Royal Panda Keeping Deposit

[Slottery]

Sorry which operator was this? That's not my understanding of the rules.

Does that really matter? Can't announce it due to NDA but as i posted to one post with few examples, these verifications don't need every single letter matching exactly.

Rule is that players age need to be verified yes, but in practice, it's not exactly need to be exact match. Regulators and operators are working quite closely together and how to follow these rules in practice that they satisfy set regulations.

Operators using different methods for verifications, would assume most of them approve them with UKGC not to get in troubles (or use ways and service providers already approved), there are quite many operators where you are able to create account and deposit if your first name have spelling mistake, that i'm sure about.

 

[EkJR]

Does that really matter? Can't announce it due to NDA but as i posted to one post with few examples, these verifications don't need every single letter matching exactly.

Rule is that players age need to be verified yes, but in practice, it's not exactly need to be exact match. Regulators and operators are working quite closely together and how to follow these rules in practice that they satisfy set regulations.

Operators using different methods for verifications, would assume most of them approve them with UKGC not to get in troubles (or use ways and service providers already approved), there are quite many operators where you are able to create account and deposit if your first name have spelling mistake, that i'm sure about.

Your mixing up the rules I think. Read Section 17 LCCP mate, it's very clear what needs to be matched and the matches are exact. I have spoken to the UKGC numerous times about it. Wherever this "doesn't have to be exact" statement has come from is false. First name and Surname must be exact. Verification checks only work on the basis that the registered details match what's on the register, normally a credit file soft search. If the name differs in any way other than middle names then the check fails. Test it out yourself on any of the main casinos, it does not work.

 

[ladyhawke]

How many others on this thread have accidentally spelt their name (which you type a lot?) incorrectly when registering for a casino? #JustAsking

Just a little something for everyone who is querying the mis-spelling of the OP's name to think about.

I have an unusual spelling of my very common first name, and when I went to pick up my new passport, guess what? Yup, mis-spelled even though all the supporting documentation provided by myself was correct.

Red faces all around at the High Commission.

So mistakes can happen, for all sorts of reasons, and for those who say it is BS are being disingenuous.

 

[Mr_Slot5]

Just a little something for everyone who is querying the mis-spelling of the OP's name to think about.

I have an unusual spelling of my very common first name, and when I went to pick up my new passport, guess what? Yup, mis-spelled even though all the supporting documentation provided by myself was correct.

Red faces all around at the High Commission.

So mistakes can happen, for all sorts of reasons, and for those who say it is BS are being disingenuous.

Agree, where is the player protection in all this. To me, it's on the casino to check whether someone is excluded or not. Especially when it's their own terms stipulating they will apply said exclusion cross platform.

 

[goatwack]

Just a little something for everyone who is querying the mis-spelling of the OP's name to think about.

I have an unusual spelling of my very common first name, and when I went to pick up my new passport, guess what? Yup, mis-spelled even though all the supporting documentation provided by myself was correct.

Red faces all around at the High Commission.

So mistakes can happen, for all sorts of reasons, and for those who say it is BS are being disingenuous.

Well, I have more tongue-twisting names than you can shake a stick at, and to this day have organizations mis-spell my name on record. So whilst mistakes can and do happen, it's still slack and ignorant on their part.

Though difference being what I'm seeing is the OP using the 'goodwill' of the community here to further their agenda and reclaim monies they're not entitled to as far as I can see. Whilst of course using the usual SE-swerving tropes we've all seen a million times before.

Is it that difficult to spell 'Robert'? nah

Is haranguing Chat with 'Give me the money you stole from me' & 'I'll get solicitors onto yo' ass' aggressive and counter-productive? yep

 

[EkJR]

That's from Royal Pandas T&C:s and most of casinos do have same mentioned. There are two options when you enter your name and DOB, real and fake.

All casinos where i've read T&C:s this pretty much mentioned with same words so once you accept T&C:s in registration, it's players sole responsibility to make sure details are right.

Most of the time casinos are correcting them when it's a slight mistake but using fake details messing up many things lik self-excluding checks, possible duplicate accounts etc... So nobody shouldn't be very surprised to get winnings gone if details are not correct. In this case we also have SE twist which make it bit more messy.

Like said earlier, would make complaint myself as it don't take too much time and would get better explanation what everything have happened and why, but wouldn't really have too high hopes to get winnings paid. Casino refunded deposits like they would do in SE cases when somebody was able to play, they could have been more strict and keep deposits as well due to fraud but this seems quite ok outcome for player.

They use an electronic verification check. The check looks at 4 details

FIRST NAME
SURNAME
POSTCODE
DATE OF BIRTH

The check is to initially ascertain the following

1. Is the player old enough to gamble
2. Is the players identity correct
3. Is the player living at this address or linked to it

They use a 3rd part who matches this using a soft check on credit file. If, say, first name is wrong the check fails. The casino should then ask for manual ID. Sure some of the reps will confirm this. Try it yourself in the UK, this is what will happen.

 

[EkJR]

Well, I have more tongue-twisting names than you can shake a stick at, and to this day have organizations mis-spell my name on record. So whilst mistakes can and do happen, it's still slack and ignorant on their part.

Though difference being what I'm seeing is the OP using the 'goodwill' of the community here to further their agenda and reclaim monies they're not entitled to as far as I can see. Whilst of course using the usual SE-swerving tropes we've all seen a million times before.

Is it that difficult to spell 'Robert'? nah

Is haranguing Chat with 'Give me the money you stole from me' & 'I'll get solicitors onto yo' ass' aggressive and counter-productive? yep

I get this, but the ball is in the operators court from before a ball is kicked so to speak. They need to be sure that the player is who they say they are before they put a penny in. The casino, through electronic verification, have somehow allowed this to happen. I stated above what should and does happen everywhere else. No sympathy for the casino in this circumstance. As for the SE, they are on different licences and as far as the UKGC are concerned the SE applies to the licence not the operator.

 

[Slottery]

Your mixing up the rules I think. Read Section 17 LCCP mate, it's very clear what needs to be matched and the matches are exact. I have spoken to the UKGC numerous times about it. Wherever this "doesn't have to be exact" statement has come from is false. First name and Surname must be exact. Verification checks only work on the basis that the registered details match what's on the register, normally a credit file soft search. If the name differs in any way other than middle names then the check fails. Test it out yourself on any of the main casinos, it does not work.

Only can say that i disagree, but what we speak here don't change anything so we all can rely on information that we have and are happy with.

 

[EkJR]

Only can say that i disagree, but what we speak here don't change anything so we all can rely on information that we have and are happy with.

As said, read section 17 of the LCCP. It outlines exactly what is required. There is no dubiety over it where there used to be. I'm conveying what the UKGC are stating, not what an operator may or may not think.

 

[Slottery]

As said, read section 17 of the LCCP. It outlines exactly what is required. There is no dubiety over it where there used to be. I'm conveying what the UKGC are stating, not what an operator may or may not think.

There's no need for us to argue about it, as i said verification method and accuracy used was approved by UKGC audit, nothing to do what operators may or not think.

 

[EkJR]

There's no need for us to argue about it, as i said verification method and accuracy used was approved by UKGC audit, nothing to do what operators may or not think.

No I'm not arguing about it. I'm stating what I'm being told and advised by them only. It's funny that on WH, Paddy Power and all of the bigger operators they all follow the 'exact' rules, try it out and see.

 

[Slottery]

No I'm not arguing about it. I'm stating what I'm being told and advised by them only. It's funny that on WH, Paddy Power and all of the bigger operators they all follow the 'exact' rules, try it out and see.

No need to try, i have no reason not to believe these operators are doing what you said. I don't really have anything more to add to this verification conversation than what i've wrote already

 

[colinsunderland]

Knowing how credit checks work, a name spelt wrong should not pass. A casino who says age verification has been done on someone. who's name was wrong, should be pulled up for it by the UKGC and audited as clearly they aren't doing it properly.

The easy way to check for the OP is do a SAR on the casino to include any information exchanged with a CRA or external agency for verification purposes, and also checking their own credit files. It shouldn't appear if the name was wrong, and if it doesn't then age verification wasn't completed.

 

[colinsunderland]

@Mark_32Red do you get many customers genuinely making spelling mistakes? I know when I'm typing fast I've wrote Cilon and Colon on occasion when ordering stuff

 

[Mr_Slot5]

@Mark_32Red do you get many customers genuinely making spelling mistakes? I know when I'm typing fast I've wrote Cilon and Colon on occasion when ordering stuff

Colon? I'm completely boweled over by that one.

Ok I'll get my coat...

 

[goatwack]

Arse-ee what you did there

my coat left years ago

 

[dionysus]

Arse-ee what you did there

my coat left years ago

it's like an 18+ nursery rhyme
'..and the coat ran away with the socks'

 

[ladyhawke]

Well, I have more tongue-twisting names than you can shake a stick at, and to this day have organizations mis-spell my name on record. So whilst mistakes can and do happen, it's still slack and ignorant on their part.

….

Is it that difficult to spell 'Robert'? nah

I agree. And I don't agree.

For any official government document to have a mis-spelling almost beggars belief. But it does prove that even at the highest level, mistakes do happen. Definitely "slack and ignorant on their part".

For us lesser mortals, we still have the obligation to be as careful as we can be before pressing SEND. Every time I do a bank transfer, I check, double check, and then triple check the details, as I don't want my money ending up in a strange account, with no legal redress to get it back.

Better to be safe than sorry in the first place.

Now onto Robert/Robret/Robiert.

Changing Robert to Robret is easy enough to do - it is just a simple transposition of letters, which can happen if one is typing too quickly, and the fingers are misinterpreting signals from the brain.

As for Robiert (not entirely sure which one the OP actually used), again quite easy to do as random letters can sneak in quite easily if one is not concentrating hard enough. I am a fast, accurate typist (mostly!) but sometimes when I look back at what I typed, I think...WTH?

 

[ladyhawke]

@Mark_32Red do you get many customers genuinely making spelling mistakes? I know when I'm typing fast I've wrote Cilon and Colon on occasion when ordering stuff

Colon? What exactly were you ordering. No, please don't answer that! I think I would like to remain in blissful ignorance.

 

[goatwack]

it's like an 18+ nursery rhyme
'..and the coat ran away with the socks'

My stories have been quite the revelation among the Hockey community

 

[Harry_BKK]

My 2 cents:

Any SE-ed player is mostly an experienced gambler who most probably knows the ins and outs of executing an SE and the consequences, especially in light of the latest publicity the UKGC, the fines etc have had in the UK

At the same time, addiction does not let you go that easily, so you open a new account somewhere else. Now, in any normal case you know it will get you into trouble if the sites are somehow connected and therefor you will double- and triple-check that that is not the case (you will do this even when you did not SE due to gambling problems). Royal Panda has this little gem at the bottom.

So, next to the SE itself. Gamblers, especially addicts, are mostly well informed what the red flags are when registering (if not from anything else but from failed new registrations due to an SE at various sister sites). There are also forums for UK and other players, where tips are exchanged, e.g. which details/errors pass the initial check at which casinos. Don't ask me, I won't give you names.

The OP must be the umpteenth player claiming they misspelt this or that and are blaming it on dyslexia. You do know there are online tools for dyslexic people that help avoid exactly that?

My conclusion:

The OP knew exactly what he did. He has been tipped off that CM has a good RP rep who will probably help him get at least his deposits back so he registered at CM and "tada" deposits are back in his account with the advice given by CM members and now he "smelled blood" as he sees a chance/loophole to also get his winnings.

As always, I'll happily be proven wrong just for the sake of the OP getting his winnings.

@EkJR Section 17 of the LCCP states they must identify the customer but it does not clarify the type and amount of discrepancies allowed to let a customer start playing while asking for additional docs or clarification. Any procedure/software allows for some percentage of error to avoid too many false flags. Pretty sure that the UKGC discussed and agreed upon that in consultations with casino operators. Surely something they will not disclose publicly as it would give info to exactly those people who try the SE trick.

As for being part of a company group, you can refer to SR code paragraph 3.9.1.4

 

[Mr_Slot5]

Regardless of whether or not it was intentional, flags should have been raised by matching gender, DOB and address. The fact that these seemingly weren't enough to flag is solely on the casino.

A casino cannot cry over spilt milk if it's their own lax systems that have let a self excluded player gamble.

 

[Harry_BKK]

Regardless of whether or not it was intentional, flags should have been raised by matching gender, DOB and address. The fact that these seemingly weren't enough to flag is solely on the casino.

A casino cannot cry over spilt milk if it's their own lax systems that have let a self excluded player gamble.

The casino does not cry, no need to worry. They acted according to the regulation after they were able to confirm that the player was SE'ed at a sister site. Return the account to its original state, void all bets and return the deposits. There is nothing more they need or are obligated to do.

Now you can say, they should have detected the misspelling. Again, a certain percentage of error is allowed to avoid too many false flags. IIRC, GAMSTOP works on 4 out of 5 matches.

The UKGC does not state exactly the procedure in case of errors/misspellings and what the procedure would be. What they do say is that operators can ask for more docs and/or clarification. They do not ask the operators to keep the account locked until such clarification has been concluded.

Below the only paragraph in the LCCP pertaining to the identity of players. You can see, they say "should" and "may".

It says under 1. "must obtain", but it does not say what kind of errors or the percentage of the match (100%, 99% or just 50%; two out of three, three out of three etc) are allowed for the operator to permit the player to play. It is all very vague but usually, such things are clarified in consultations between the UKGC and operators to avoid giving out sensitive information to potential addicts who could use it to their benefit.

But the info seems to get leaked in parts as it is posted in specific forums and addicts/fraudsters are using it. Not saying the OP is necessarily one, I stated I'll be happily proven wrong.

 

[mack341]

Let's imagine if the shoe was on the other foot, as it were, and the casino had paid out the winnings before realising about the misspelt first name and SE at a sister site, how would they be able to reclaim the money in a small claims court in the uk, what would be the term/condition in the contract which would win them the case and the judge order the money to be repaid?

Confiscation of winnings, certainly a large sum like this, is the most serious action a casino can take against a player, the justification I've seen so far is similar to a 'minority report' style system 'you intended to commit fraud if you had lost your deposit' needs to have a degree of evidence supporting it more than just 'there's a lot of players out there trying it on, so this man is also guilty'

What do you think, give it to me straight?

 

[Harry_BKK]

Let's imagine if the shoe was on the other foot, as it were, and the casino had paid out the winnings before realising about the misspelt first name and SE at a sister site, how would they be able to reclaim the money in a small claims court in the uk, what would be the term/condition in the contract which would win them the case and the judge order the money to be repaid?

Confiscation of winnings, certainly a large sum like this, is the most serious action a casino can take against a player, the justification I've seen so far is similar to a 'minority report' style system 'you intended to commit fraud if you had lost your deposit' needs to have a degree of evidence supporting it more than just 'there's a lot of players out there trying it on, so this man is also guilty'

What do you think, give it to me straight?

Fact is that the SE malarkey has become a real headache for UK operators.
Fact is that many SE-ed players are trying to get around it
Fact is that some or maybe many too are trying the SE-trick on purpose
Fact is the UKGC regulation does not give firm guidance on how to handle it
Fact is tools like GAMSTOP can be circumvented to exploit the loopholes.
Fact is I can't remember a single case here on CM (I might be wrong or just plain forgetful) where misspelling or other things turned out to be an honest mistake.

The ship has sailed once the casino paid out. The only thing they can do then is locking the account.

But you see mack we are discussing this issue in a weird way. None of us has asked the OP why he does not seek help since he SE'ed in the past and could have a gambling problem. Instead, we have posters falling over each blaming as usual the casino for all things, whereas none apportions any responsibility whatsoever to the player!

 

[mack341]

I think we need some clarity served down by the ukgc, otherwise we are at risk of the casinos making up their own, untested laws, and are only able to do this because of their balance of power in the business/customer relationship. I don't mind blaming and banning players for trying to play the system but atm there are too many grey areas, slottery and ekjr's discussion above is a classic example.

 

[colinsunderland]

Fact is that the SE malarkey has become a real headache for UK operators.
Fact is that many SE-ed players are trying to get around it
Fact is that some or maybe many too are trying the SE-trick on purpose
Fact is the UKGC regulation does not give firm guidance on how to handle it
Fact is tools like GAMSTOP can be circumvented to exploit the loopholes.
Fact is I can't remember a single case here on CM (I might be wrong or just plain forgetful) where misspelling or other things turned out to be an honest mistake.

The ship has sailed once the casino paid out. The only thing they can do then is locking the account.

But you see mack we are discussing this issue in a weird way. None of us has asked the OP why he does not seek help since he SE'ed in the past and could have a gambling problem. Instead, we have posters falling over each blaming as usual the casino for all things, whereas none apportions any responsibility whatsoever to the player!

I don't disagree with you, but Royal Panda/LV have had numerous complaints on here in the past, proving there are things wrong with the way they do things. I've seen little or no complaints of this style for any other casino group over the past year or so. It strikes me as very similar to how Every Matrix used to work, which I think most people thought was wrong. Only detecting the SE at other casinos on withdrawal but allowing numerous deposits beforehand.
When you go through the self exclusion at RP there is nothing to say you are also excluding from LV. When you sign up, there is nothing to say if you are SE'd at LV you can't play.

LV/RP use the royal mail address lookup when registering. A simple way to stop all SE fraud/mistakes is, if a postcode and surname matches an existing SE, either within the group or on Gamstop, then the account is frozen on registration until KYC is carried out. That way it is manually checked that the customer is/isn't SE'd, and almost all complaints of this type would be stopped overnight.

The fact they don't want to do such a simple safeguard tells me the casino are happy for things to continue this way, and as such I have no sympathy for them.

Also bear in mind, in this case they refused initially to refund deposits stating it was fraud, how many other people are they doing this to who don't use forums? Ones who aren't SE'd and who have genuinely made a mistake?

 

[interlog]

Just a little something for everyone who is querying the mis-spelling of the OP's name to think about.

I have an unusual spelling of my very common first name, and when I went to pick up my new passport, guess what? Yup, mis-spelled even though all the supporting documentation provided by myself was correct.

Red faces all around at the High Commission.

So mistakes can happen, for all sorts of reasons, and for those who say it is BS are being disingenuous.

Big difference between wrongly spelling your OWN name and somebody else name though!

 

[EkJR]

My 2 cents:

Any SE-ed player is mostly an experienced gambler who most probably knows the ins and outs of executing an SE and the consequences, especially in light of the latest publicity the UKGC, the fines etc have had in the UK

At the same time, addiction does not let you go that easily, so you open a new account somewhere else. Now, in any normal case you know it will get you into trouble if the sites are somehow connected and therefor you will double- and triple-check that that is not the case (you will do this even when you did not SE due to gambling problems). Royal Panda has this little gem at the bottom.

View attachment 121372

So, next to the SE itself. Gamblers, especially addicts, are mostly well informed what the red flags are when registering (if not from anything else but from failed new registrations due to an SE at various sister sites). There are also forums for UK and other players, where tips are exchanged, e.g. which details/errors pass the initial check at which casinos. Don't ask me, I won't give you names.

The OP must be the umpteenth player claiming they misspelt this or that and are blaming it on dyslexia. You do know there are online tools for dyslexic people that help avoid exactly that?

My conclusion:

The OP knew exactly what he did. He has been tipped off that CM has a good RP rep who will probably help him get at least his deposits back so he registered at CM and "tada" deposits are back in his account with the advice given by CM members and now he "smelled blood" as he sees a chance/loophole to also get his winnings.

As always, I'll happily be proven wrong just for the sake of the OP getting his winnings.

@EkJR Section 17 of the LCCP states they must identify the customer but it does not clarify the type and amount of discrepancies allowed to let a customer start playing while asking for additional docs or clarification. Any procedure/software allows for some percentage of error to avoid too many false flags. Pretty sure that the UKGC discussed and agreed upon that in consultations with casino operators. Surely something they will not disclose publicly as it would give info to exactly those people who try the SE trick.

As for being part of a company group, you can refer to SR code paragraph 3.9.1.4

See if you look for your credit file online and misspelled your name, would it give you your credit file? No, it would raise a flag

The casino does not cry, no need to worry. They acted according to the regulation after they were able to confirm that the player was SE'ed at a sister site. Return the account to its original state, void all bets and return the deposits. There is nothing more they need or are obligated to do.

Now you can say, they should have detected the misspelling. Again, a certain percentage of error is allowed to avoid too many false flags. IIRC, GAMSTOP works on 4 out of 5 matches.

The UKGC does not state exactly the procedure in case of errors/misspellings and what the procedure would be. What they do say is that operators can ask for more docs and/or clarification. They do not ask the operators to keep the account locked until such clarification has been concluded.

Below the only paragraph in the LCCP pertaining to the identity of players. You can see, they say "should" and "may".

It says under 1. "must obtain", but it does not say what kind of errors or the percentage of the match (100%, 99% or just 50%; two out of three, three out of three etc) are allowed for the operator to permit the player to play. It is all very vague but usually, such things are clarified in consultations between the UKGC and operators to avoid giving out sensitive information to potential addicts who could use it to their benefit.

But the info seems to get leaked in parts as it is posted in specific forums and addicts/fraudsters are using it. Not saying the OP is necessarily one, I stated I'll be happily proven wrong.

View attachment 121377

Hang on though. Player was verified, deposited and won, but only after a withdrawal is it flagged that players name is wrong and they accused him of fraud? How did they know his name was wrong? How did they link the SE? This is what is to happen BEFORE the player can gamble, not deposit. You missed the line 1 in the LCCP which clearly states this.



In terms of the 'exact' name match, I believe its first name and surname. If your name was Joe Bloggs and you applied for a loan under the name Joe Blogg, do you think they would pass it? No they wouldnt and the electronic verification systems for ID check is the same as the ones casinos use. It flags for a manual check. As I said, try it out yourself and see. I'm saying there is a flaw with this particular verification system.

 

[Slottery]

In terms of the 'exact' name match, I believe its first name and surname. If your name was Joe Bloggs and you applied for a loan under the name Joe Blogg, do you think they would pass it? No they wouldnt and the electronic verification systems for ID check is the same as the ones casinos use. It flags for a manual check. As I said, try it out yourself and see. I'm saying there is a flaw with this particular verification system.

Maybe instead of we start to try all casinos one by one, you could contact auditors who are auditing UKGC casinos see if they want to share with you some information about electronic verifications, which providers they know are used and what is needed to pass that verifcation?

Not sure how much detailed information they are happy to share but you could try out as you don't want to believe what other people are saying.

 

[nightfox]

Royal panda email today We’d like to remind you that Royal Panda will no longer be available to UK players from 31 January 2020. Consequently, please unsure you withdraw any remaining funds before 9 am on this date. If you have any issues with your withdrawal, please contact our customer service team who will be happy to help

 

[Harry_BKK]

See if you look for your credit file online and misspelled your name, would it give you your credit file? No, it would raise a flag


Hang on though. Player was verified, deposited and won, but only after a withdrawal is it flagged that players name is wrong and they accused him of fraud? How did they know his name was wrong? How did they link the SE? This is what is to happen BEFORE the player can gamble, not deposit. You missed the line 1 in the LCCP which clearly states this.



In terms of the 'exact' name match, I believe its first name and surname. If your name was Joe Bloggs and you applied for a loan under the name Joe Blogg, do you think they would pass it? No they wouldnt and the electronic verification systems for ID check is the same as the ones casinos use. It flags for a manual check. As I said, try it out yourself and see. I'm saying there is a flaw with this particular verification system.

I'm not saying the system is perfect but it is approved by the UKGC. Any kind of verification system will allow some percentage of error to avoid too many false flags. That is how this kind of systems used to work (I used to sell mass-production inspection systems which work on the same principle). If you make them too tight, then you will need to employ a lot more people just to go through all the false flags.

A player verification is legally and regulatory not the same as applying for a loan. You are trying to compare apples with oranges.

Plus, the OP was not fully verified. He only passed the initial check as you can see from his first post.

Plus+plus: Usually casinos asked for full documents when you surpassed 2,300 in withdrawals. The OP deposited 1,000 and decided to withdraw just below 2,300! Strange, isn't it? If I deposit 1K, I play for a much bigger win not just doubling the deposit. However, things have changed and UK casinos seem to ask for full verification much earlier. Maybe I am wrong on this one, but it was one threshold people in specific forums would make sure to stay below so they would have a better chance of flying under the radar.

 

[EkJR]

I'm not saying the system is perfect but it is approved by the UKGC. Any kind of verification system will allow some percentage of error to avoid too many false flags. That is how this kind of systems used to work (I used to sell mass-production inspection systems which work on the same principle). If you make them too tight, then you will need to employ a lot more people just to go through all the false flags.

A player verification is legally and regulatory not the same as applying for a loan. You are trying to compare apples with oranges.

Plus, the OP was not fully verified. He only passed the initial check as you can see from his first post.

Plus+plus: Usually casinos asked for full documents when you surpassed 2,300 in withdrawals. The OP deposited 1,000 and decided to withdraw just below 2,300! Strange, isn't it? If I deposit 1K, I play for a much bigger win not just doubling the deposit. However, things have changed and UK casinos seem to ask for full verification much earlier. Maybe I am wrong on this one, but it was one threshold people in specific forums would make sure to stay below so they would have a better chance of flying under the radar.

View attachment 121403

So we are saying that First and surname, Postcode/house number, Date of Birth will not require an exact match on signing up for a casino? There would be absolutely no point in the legislation if that was the case. Its basic info. Middle name I can understand, but any of the other details I completely disagree on. However, in the interests of the points I will ask the contact I have at the UKGC for comments on it. I think if you are right then the system is completely open to abuse.

See if what you have posted above is true then they are in breach of LCCP. Point 1 again clearly states that the player cannot gamble until they are verified. So how can the player then 'not be verified' as you say? If there was any doubt over the players identity then he should not have been allowed to play. Bank card, fine, some ask for it. However asking for identity at that stage is not what it is supposed to be for.

For the record, in the past 10 years I have been asked for ID twice, bank cards about 3 times. This includes Leo Vegas btw and had far bigger withdrawals than this.

 

[EkJR]

Maybe instead of we start to try all casinos one by one, you could contact auditors who are auditing UKGC casinos see if they want to share with you some information about electronic verifications, which providers they know are used and what is needed to pass that verifcation?

Not sure how much detailed information they are happy to share but you could try out as you don't want to believe what other people are saying.

It isn't that I am not listening to what you are saying. You keep talking about these auditors....who did they audit specifically? I asked this yesterday as I have not seen these comments anywhere.

 

[Slottery]

It isn't that I am not listening to what you are saying. You keep talking about these auditors....who did they audit specifically? I asked this yesterday as I have not seen these comments anywhere.

Like i said yesterday, it's not relevant. You can choose that i just take things from my head which are not true. They are auditing quite many operators all the time and with my experience all receive same level of service.

I stated that i have written conversation about electronic verification with people who were making audit and have quite clear understanding what can pass that verification and what not, i provided some examples about these combinations, not going to share everything in full details as how to get around of verifications with fake details is not lesson i would like to teach on open forum.

So i only can recommend you contacting UKGC or their auditors and have detailed conversation about verification process and keep asking questions which results from certain provider are accurate enough to pass or fail. All operators have all these kind of policies written down and accepted by license provider like RG, AML and numerous other ones which where you have to demostrate in practice how you comply with certain thing.

 

[Mr_Slot5]

The fact of the matter is, if a fake name is used (that includes spelling mistakes), you can not be 'verified' age wise or any other way. It defeats the whole purpose of verification.

I'm fully with @EkJR on this one.

 

[colinsunderland]

Like i said yesterday, it's not relevant. You can choose that i just take things from my head which are not true. They are auditing quite many operators all the time and with my experience all receive same level of service.

I stated that i have written conversation about electronic verification with people who were making audit and have quite clear understanding what can pass that verification and what not, i provided some examples about these combinations, not going to share everything in full details as how to get around of verifications with fake details is not lesson i would like to teach on open forum.

So i only can recommend you contacting UKGC or their auditors and have detailed conversation about verification process and keep asking questions which results from certain provider are accurate enough to pass or fail. All operators have all these kind of policies written down and accepted by license provider like RG, AML and numerous other ones which where you have to demostrate in practice how you comply with certain thing.

But if the spelling is wrong, then a soft check will fail. If you are called Mr Slottery and you enter your surname as Slotterp then the softcheck will fail to validate the DOB as there is no credit file for that person. That is the point were are making. I get that every single error shouldn't go to manual checks, but a name being wrong should, and not being able to confirm a date of birth should,.

 

[Harry_BKK]

But if the spelling is wrong, then a soft check will fail. If you are called Mr Slottery and you enter your surname as Slotterp then the softcheck will fail to validate the DOB as there is no credit file for that person. That is the point were are making. I get that every single error shouldn't go to manual checks, but a name being wrong should, and not being able to confirm a date of birth should,.

For the umpteenth time. Not necessarily!!!!!!

And you do not know if RP did a softcheck. A name verification has a much lower threshold than a loan/credit check.

Please people, I cannot disclose all exact stuff in a public forum so fraudsters can use it. But, rest assured, any electronic system has an adjustable threshold where the test fails or passes. Casino operators will try to have the initial check (verification of age and name) done with a low threshold, e.g. if they scan for 100 criteria, then the test wants to see 100 - xx.xx% correct. There are different levels when it comes to the results and they are not only fail or pass.

What I am totally sure of is that every operator got the blessing from the UKGC auditors to use whatever they have or have been told to improve.

 

[pinnit2014]

For the umpteenth time. Not necessarily!!!!!!

And you do not know if RP did a softcheck. A name verification has a much lower threshold than a loan/credit check.

Please people, I cannot disclose all exact stuff in a public forum so fraudsters can use it. But, rest assured, any electronic system has an adjustable threshold where the test fails or passes. Casino operators will try to have the initial check (verification of age and name) done with a low threshold, e.g. if they scan for 100 criteria, then the test wants to see 100 - xx.xx% correct. There are different levels when it comes to the results and they are not only fail or pass.

What I am totally sure of is that every operator got the blessing from the UKGC auditors to use whatever they have or have been told to improve.

I hear what you’re saying Larry

 

[maxd]

@Borgie i was replying to the question if must be known i have dyslexia i make mistakes time to time what is the issue with going to ask gamblers etc i want to fight this

We have Rules like everyone else. You were asked time and again to read them. You obviously have not. And now you are in violation of the Player Arbitration Policies and Procedures on multiple counts.

Later: apparently you've also submitted your complaints elsewhere. Another violation of the Player Arbitration Policies and Procedures. Your PABs have been cancelled. Next time please read and follow the rules, they are there for good reasons. Where you got the idea that they were optional and there for you to ignore at your leisure is beyond me.

 

[colinsunderland]

We consider moving the brand from Accredited section.

I personally think Royal Panda is a cool brand, but they got too many and long chances to regularly log in or find the replacement. Really hope this is the last warning.

He still hasn't logged in, surely there should be something done about this type of thing?

 

[LadyJelena]

He still hasn't logged in, surely there should be something done about this type of thing?

And I still haven't got any reply for him, even after contacting again today (yesterday)

 

[toph11]

i won 1100x on doa2 once at royal panda
never got my winnings
i've never had any trouble cashing out on other online casino
does this happen often with royal panda? any of you people know?

 

[mcgameboy]

I've never had any problems with them.

The closest I got to having a problem with them was when I made a cashout request and they requested docs for verification. But in fairness to them, once I supplied them, I was verified within 4 hours and the cashout was processed.

Being from the UK, my account is about to be closed there due to them leaving the UK market.
But in the 3 1/2 years that I was with Royal Panda, I can say that I very much enjoyed my time there.

As for your question toph, my only guess would be that you were playing with bonus funds and betting over 1CAD per spin. If you didn't do that, then I am stuck for an answer as to why you weren't paid your winnings.

 

[Borgie]

And I still haven't got any reply for him, even after contacting again today (yesterday)

Time for Bryan to act maybe ?