the government don't have a clue about how this all works, and have not properly considered the risks with the current methods of verifying players.

Verifying a customers ID is supposed to be done BEFORE any financial transactions take place, so although the operators are quoting the international agreements on this as the reasons behind it, they are NOT actually sticking to them, because it is cheaper to take the "short cut" of verifying AFTER the fact.

The fact also that a player can be OK at one casino, yet the SAME documents are pronounced fraudulent at another, shows that there is more "guesswork" to the process than they would like us to believe.

The UK government is considering an end to the current "hands off" approach to offshore operators, as it is already worried that many are NOT acting "properly" in their dealings with players, international agreements, and governments of countries where the players live. Exactly what changes will be made have yet to be decided, but the clock is ticking.

Failure to self police effectively has lead to other business sectors being saddled with government regulations, and often these are NOT designed to be "user friendly" for the businesses involved, and place a burden on those who have behaved properly in the past, in order to police those that have been determined not to.

Many ID options available to UK players who can't drive are likely to get rejected, or wrongly classed as fake, because they are issued LOCALLY by a number of organisations, and thus all have different designs. It is unlikely that operators have samples of ALL the different designs, but they will assume they have, and will consider any documents not on the list as fake.

It is going to end up being EASIER for the skilled fraudster to pass verification than some genuine players.

The problem for the industry is where genuine players are falsely accused of fraud, and both they, and UK Trading Standards, consider this as simply a tactic being used to screw over the UK consumer due to a lack of effective policing by the operators' own licensing jurisdiction.

UK players are ALREADY beginning to contact Trading Standards and the ASA about such matters, and this has probably increased since both have recently been given additional powers to police internet commerce directed at UK customers. Both are no doubt compiling data on the extent of such problems, and it takes relatively few complaints to get their attention. The ASA investigation of Betfair was triggered by around 20 complaints, and it went AGAINST Betfair, although the ASA have no powers to ENFORCE the ruling, thus Betfair decided to ignore it.

Complaints made by UK customers will be considered against the provisions of the recent "Unfair Business practices" legislation, and NOT against the more lax rules that operators have been used to. This recent legislation closes off a number of commonly used loopholes that less reputable businesses have been exploiting to screw their customers, and a number of major household names have found themselves on the wrong side of this law, and been fined accordingly.

The main sanction the UK has, and can enforce, is a ban on marketing into the UK, and this would include sponsorship of sporting events, as well as TV and printed media. It may also ban the sending of "snail mail" marketing to potential NEW players.

 

[Nifty29]

We'll just have to disagree on this one Vinyl.

(I'm assuming you haven't changed your opinion. I'm not wading through 17 paragraphs to find out for sure)

 

[SlotMonster]

Lets face it, casinos never know what you look like. Whats to say some "fraudster" didnt steal someones ID card and use their details to gamble? When the casino sees the photo they wont know its the person actually playing... what next? requests of a players face on webcam actually sitting at the pc, spinning the slots?

Just as additional security check I would suggest players to send a photo of their faces, holding ID near them, so casino stuff will see that the face on ID and the player's face are the same

As for CC deposits, I like the way Moneybookers did: they just block random amount of money on CC and user has to provide how much was blocked. If the data was correct - no more questions. The whole process takes about few minutes, because it's possible to see bank statement online.

 

[SlotMonster]

Verifying a customers ID is supposed to be done BEFORE any financial transactions take place, so although the operators are quoting the international agreements on this as the reasons behind it, they are NOT actually sticking to them, because it is cheaper to take the "short cut" of verifying AFTER the fact.

Or before payout is made, because in this case casino is still able to void all winnings and make refunds, if the fraud has taken place.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Or before payout is made, because in this case casino is still able to void all winnings and make refunds, if the fraud has taken place.

The problem is that the refunds cannot always be made back to the deposit method. This opens a loophole for fraudsters who will choose a deposit method that cannot be refunded to, engineer to get "caught", and have their deposits refunded by another way, cheque for example.

There have been a number of cases where casinos have refused to refund deposits because a player has failed verification, and they insist that players pass the checks before even their deposit gets refunded.
Casinos that simply don't want to pay can engineer a situation where they know a player cannot pass the checks needed.

There are many circumstances where players cannot pass verification, and for their own protection, they need to know beforehand which documents will be accepted, so that they can make an informed choice BEFORE they deposit.

This kind of thing is illegal under the "Unfair Business practices act". This will apply where the casino insists on forms of verification not listed in the terms and conditions, or refuses perfectly valid documents that are indicated as being acceptable.

It might only affect a minority of players, but here in the UK this is a BIG minority, more than enough to make the authorities consider action if they receive enough complaints.

At it's simplest, the UK government could INSIST that documnents are dealt with in a secure manner, and may ban outright the use of email, which could create problems for quite a few operators.

Current government advice is NEVER to send any type of personal information by email, and it hopes that businesses that process such information are cooperating with this desire to protect personal information.

It also seems that some casinos trot out "fraud" as a convenient excuse to void winnings of "advantage players" without having to resort to "the spirit of" terms, which only create a PR problem.

I have already had TWO accredited casinos try this trick on me, and a lesser player would not have known the best way to deal with it.

Fortunately, I knew how the systems work, and managed to resolve the issue internally, and never had to go near a PAB form. I have been bonus banned by one casino group, because despite my success in getting paid, they have clearly decided I was "up to something", but have no evidence that they would be able to present to eCogra to back it up.

One accredited group has done this TWICE, although a number of years apart. I have EVERY document necessary, and in the correct formats. There is nothing wrong with my documents, I am on the electoral roll, have a long credit history, and have lived at my current address for over 25 years.

I have never received an explanation for this, which they probably would offer if they believed 100% that I am on the level.

THIS is the background to my hardened opinions about this, and nobody is going to convince me that the process is any where near 100% reliable.

 

[Tengil]

All the ID "stuff" just shows how inefficient and stoneaged systems most of the casinos use. Annoying and vulnerable.

When I registered at RAY (Finnish gambling monopoly) it took about a minute and then they knew who I was, my bank account and my address. Thats how it should be done. No need to upload or send any docs.

 

[Nifty29]

This kind of thing is illegal under the "Unfair Business practices act". This will apply where the casino insists on forms of verification not listed in the terms and conditions, or refuses perfectly valid documents that are indicated as being acceptable.

Do you have a list of casinos that are subject to UK Law?

I'll wager it's a very small percentage (if any), as almost all online casinos operate in the jurisdiction of other regions. I'm not a lawyer, but based on what the terms and conditions of online casinos say, it would seem that any and all legal matters pertaining to their operation must be dealt with by the courts of the licensing jurisdiction and not where the player happens to reside.

I'd be interested to hear from any legal professionals that might be reading this thread.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Do you have a list of casinos that are subject to UK Law?

I'll wager it's a very small percentage (if any), as almost all online casinos operate in the jurisdiction of other regions. I'm not a lawyer, but based on what the terms and conditions of online casinos say, it would seem that any and all legal matters pertaining to their operation must be dealt with by the courts of the licensing jurisdiction and not where the player happens to reside.

I'd be interested to hear from any legal professionals that might be reading this thread.

ALL casinos licensed within the EU can be made subject to UK law through EU wide treaties. Legal action can be taken by the customer in their own countries, and the UK authorities can use treaty agreements to get other EU states to intervene.

Outise the EU, it is different, and the UK has no effective means to police such operators.

As an example, look how the US has SUCCEEDED in seizing accounts and domains from online casinos, even though it is LEGAL to offer such services where they are licensed. The US is using international treaties for this, and arguing with a fair bit of success that US law governs the activities of the operator when it comes to dealing with US players.

The DoJ is even preparing to extradite the owners of Quicktender to face charges in the US. They are currently thought to be holed up in the UK.

The case of the "Nat West 5" shows how this can work. What they did was NOT illegal in the UK, but the US successfully applied for an order to extradite them from the UK to face charges in the US. They didn't go quietly though, and appealed the decision. I am not sure whether this has reached a conclusion.

The US would not have had such recent success were it not for their use of international agreements.

Much of UK law is based on EU law in any case, and the Unfair Business Practice act has been derived from an EU wide set of consumer protection standards.

The shock will come when a "test case" is brought, and current practice is ruled illegal overnight.

We still don't know what changes (if any) the government will make to the whitelist system currently in operation.

 

[sparkz]

Just as additional security check I would suggest players to send a photo of their faces, holding ID near them, so casino stuff will see that the face on ID and the player's face are the same

Still whats to say if someone is using someone elses details. They could get their ID card, stick a photo of themselves overtop of it and take the picture.

Also many peoples passport/driving licence pictures look nothing like them. I know a few I have seen and I thought they were someone else.... If I thought that then surely if someone took a picture of themselves holding it and sent it to the casino they could believe its someone else's ID also and void winnings for that reason. People change the way they look all the time so to a casino if they see someone with long hair in the picture and someone with short hair is holding the ID they might not believe its the same person

 

[Nifty29]

T

ALL casinos licensed within the EU can be made subject to UK law through EU wide treaties. Legal action can be taken by the customer in their own countries, and the UK authorities can use treaty agreements to get other EU states to intervene.

Outise the EU, it is different, and the UK has no effective means to police such operators.

As an example, look how the US has SUCCEEDED in seizing accounts and domains from online casinos, even though it is LEGAL to offer such services where they are licensed. The US is using international treaties for this, and arguing with a fair bit of success that US law governs the activities of the operator when it comes to dealing with US players.

The DoJ is even preparing to extradite the owners of Quicktender to face charges in the US. They are currently thought to be holed up in the UK.

The case of the "Nat West 5" shows how this can work. What they did was NOT illegal in the UK, but the US successfully applied for an order to extradite them from the UK to face charges in the US. They didn't go quietly though, and appealed the decision. I am not sure whether this has reached a conclusion.

The US would not have had such recent success were it not for their use of international agreements.

Much of UK law is based on EU law in any case, and the Unfair Business Practice act has been derived from an EU wide set of consumer protection standards.

The shock will come when a "test case" is brought, and current practice is ruled illegal overnight.

We still don't know what changes (if any) the government will make to the whitelist system currently in operation.

Do you REALLY think that the UK Government is going to instigate legal proceedings and go through all the hoops of forcing another EU country to issue orders because Gary Grover from Dover can't get his $100 from an online casino??

Not in a million years.

Still, it's always nice to be kept up to date with relevant but unenforceable UK and EU Law as it pertains to online gaming.

 

[P.V.]

VM is right on point, read the long posts you'll learn something!

 

[Nifty29]

VM is right on point, read the long posts you'll learn something!

Thanks for the advice PV.

Maybe you could suggest that these UK players utilize something like......ummmm....I don't know......a 3rd party verification service maybe??

When it comes to making a point, more often than not it's a case of "less is more".

 

[vinylweatherman]

T

Do you REALLY think that the UK Government is going to instigate legal proceedings and go through all the hoops of forcing another EU country to issue orders because Gary Grover from Dover can't get his $100 from an online casino??

Not in a million years.

Still, it's always nice to be kept up to date with relevant but unenforceable UK and EU Law as it pertains to online gaming.

Not for one player over $100, BUT they WILL if there have been a number of complaints. It has happened already. Apple was taken to court because they tried to stop UK customers from buying downloads from the French site, which was considerably cheaper because it was priced in Euros. This was a breach of EU trade laws, and Apple got "done" for it.

Unlike many countries, the UK has brought online gambling into the new Gambling Act, giving it a proper legal framework. This makes it easier for the UK to make a case.

It is not only the UK government that can take a case to the EU courts, individuals can do so as well. The process is lengthy and expensive, and would probably take the form of a "class action" on behalf of a number of complainants. This is probably why this has yet to happen.
We know that a number of players have decided to take Betfair to court, and until the outcome of these cases, we cannot judge whether it is cost effective for individuals to pursue this route. Some operators have threatened to take PLAYERS to court where they have "advantage played" the casinos out of large sums of money, so OPERATORS seem to think this is a viable procedure.

The industry is still relatively young in the EU, so many such matters have yet to be decided on a legal basis, with most being merely "legal opinion" based on experience and past similar cases in other business sectors.

One major change under the Gambling Act is that gambling debt IS now enforceable in court, and this means that players CAN now sue operators for disputed WINNINGS.

 

[Nifty29]

Not for one player over $100, BUT they WILL if there have been a number of complaints. It has happened already. Apple was taken to court because they tried to stop UK customers from buying downloads from the French site, which was considerably cheaper because it was priced in Euros. This was a breach of EU trade laws, and Apple got "done" for it.

Unlike many countries, the UK has brought online gambling into the new Gambling Act, giving it a proper legal framework. This makes it easier for the UK to make a case.

It is not only the UK government that can take a case to the EU courts, individuals can do so as well. The process is lengthy and expensive, and would probably take the form of a "class action" on behalf of a number of complainants. This is probably why this has yet to happen.
We know that a number of players have decided to take Betfair to court, and until the outcome of these cases, we cannot judge whether it is cost effective for individuals to pursue this route. Some operators have threatened to take PLAYERS to court where they have "advantage played" the casinos out of large sums of money, so OPERATORS seem to think this is a viable procedure.

The industry is still relatively young in the EU, so many such matters have yet to be decided on a legal basis, with most being merely "legal opinion" based on experience and past similar cases in other business sectors.

One major change under the Gambling Act is that gambling debt IS now enforceable in court, and this means that players CAN now sue operators for disputed WINNINGS.

So you are reinforcing my point - there is no practical recourse for someone who cannot prove their identity. Nobody is going to bring a class action about something like this, because it affects such a miniscule % of players.

I do not believe it is reasonable to expect online casinos to invest extra funds in providing a service for such a relatively small group. If everybody in the UK, or even the vast majority, could not prove their identity by providing photo ID or whatever is required then it's fair enough, but in this case it's just silly.

As I said earlier, the good operators will always pay and be reasonable when it comes to these ID situations for honest players.

It is the rogue or shoddy operators where the problem will mostly lie, and if anyone plays there to begin with they deserve what they get.

We can all quote UK and EU legislation and provide legal opinions until the cows come home, but nothing is going to happen and neither should it happen - if you want to gamble online, get some acceptable ID (e.g. with a photo). Gazillions of UK players don't seem to have a problem, so why should operators relax their requirements or pay third parties to accommodate those that refuse to come to the party?

In regards to the Betfair actions, it is a totally different and irrelevant matter.

In the end, there really are many issues that are far more important than this one.

 

[sparkz]

It is the rogue or shoddy operators where the problem will mostly lie, and if anyone plays there to begin with they deserve what they get.

Bit unfair that. How do people who havent gambled before know what a rogue casino is?

They are more than likely to see a banner or get a gambling cd in the post which makes them want to have a try. Rogues dont say on their site "we are rogue" and many new players wont know about watchdog forums.

 

[P.V.]

Thanks for the advice PV.

Maybe you could suggest that these UK players utilize something like......ummmm....I don't know......a 3rd party verification service maybe??

When it comes to making a point, more often than not it's a case of "less is more".

I wasn't speaking to you directly, I'm also unaware of a 3rd. party verification service for hard documents. This meaning someone other than the casino them self verifying their own players docs.

 

[vinylweatherman]

I wasn't speaking to you directly, I'm also unaware of a 3rd. party verification service for hard documents. This meaning someone other than the casino them self verifying their own players docs.

It is NOT up to the PLAYER to decide which 3rd party can be used to verify them, it is the CASINO that calls the shots, so it is THEY who are responsible for making players aware of the other solutions they will accept.

There ARE quite a few ways to get photo ID voluntarily in the UK, BUT for this to be any good, the operators must be aware what these options are, and how many are properly certified by the government. ANY third party issued photo document bearing the government accredited "PASS" mark is an acceptable form of photo ID, but the problem is that operators may not be aware what this scheme is, and could end up falsely calling these government accredited IDs "fraudulent".

Operators should not assume that is ALWAYS going to be the case that they are "above the law" in any one country, even though past experience has shown that for practical purposes, this has been the case.
The US have finally managed to ENFORCE their long held belief that offshore operators must obey US laws if their customers live in the US, a recent success after a number of earlier failed attempts to shut down such "illegal" operations.
Other countries are also having a degree of success with this. It all shows that it is not a case of "can't do it", but rather one of "can't be bothered". The US has shown what can be done when they CAN be bothered. The EU is collectively big enough to be "bothered" when it suits them, but at the moment opinion is split on the subject of online gambling sites, and what to do about them - a recipie that leads to NOTHING being done about it by the EU as a whole, with individual member countries forming their own laws.

A case will not come from a player owed a mere $100, the risk is when a player has a much larger sum confiscated, and decides it is worth the risk spending even more money on recovery action.
Trading Standards and the OFT are known for launching "super complaints" on behalf of a number of customers in order to trigger a legal ruling on a matter that is not currently clear. They have been clobbering the banks with these a fair bit over the last few years, and it has cost the banks a FORTUNE in legal costs, as well as lost profits from the closing down of their dodgy practices.
Any business sector that becomes "mainstream" and generates a string of complaints could find itself on the receiving end. Online gambling has become "mainstream" here in the UK since the Gambling act gave them a legal framework that allowed access to mainstream media advertising, and sponsorship of events and TV shows.

Almost everybody in the UK now knows about online casinos through the sheer volume of TV ads, even if they don't play them.

Anything advertised on TV is considered "legit" as an industry, and UK customers EXPECT such activities to be properly regulated, and will complain if they get screwed, and will be quite shocked when they are told that there is little that can be done CURRENTLY about it.

Of course, Trading Standards could well advise complainants that they should seek redress through their banks if they used a credit or VISA debit card - in effect, advising the customer to initiate a "chargeback". Trading Standards would NOT consider online gambling to be any different to any other online business that "screws over" a customer, so there will be no "special treatment" for gambling operators who stand to suffer particularly harshly from chargeback actions.

Maybe my forecast is wrong, but maybe I will be here in 2015 telling operators "I told you so" as they suffer a harsh reality check from the EU.
Remember, operators were pretty confident that the US could NEVER drive them out, no matter what they tried. Now, many have run from the US even before they were driven out, and those that have clung on are now being steadily driven out.

 

[Tengil]

I wasn't speaking to you directly, I'm also unaware of a 3rd. party verification service for hard documents. This meaning someone other than the casino them self verifying their own players docs.

Guess that varies from country to country. In Finland for example I use online banking to identify myself trough a service called TUPAS. Fast and efficient.

For those that offers it the costs are quite moderate. Under 1k to set up if you want every bank, monthly fees of ~100€ and ~30c per identification. Not a single document required.

Our gambling monopoly among others use it.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Guess that varies from country to country. In Finland for example I use online banking to identify myself trough a service called TUPAS. Fast and efficient.

For those that offers it the costs are quite moderate. Under 1k to set up if you want every bank, monthly fees of ~100€ and ~30c per identification. Not a single document required.

Our gambling monopoly among others use it.

I bet online casinos have never heard of it, thus you have to duplicate your efforts by sending documents.

The ID fee of 30c seems pretty cheap, however the setup and monthly fees seem pretty expensive at €1200 per year, and a three figure setup fee. It would be cheaper to get a passport, and have something else notarised every 3 months.

I only got my passport in 2006, and this was because I won a trip to Germany in a casino promotion. Later that year, I was invited to Vegas by the same casino as a VIP perk. I have not travelled abroad since.

Now I have it, I expect I will renew it in case I end up winning another foreign trip, but also because it gives me a backup should anything happen to my driving license.
I am more likely to end up having trouble with utility bills because of the steady push towards online only billing. Other government issued documents are only posted once a year, and would only be valid for 3 months. Most appear shortly after the end of the tax year, and would only last until the summer.

 

[Tengil]

I bet online casinos have never heard of it, thus you have to duplicate your efforts by sending documents.

The ID fee of 30c seems pretty cheap, however the setup and monthly fees seem pretty expensive at €1200 per year, and a three figure setup fee. It would be cheaper to get a passport, and have something else notarised every 3 months.

I only got my passport in 2006, and this was because I won a trip to Germany in a casino promotion. Later that year, I was invited to Vegas by the same casino as a VIP perk. I have not travelled abroad since.

Now I have it, I expect I will renew it in case I end up winning another foreign trip, but also because it gives me a backup should anything happen to my driving license.
I am more likely to end up having trouble with utility bills because of the steady push towards online only billing. Other government issued documents are only posted once a year, and would only be valid for 3 months. Most appear shortly after the end of the tax year, and would only last until the summer.

Thats for those who offer the service, its 100% free for me. Most public authorities use it as its cost efficient.

When I have to send docs to casinos the issue will be the utility bills. Most come in my companys name or as electronic invoices.
Passport has never been a problem, everyone I know has a passport. Altough I prefer to send my drivers license.

Even the option to upload your docs at the casinos site is a huge improvement to sending them by email and should be standard.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Thats for those who offer the service, its 100% free for me. Most public authorities use it as its cost efficient.

When I have to send docs to casinos the issue will be the utility bills. Most come in my companys name or as electronic invoices.
Passport has never been a problem, everyone I know has a passport. Altough I prefer to send my drivers license.

Even the option to upload your docs at the casinos site is a huge improvement to sending them by email and should be standard.

This is the big problem, and players cannot "buy" a utility bill service for ID purposes as they can with a passport. The utility company will set out in it's terms and conditions how, and how frequently, a bill will be sent. Utilities are also supplied to HOUSEHOLDS, rather than individual people, and will be in the name of the person who made the agreement on behalf of the entire household. Utilities also want to save money (why should we only accept that CASINOS want to do things more cheaply), and will push electronic billing because this DOES save them money in the same way that pushing customers onto direct debit plans will save money.

Even the UK government has forced through changes that abolish payment of pension and benefits in physical forms, such as a cheque through the post to be cashed at the post office. Now, we have to accept "paperless" electronic payments for benefits, pensions, tax credits, etc. This means that we ONLY get an annual summary by post, rather than a monthly "proof of address".

Of course, you can easily convert an electronic utility bill into paper form by printing off the first page of the PDF version of your online bill, which is an EXACT copy of what would be sent through the post. It is impossible to tell the difference now that home printers are as good as, or possibly even better, than industrial printers used to prepare postal bills.
What IS different is the screenshot of your online account management, as this produces a web friendly format, and does NOT usually show the postal address in the same screen, and the inclusion of clickable links and other background material make it obvious that it is a browser screenshot.

I challenge an online casino to tell the difference between a home printed from PDF utility bill address page, and a company produced one that has come through the post. Both will be an image produced from an A4 printout on standard "office paper".

 

[SlotMonster]

FYI, we are using this one to verify our customers:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

 

[vinylweatherman]

FYI, we are using this one to verify our customers:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Seems pretty good, and one strength is that it works in "real time", and the system can be integrated into the registration process.
The benefit for players is that if they get flagged, it happens during registration, and so no customer need face having winnings confiscated when they first make a withdrawal.

This MAY even remove the need to see physical documents through such features as "Device ID".

Unfortunately, as we know, their IP geolocation product is only as good as the levels of compliance shown by the various ISPs, and AOL tend to be rather "lazy" in this respect, having UK customers wrongly identified as having connected from the USA because the data is "null" on their IP address, because AOL have failed to add it.

Some of these methods are already used by the gambling industry, but this solution brings everything together into one product.

It has also been expanded to serve customers from a few other countries.

It could be MORE accurate than the current method of players sending in documents that they have prepared, but I am sure that fraudsters are already looking for ways to "crack" this system, and will no doubt find some, and try to use them.

It would be interesting to know whether operators using this system have been fooled by fraudsters, and if so, whether this has been less of a problem than would be the case with the usual document verification procedure.

There is no costings published on the site, so presumably this is negotiable, and a bigger business could probably get a better price per customer than a smaller one.

Fundamental to this service is the accuracy of the various datasets it draws upon, and many organisations are notorious for poor data management, and there have been numerous complaints, and even a few fines, for companies that screw up their data and make customers suffer.

At least a UK customer denied service because they got flagged by this system could complain to the Information Commissioner's office, and have the data held on them checked for accuracy, and any inaccuracies exposed, and compensation paid.

Innocent UK players who seem to have repeated problems could try checking their credit records, and serve Data Disclosure requests on such ID verification organisations to see whether bad data is at the root of their problems.

The current problems stem from players not knowing where the data on them is located, and thus who to serve a Data Disclosure request on.

Such customer driven research will show whether the industry as a whole is screwing things up, or whether it is customers themselves trying to get away with minor "untruths" that they believe don't matter, but which end up corrupting their own personal data.

 

[SlotMonster]

Thank you for (another) excellent post, vinyl

It would be interesting to know whether operators using this system have been fooled by fraudsters, and if so, whether this has been less of a problem than would be the case with the usual document verification procedure.

The main problem is to verify that those who registered in casino and who owns the ID - the same person That's why I still think that player can just send us a photo holding his/her ID, like on the picture below (sorry, didn't find a better example).

 

[vinylweatherman]

Thank you for (another) excellent post, vinyl



The main problem is to verify that those who registered in casino and who owns the ID - the same person That's why I still think that player can just send us a photo holding his/her ID, like on the picture below (sorry, didn't find a better example).

View attachment 27437

For this to be seen as acceptable to players, operators need to stop pretending that ONLY those who are under suspicion are to be asked for this.

When such requests have been reported here, some operators flatly denied this EVER happened, and when faced with evidence that at least ONE of their players received such a request, amended this to it "very rarely happens".

The problem is that when a player is asked for something that either "never happens" or "very rarely happens", it comes across as an accusation of fraud, and puts the player on the defensive as they believe it is merely a prelude to them getting screwed.

If such requests became routine, then it would not be seen negatively from the players' point of view when they receive such a request.

Even so, this would NOT do much where the document itself is a fake, as it will have been faked with a matching photo of the fraudster, but with the details of the person from whom the ID was stolen.

I suspect that the most skilled fraudsters are better able to get away with it than the unskilled GENUINE player who makes a few mistakes when trying to navigate through the verification process.

 

[Jasminebed]

If casinos are going to accept deposits without verification, they need to be more flexible in what documents they accept.

If a player is unable to provide a recent utility bill (and one site I visited recently does not accept cell phone bills), either because it's electronic, in the name of another household member, or you are billed less frequently than every couple of months, there needs to be an acceptable alternative for proof of address.

IMO one of the simplest and best is snail mail of a code to the player. When I joined Bet365, only my first deposit was accepted, and subsequent deposits would not be accepted until I received and entered the code.

Yes, the business may have a period while the mail is in transit when the player is unable to deposit, but I would think it would reduce their headaches in the long run.

I was asked for a photo of me holding my ID. I didn't have a driver's licence or passport, and my government issued photo ID doesn't have my address. It was not that difficult to comply, and it wasn't until a Rival rep said they only asked in cases of suspected fraud that I became miffed.

Even people without utilities in their name receive other mail.... perhaps a couple of items of personally addressed mail would suffice, with at least one being recent.

Electronic Wallets and credit cards both employ their own verification procedures, so I would think requirements would be less stringent if payments are back to the deposit methods.

I can't really see previously verified players having to update their ID/utilities every couple of months as anything but a delay tactic. While some players may be able to comply immediately, for others it means using an outside source.

 

[vinylweatherman]

If casinos are going to accept deposits without verification, they need to be more flexible in what documents they accept.

If a player is unable to provide a recent utility bill (and one site I visited recently does not accept cell phone bills), either because it's electronic, in the name of another household member, or you are billed less frequently than every couple of months, there needs to be an acceptable alternative for proof of address.

IMO one of the simplest and best is snail mail of a code to the player. When I joined Bet365, only my first deposit was accepted, and subsequent deposits would not be accepted until I received and entered the code.

Yes, the business may have a period while the mail is in transit when the player is unable to deposit, but I would think it would reduce their headaches in the long run.

I was asked for a photo of me holding my ID. I didn't have a driver's licence or passport, and my government issued photo ID doesn't have my address. It was not that difficult to comply, and it wasn't until a Rival rep said they only asked in cases of suspected fraud that I became miffed.

Even people without utilities in their name receive other mail.... perhaps a couple of items of personally addressed mail would suffice, with at least one being recent.

Electronic Wallets and credit cards both employ their own verification procedures, so I would think requirements would be less stringent if payments are back to the deposit methods.

I can't really see previously verified players having to update their ID/utilities every couple of months as anything but a delay tactic. While some players may be able to comply immediately, for others it means using an outside source.

I am starting to experience this, and one CS rep told me to expect further requests from them of this nature in the future.

If they are going to screw players simply because they don't "fit in" with the average stereotype of someone who drives, and is "man of the house" having all bills in their name, they are going to alienate many players. Most stay-at-home spouses do NOT have the bills in their name, their job is the look after the family, and the partner is the breadwinner with all the documents. It is MORE likely to be the stay-at-home spouse that plays online, the breadwinner probably has other things to do with what little time is left after working.

The mentality seems to be to assume that all those who don't match their stereotypes are hiding something, and this is likely to be because they are fraudulent players.

Some of their restrictions seem designed to exclude parts of society, rather than a genuine attempt to find a means to identify all their players that takes account of individual circumstances.

Operators seem unable to effectively police their own AFFILIATES, and it seems little effective action is taken against those that misuse the program to defraud PLAYERS through bogus promises, and fake landing and forwarding sites set up to prevent players from accessing the terms and conditions before they register and play.

It seems odd that the ID of an offending affiliate often seems to be "untraceable", yet they are obliged to fully ID a player before they can be paid any money.

If being a rogue affiliate didn't pay, it wouldn't happen.

Some of these rogue affiliates also end up screwing the operator by setting up a system to generate fake referrals, the ease of setting up an affiliate account compared to a player account makes this easier.

When I signed up at 32Red as an affiliate, it was the only time I felt I had to impress, or be shown the door. 32Red is also the operator that generates the lowest level of complaints about spam, and this might have something to do with the level of scrutiny that affiliates are subjected to.