Self Exclusion - Major flaws

[Supababe]

I'm not actually sure a retailer can check the name on a card transaction, certainly when i've had merchant accounts in the past we couldn't. We could do a code 10 (suspicious transaction) call if we wanted but even then we wouldn't get 100% confirmation of the name, just told to decline or not.

The only checks we could do were on remote transactions, where you would type the house number and numbers from postcode in, if they didn't match, then the transaction would be declined. It was about 5 years ago now though so may have changed since then.

I’m no programmer but surely it isn’t rocket science to write in a code that requests name on card during deposit and compares to account name even if it’s first letter and surname....

At the time we were online retailers and had a virtual terminal. We had to insert name on card but could alter the settings to ‘exact match’ or ‘near match’

 

[colinsunderland]

I’m no programmer but surely it isn’t rocket science to write in a code that requests name on card during deposit and compares to account name even if it’s first letter and surname....

At the time we were online retailers and had a virtual terminal. We had to insert name on card but could alter the settings to ‘exact match’ or ‘near match’

Maybe its changed or different merchants had different methods. We had a PDQ and Worldpay for online, and neither allowed us to check the name. I know Amazon and Paypal don't do name checks at the moment, in fact they don't do the address check either, as I have my daughters card on both my accounts for when she buys stuff, and she has a different surname and address.

It could possibly be what you request or how high a risk your transactions are too, as I know Worldpay had different packages, we had the lowest as 90% of our transactions were done by paypal so didn't need the higher ones.

Perhaps a rep could confirm if they do a name match?

 

[AR1886]

Decided to question the third party funding issue. Here’s RedZoneBet’s reply. Now keep in mind this is my card, making this response quite ridiculous.

Thank you for your message.

We are running circles here.
You have been already informed that credit cards details are not collected by us due to security purposes and therefore any card can be used for placing deposits. It is, however, against the law in the UK to use someone else's card to make any transactions. Such instances should be taken with the related bank immediately.

 

[colinsunderland]

Decided to question the third party funding issue. Here’s RedZoneBet’s reply. Now keep in mind this is my card, making this response quite ridiculous.

Thank you for your message.

We are running circles here.
You have been already informed that credit cards details are not collected by us due to security purposes and therefore any card can be used for placing deposits. It is, however, against the law in the UK to use someone else's card to make any transactions. Such instances should be taken with the related bank immediately.

Ask then for the link to the law they are talking about

 

[AR1886]

Ask then for the link to the law they are talking about

I did

 

[Slottery]

Ask then for the link to the law they are talking about

Happy that not living in UK, have been breaking this law so many times when somebody have provided card details to by something etc... and been providing mine to someone to use for certain purcase etc... Hope they don't advise that it's against a law in whole EU or world as well

 

[AR1886]

Happy that not living in UK, have been breaking this law so many times when somebody have provided card details to by something etc... and been providing mine to someone to use for certain purcase etc... Hope they don't advise that it's against a law in whole EU or world as well

Let’s enjoy what’s left of our freedom.

 

[EkJR]

What is also interesting in my situation is that they claim they couldn’t detect a GS registration with only an email address being different and me including my legal middle name yet when they did their investigations they were able to detect that I had 3 other historical @Unibet Rep accounts that were at different addresses around the UK over the last 5-10 years.

These would most likely have had different phone numbers etc let alone home addresses.

How were you so thorough when it came this phase but not so upfront? Also you have failed to detect that I was already self excluded @32red yet decided not to include this information in your investigation.

I'm not going to go into much detail, but if your only job is to look at a passport and confirm the DOB is the same as sign up(as part of post May rules)and you fail to do so then there is something way wrong. Then to spit the dummy when highlighting the "mistake" to them...doesn't fill you with confidence....

 

[Slottery]

I'm not going to go into much detail, but if your only job is to look at a passport and confirm the DOB is the same as sign up(as part of post May rules)and you fail to do so then there is something way wrong. Then to spit the dummy when highlighting the "mistake" to them...doesn't fill you with confidence....

Unfortunately as long humans are verifying these we do see human errors, not often but would assume that most of normal person have some error margin if you only keep checking DOB from passports 8 hours a day, most of us don't be 100% accurate. Of course that amount of errors is very small from amount you are checking these, but for sure it can happen for all that you fail and verify document with incorrect date.

That i fully agree that once that it's found happen, approach to that should be very different, apologies, admit that human error has happened and make what is possible (and reasonable) to control damage caused. When such a mistake is happen, standing corrected and admit mistake should be very common practice instead of trying to make any excuses that it happened. Most of time people also are more understanding and willing to put that error in bed once damage is fixed when happened error is straightly admitted and apologised.

 

[EkJR]

Unfortunately as long humans are verifying these we do see human errors, not often but would assume that most of normal person have some error margin if you only keep checking DOB from passports 8 hours a day, most of us don't be 100% accurate. Of course that amount of errors is very small from amount you are checking these, but for sure it can happen for all that you fail and verify document with incorrect date.

That i fully agree that once that it's found happen, approach to that should be very different, apologies, admit that human error has happened and make what is possible (and reasonable) to control damage caused. When such a mistake is happen, standing corrected and admit mistake should be very common practice instead of trying to make any excuses that it happened. Most of time people also are more understanding and willing to put that error in bed once damage is fixed when happened error is straightly admitted and apologised.

They have electronic verification, if that fails then they check passport only at that point so its going to be minimal numbers we are talking about here...

 

[Slottery]

They have electronic verification, if that fails then they check passport only at that point so its going to be minimal numbers we are talking about here...

Many are doing also manua verifications as we've seen also in these topics when players are requested documents at some point and many times very early when it's coming to withdrawal. Point was just that there is human involved to make these very simple and repetitive checks like DOB and other details, there always is certain amount of simple errors in process. Which is very small (or probably person who get one from ten wrong is not doing it anymore), but people who are full time completing these checks can get it wrong sometime by clicking accidentally verified instead not or just quickly checking one number wrong.

As said, it shouldn't happen but it does like errors where humans are doing these kind of checks but once happened it should be dealt best possible way where first thing is to admit that error have happen and correct damage caused.

 

[AR1886]

Was receiving replies almost instantly until the question about which law they were referring to...

BoyleSports & @GentingAffiliates did the same, it’s pretty pathetic really.

 

[TravellingRecluse]

Many are doing also manua verifications as we've seen also in these topics when players are requested documents at some point and many times very early when it's coming to withdrawal. Point was just that there is human involved to make these very simple and repetitive checks like DOB and other details, there always is certain amount of simple errors in process. Which is very small (or probably person who get one from ten wrong is not doing it anymore), but people who are full time completing these checks can get it wrong sometime by clicking accidentally verified instead not or just quickly checking one number wrong.

As said, it shouldn't happen but it does like errors where humans are doing these kind of checks but once happened it should be dealt best possible way where first thing is to admit that error have happen and correct damage caused.

I don’t buy that human error does not notice that my casino account is first middle and surname and my bank statement is only first and surname yet they question nothing.

The fact they only looked deep enough to see I have numerous historical accounts when it comes to defending these themselves shows their upfront due diligence is none existent.

I also see that the rep has not acknowledged my tag in that I was already self excluded from 32 red yet didn’t bring that up @UnibetDavid whwn they gave me a final response

 

[AR1886]

Maybe @Mark_32Red is about to provide an answer to this...

 

[TravellingRecluse]

We all know they will just blag that details are different so how will we know.

Surname and DOB are obviously enough to find 3 historical accounts at different UK addresses yet detecting a self excluded player is impossible due to some different details. Bent or what

 

[Mark_32Red (retired acct)]

Maybe @Mark_32Red is about to provide an answer to this...

I'm not sure I've been asked a specific question? Apologies if I've missed it. I'm also not able to answer detailed questions on policies and procedures in a public forum. I'm happy for anyone to PM me with any direct questions and I'll answer where I can.

We all know they will just blag that details are different so how will we know.

Surname and DOB are obviously enough to find 3 historical accounts at different UK addresses yet detecting a self excluded player is impossible due to some different details. Bent or what

I don't know details specific to your case, but if your full name isn't the same on the linked accounts I would suggest this is the reason. If my name was Mark Alan Smith and I registered one account as Mark Smith and another as Alan Smith I wouldn't expect this to be picked up. I'd actually suggest it was a deliberate attempt to bypass procedures and against terms and conditions, regardless of how "bent" you think that sounds.

Mark

 

[colinsunderland]

I think I agree with Mark about this being honest. Theres a difference between doing KYC on a provided name and address, to doing a manual deep search on a database with wildcards.

Thats not to say I think self exclusion policies, and gamstop especially, are up to scratch, but finding a match on someone with a different name, address, email and phone number, from 5 years previously isn't that easy and would pretty much require manual intervention. Even banking systems would be unlikely to pick that up, depending on how careful you were when moving.

 

[AR1886]

BoyleSports confirming their stance on third party deposits.

@Mark_32Red - I saw you browsing and can see there’s been an issue with Unibet following an exclusion with 32Red, assumed you were browsing for that reason, my apologies.

 

[AR1886]

I think I agree with Mark about this being honest. Theres a difference between doing KYC on a provided name and address, to doing a manual deep search on a database with wildcards.

Thats not to say I think self exclusion policies, and gamstop especially, are up to scratch, but finding a match on someone with a different name, address, email and phone number, from 5 years previously isn't that easy and would pretty much require manual intervention. Even banking systems would be unlikely to pick that up, depending on how careful you were when moving.

I think it runs deeper than that, I keep thinking about the fact there were so many red flags in my case, yet none of them were picked up.

Quoting terms and conditions is something the bookmakers do to justify their stance, but seems they don’t consider their terms and conditions they are breaching?

 

[TravellingRecluse]

I'm not sure I've been asked a specific question? Apologies if I've missed it. I'm also not able to answer detailed questions on policies and procedures in a public forum. I'm happy for anyone to PM me with any direct questions and I'll answer where I can.



I don't know details specific to your case, but if your full name isn't the same on the linked accounts I would suggest this is the reason. If my name was Mark Alan Smith and I registered one account as Mark Smith and another as Alan Smith I wouldn't expect this to be picked up. I'd actually suggest it was a deliberate attempt to bypass procedures and against terms and conditions, regardless of how "bent" you think that sounds.

Mark

Yet it was picked up once unibet needed to attempt to defend themselves.

The information I provided at sign up was clearly enough to be useful when it came to looking into historical accounts that all had other different information such as addresses.

Quoting terms and conditions as all well and said but not detecting a player that is self excluded from one of your brands is another.

We self exclude for a reason yet this is an example of another casino group who will stand behind T&Cs and you accuse me of a deliberate circumvention by using my LEGAL name? That’s pretty low.

But each to their own.

Is everyone really telling me that these companies internal SE registers don’t at least ask the question of “is this the same person” when a surname and DOB match?

It’s funny really as the Leo Vespas group tried this line during an earlier issue but they obviously saw the sense and refunded me.

Either way I won’t lose sleep about it but I’ll be sure to finish my email to the UKGC and they can make of it what they will.

 

[colinsunderland]

I think it runs deeper than that, I keep thinking about the fact there were so many red flags in my case, yet none of them were picked up.

Quoting terms and conditions is something the bookmakers do to justify their stance, but seems they don’t consider their terms and conditions they are breaching?

I don't know the specifics (and sorry if I've not remembered them from earlier in the thread) but just going on the allegation that they managed to find other historic accounts but didn't at first, a casino is never going to do a deep search like that unless they have reason to.
I could tell you how to get multiple loans from banks, move house and not pay them, then open accounts with them years later, using the same name, without them getting a link between the two. Point being, if a bank doesn't do a deep search into loan applications and suchlike, then a casino wanting to verify someones identity isn't going to either.
As I say, I don't think checks are enough, especially with gamstop, and can see some ways to make the process much better and catch people a lot easier, but you do need to look at things from a perspective that if someone wants to hide their real identity, they can.

 

[AR1886]

It’s not the same with my situation and I don’t dispute mine is fairly convoluted, though the simple part is the account name and name on the payment method not matching, along with 4/5 of the details being on GamStop.

There’s fault on my side here, absolutely. Though it’s far from one sided.

 

[Slottery]

I don’t buy that human error does not notice that my casino account is first middle and surname and my bank statement is only first and surname yet they question nothing.

The fact they only looked deep enough to see I have numerous historical accounts when it comes to defending these themselves shows their upfront due diligence is none existent.

I also see that the rep has not acknowledged my tag in that I was already self excluded from 32 red yet didn’t bring that up @UnibetDavid whwn they gave me a final response

Wasn't referring any particular issue but just to basic verification process where very small amount of human errors will happen and missmatch in DOB:s can be approved. If there is any deeper look to account in total, then it shouldn't be possible if that's not only missmatch there and other documents also are to be verified.

edit: as it seem to be happened when that deeper check was completed

 

[TravellingRecluse]

I don't know the specifics (and sorry if I've not remembered them from earlier in the thread) but just going on the allegation that they managed to find other historic accounts but didn't at first, a casino is never going to do a deep search like that unless they have reason to.
I could tell you how to get multiple loans from banks, move house and not pay them, then open accounts with them years later, using the same name, without them getting a link between the two. Point being, if a bank doesn't do a deep search into loan applications and suchlike, then a casino wanting to verify someones identity isn't going to either.
As I say, I don't think checks are enough, especially with gamstop, and can see some ways to make the process much better and catch people a lot easier, but you do need to look at things from a perspective that if someone wants to hide their real identity, they can.

A fair point but I’m hardly trying to hide my true identity when I can prove everything I put forward with official ID such as a passport and bank statements.

If I was tying to use fictitious information I’d be a bit more creative that just adding my actual middle name to an account opening form.

I just find it hard to believe that as financial establishments who are supposed to conduct thorough ID processes and CDD checks that these simple things are missed yet only the customer is to blame for opening multiple accounts.

And surely above all, the reason to do these deep checks is to prevent problem gambling which they are supposed to assisting in preventing and to satisfy their AML/CDD checks.

 

[TravellingRecluse]

I think I agree with Mark about this being honest. Theres a difference between doing KYC on a provided name and address, to doing a manual deep search on a database with wildcards.

Thats not to say I think self exclusion policies, and gamstop especially, are up to scratch, but finding a match on someone with a different name, address, email and phone number, from 5 years previously isn't that easy and would pretty much require manual intervention. Even banking systems would be unlikely to pick that up, depending on how careful you were when moving.

I hope you would also agree though that if you were applying for a facility from a bank using details that could not be verified to a satisfactory standard they sure as hell would be doing further checks to confirm exactly who they are dealing with.