Your Input Please The ordeal of online gambling, Casumo.

Keep in mind that the law is out there but how to apply it is not described. Therefore operators need to reed the requirements and turn in to a process. Therefore every casino will execute responsible gaming and AML processes in a different way. I can understand that such a thing is frustrating for players.

Hense my saying they should get a barristers advice, from one in the UK specialising in UK Gambling Law. It would cost a few grand, but could potentially save millions in penalties, and if it means they have to do less work, thats a saving for the casino, and if they don't do as many checks on customers, stops them getting pissed of and heading back to Coral or Bet365. The UK based bookies don't do the checks as often and as intrusively simply because their legal advice is sound and from a UK source.
 
Have to agree that Casumo are not a bad outfit. They are just taking precautions. Yes,its overkill but they have been fined millions.

I've seen it in banking when Lloyds were fined for misselling. They went overkill on everything to make sure they couldnt get caught out again. This went right down to the language the staff used and their staff were not even allowed to call a sale a sale anymore. It was called and still is as far as i know 'meeting a customers needs'.

They lost potential customers because of their due dilligence process being far too rigid but in their eyes it saves millions, billions in their case.

The problem is there seems to be not much of a caution for these companies and if somebody wins a court case it opens up for flood gates for blame and claim.

Hence, Casumo and I imagine a lot of others will follow, going over the top with this information now, so if the UKGC come knocking and asking questions they have been seen to go over and above the needs of the regulators.
 
Keep in mind that the law is out there but how to apply it is not described. Therefore operators need to reed the requirements and turn in to a process. Therefore every casino will execute responsible gaming and AML processes in a different way. I can understand that such a thing is frustrating for players.

Amen. Like been speaking here in these threads, laws and regulations are exactly same for all. How to implement these processes is up to operator as long UKGC (or other regulator) is happy with it.

We see many different approaches, some straight away ask your lifetime finance history etc... and some much less and can be even happy when you fill up your SOW they have provided without need for many many months bank statements.

Every player probably are assigned their own risk level by casino, there is big difference if findings on your account suggest you are categorized high risk AML or/and RG or very low, which then should effect how much proofs and documents you are requested to provide.

We see here only these complaints about SOW processes, based on that it seems that quite many operators are hadnling their stuff quite well already and not appear in these threads. For sure worth of effort from operator to make these verifications fluent and easy as possible but still be 100% compliant, making these too extensive when there is no real need for it can see players not willing to cooperate which is fully understandable.
 
been with 32red for years never had a problem that could not be resolved,then had a withdrawal request reversed after 2 days by 32 red for document request which pissed me off why wait till withdrawal and then reverse it why not hold it back till docs have been sent,then release funds,then 4 weeks after get the sow request looked at it thought want to much detail,and i was not convinced about the safety off said docs,after getting second e mail for sow i replied not submitting any.10 mins later my account was shut.
 
been with 32red for years never had a problem that could not be resolved,then had a withdrawal request reversed after 2 days by 32 red for document request which pissed me off why wait till withdrawal and then reverse it why not hold it back till docs have been sent,then release funds,then 4 weeks after get the sow request looked at it thought want to much detail,and i was not convinced about the safety off said docs,after getting second e mail for sow i replied not submitting any.10 mins later my account was shut.

You did get your money before they shut account i assume ?
 
@dunover I'm guessing the crucial part of this story is the sums of money involved. Where you recycling big lumps of money or is all this hundreds range?

I'm also curious on what your position is in regards to the 'fast paying' test you apply to casinos that you promote. Would this kind of delay cause you to classify a casino as fast paying or non fast paying?

As a customer I would definitely consider it non fast but I'm wondering if you have a different view.
 
Question I want to know the answer to is this.

Was the SOW asked for before or after the withdrawal request?

Reason being if they asked for the SOW before you played then fair enough.
If they asked after you played and made a withdrawal that's wrong.
This is the kind of stuff that continually gives online casinos a bad name and rep. Regardless if they have a good rep on here or not.
 
Mentioned in first post that withdrawal was paid and not held until requests completed which i guess is quite fair.

Big reason why these requests are coming on withdrawal stage is that accounts more often get manually checked before approving them so need for SOW verification will be then found, deposits are not that closely monitored and account reviewed.

Paying pending withdrawal and then sending SOW request where player get informed that before it's completed further withdrawal requests will not be approved is much nicer approach than keep current pending withdrawal pending many days. In most cases this is possible to do without breaking any regulations, of course there are circumstances when withdrawal can't be paid before verification is completed but for many "normal" players it shouldn't be impossible if there is no real suspicions about player.

There are not that strict threshold limits like in basic KYC verifications, many casinos like we see, have implemented their own threshold limits and once it's reached, your withdrawal is not paid before your SOW is approved and for some it can be near to impossible to provide some documents or are just not willing to share some personal information when it's going to many month bank statements etc.. with online casinos.

Hope with time more and more casinos find better and better user experience in all verifications, there are already many who are doing things quite nice way, then we have some opposite threads on this forum where only "Computer says no" approach have won common sense.... Work in progress and more and more operators getting better in these.
 
@dunover I'm guessing the crucial part of this story is the sums of money involved. Where you recycling big lumps of money or is all this hundreds range?

I'm also curious on what your position is in regards to the 'fast paying' test you apply to casinos that you promote. Would this kind of delay cause you to classify a casino as fast paying or non fast paying?

As a customer I would definitely consider it non fast but I'm wondering if you have a different view.
Luckily the industry is generally but slowly speeding up cash-out times, they're better then when I made the site 3-4 years ago. At that time there were standard 72 or 96-hour periods among the casinos, such as 888 and the Cassava ones, Playtech ones etc.

So I categorized that if a casino (after checks/KYC etc.) generally processed withdrawals within 2 working days, they were the faster-paying ones, 24 hours or less was good and the instant to a few hours exceptionally good.

As a player I'll be happy when my website USP becomes redundant and ALL UKGC sites will pay by return of withdrawal with no pending periods.

As for the first question, I have had limits of 250e or 50e a day and have made a profit in the last 2 weeks as you have seen by my screenies and videos. It soon adds up however and even withdrawing 2000 in a week after depositing 7x250, a small profit, the turnover on the account is then nearly 4k, or 200k a year if maintained.

Turnover is very different from the affordability of sustained losses though, and I did have a bad week around that SoW incident in another thread, took 28 days out and since I've gone back I have done well. I wouldn't have deposited a quarter of what I have if it wasn't for the wins/withdrawals.
 
@dunover I think it might still have it's place given that SOW seems like the new kid on the block in terms of slowing down withdrawals. I don't necessarily think it's a stalling tactic unlike those crap holes that deliberately just don't process for ages because they clearly want reversals - I think it will just be bureaucratic process failures on the part of casinos as seems to be the case for you.

It sounds like the sums involved in your account where a triggering factor for your latest round. In your shoes I would have simply closed my account especially as you've already gone through this multiple times. Frustrating stuff.
 
Would be interesting to know if they request similar information from players in Germany, Sweden, Finland, Norway, Canada, India and other countries where they are popular, or it's an only specific requirement for players in the UK...
From Canada I have not seen any SoW requests, certainly though the verification process is held over your head to provide. I received this obnoxious email from LVBet:
We have noticed that you had deposited to your user account with a credit card that belongs to someone else.

Kindly note user must not deposit using cards or payment accounts which belong to third party.
Therefore, the Credit Card **5329 has been blocked and we kindly ask you to upload the following documents on our website under the tabs My account -> My documents:

· a copy of your valid official picture ID (both sides of the Driving License, ID or Passport) - please kindly note that all four corners of uploaded document have to be visible and no reflection should be on picture taken in order to approve and verify your identity
· a picture of yourself holding your valid official picture ID - document next to face with a note displaying current date
· a copy of a utility bill (e.g. landline bill, gas or electricity bill), invoice or bank statement as proof of your address. It should display address, name and date which cannot be older than 6 months (other details may be covered)
· a proof of your deposit made via Interac (100EUR 19-11-2019) displaying name, bank account number and deposit details. You can do that by either sending us a screenshot from internet banking with URL address or a document saved in pdf. format.


· a copy of the front of the credit card ** (with the first 6 and last 4 digits visible)

· a copy of the signed back of the credit card **5329 with the last 3 digits (CVV) covered

· a copy of ID from the holder of the credit card **

They likely wanted a picture of me with my dog too... the Credit card is mine, so they first accuse me incorrectly. Then it took 6 uploads of various documents to get verified...over a 211Euro withdrawal..

This is an issue with many casino's unfortunately. My response when I have been asked to do a selfie is that I don't do them, sorry.
 
I think it is just Casumo tbh, how many other casinos have you had the same level of scrutiny from? I've seen loads of people complaining about the same thing, and by far the most intrusive have been Casumo.
FWIW the UK bookies do do SOW, and have been long before the recent 'changes', but it is almost always for AML rather than affordability, mainly because, as you say, they can do limited affordability checks by way of credit checks.
Now you'll laugh at the latest hoops I've been asked to jump through - affordability!

This has occurred since my last post in this thread.

Despite showing I have no mortgage, and the account has been removed from my online banking as settled, despite them seeing the payment I made a while back into the mortgage account to do this, I am now expected to provide an official statement, which only they send every January.

I sent a copy of the monthly outgoings which we pay from a joint account, Council Tax, TV Tax, Utilities etc. No mortgage payment any more. Not good enough.

Then to make matters worse, I log-in today to find the dreaded Red Exclamation Mark of Death on my username. Press the 'red' part of the verified list of documents which includes green-ticked for card, SoW etc. and get the ludicrous request of a selfie with me holding an 'undefined' again!

It gets worse - I then receive an e-mail naming 5 specific months back to the start of 2017 where they quote my deposits-vs-withdrawals and say they have insufficient proof I could have afforded those judging by the docs they already have.

There has been no attempt at common-sense and actually working out the whole year's income vs net losses to see it was easily 'affordable'. No attempt to see that preceding some of these negative months I had had big wins, like that infamous run on Bonanza that had me nearly 15k ahead when it inevitably stopped, for that period. No attempt to see that many deposits were made from previous withdrawals.

And all this begs the question - surely SoW and affordability have the same common information? The SoW will contain enough information to demonstrate affordability? Because the 5 months they quoted, most were AFTER the SoW was approved and checked, so surely they've messed up if after the approval they have now deemed the info insufficient?

Despite this I have still been allowed to deposit over 2k in the last week, normal account access. But with this REMOD (Red Exclamation Mark of Death) appearing today, it's obvious that my next withdrawal will be held back, therefore it's pointless playing any more. They have far too much personal stuff already and now I have to jump through more hoops, which when I do are never enough and more demands follow. To sift through documents going back years is the final straw. I'm done with it, it's over. The fun has stopped. So stop I will.

If this bullshit was intended to provoke me into making a public statement of how diligent Casumo are regarding their take on UKGC requirements (whether they are reading the rules properly or not) then it's worked. Kudos Casumo.

One thing's for sure though, I ain't ever going through this again.
 
Now you'll laugh at the latest hoops I've been asked to jump through - affordability!

This has occurred since my last post in this thread.

Despite showing I have no mortgage, and the account has been removed from my online banking as settled, despite them seeing the payment I made a while back into the mortgage account to do this, I am now expected to provide an official statement, which only they send every January.

I sent a copy of the monthly outgoings which we pay from a joint account, Council Tax, TV Tax, Utilities etc. No mortgage payment any more. Not good enough.

Then to make matters worse, I log-in today to find the dreaded Red Exclamation Mark of Death on my username. Press the 'red' part of the verified list of documents which includes green-ticked for card, SoW etc. and get the ludicrous request of a selfie with me holding an 'undefined' again!

It gets worse - I then receive an e-mail naming 5 specific months back to the start of 2017 where they quote my deposits-vs-withdrawals and say they have insufficient proof I could have afforded those judging by the docs they already have.

There has been no attempt at common-sense and actually working out the whole year's income vs net losses to see it was easily 'affordable'. No attempt to see that preceding some of these negative months I had had big wins, like that infamous run on Bonanza that had me nearly 15k ahead when it inevitably stopped, for that period. No attempt to see that many deposits were made from previous withdrawals.

And all this begs the question - surely SoW and affordability have the same common information? The SoW will contain enough information to demonstrate affordability? Because the 5 months they quoted, most were AFTER the SoW was approved and checked, so surely they've messed up if after the approval they have now deemed the info insufficient?

Despite this I have still been allowed to deposit over 2k in the last week, normal account access. But with this REMOD (Red Exclamation Mark of Death) appearing today, it's obvious that my next withdrawal will be held back, therefore it's pointless playing any more. They have far too much personal stuff already and now I have to jump through more hoops, which when I do are never enough and more demands follow. To sift through documents going back years is the final straw. I'm done with it, it's over. The fun has stopped. So stop I will.

If this bullshit was intended to provoke me into making a public statement of how diligent Casumo are regarding their take on UKGC requirements (whether they are reading the rules properly or not) then it's worked. Kudos Casumo.

One thing's for sure though, I ain't ever going through this again.

It makes zero sense mate.

All as far as im concerned is that should work out easily

100% = Wage
Bills = 50%
50% to spunk

Not really sure what more there is to it.

The fact t hey're asking you for details in 2017? wtf does that have to do with anything, its before the rule was even thought of.

Close it and move on..
 
I would never ever provide such a ridiculous amount of very private and very personal information. Who knows who could read this! If it was me I would close my account and never play at Casumo again ever. They can not withhold your withdraws. Pathetic the way they are handling this. And no surprise a casumo rep wont show up in this thread. They have no right what so ever to make this assessment of your financial situation. They forget they are just an online casino not a banking institution.
 
Are Casumo employing inspector clouseau to do their checks :confused:

It seems once some casinos get a fixation with a player now, he/she can never get a clean bill of health and enjoy the same hassle free customer service as they did previously, it's only a matter of time before another intrusive check is requested.

And if ever mr UKGC comes calling again, they'll present these cases as an example of their ultra diligence.

I cannot believe they are putting every high roller/vip through this same hassle? Demanding proof of a paid off mortgage, they must be doing a selective sample. They'd be killing their bread and butter business otherwise, the loyal repeat player, who plays on medium stakes.

Maybe they don't realise to have a decent session, [a run for your money] or chance of winning on modern slots you're going to go through some deposits, they've probably looked at the time spent gambling and thought 'wow!' without realising it can take 2 hours to get 1 bonus on bonanza.
 
@CasumoLouis this is exactly what you shouldn't be doing. Why are you checking stuff back to 2017?
And thats the reason why I rarely play at Casumo any more.
Seriously @dunover just close the account and fuck these jokers off.

Casumo have got this badly wrong. They have decided it seems, retrospectively, that they have doubts as to whether I could have afforded some historical months.
 
Is it quite big failure for them that they only now over two years after are questioning your deposits back in 2017?

No need to clarify any numbers, but somehow could assume that your deposits in period now in question were more than two hundred or something to even get spotted from your history, when they back then saw some significant amounts deposited, why they didn't act at all back then but only now when it's bit late already....

If recalling right, Casumo also advised that they are using some certain thresholds to trigger these cool verifications if you are rich enough to withdraw winnings from them (deposits are not a problem as you still can make them, just need to be wealthy enough to get money moving to other direction.....), it's bit problematical to count somebody lifetime thresholds when triggering these checks and then after that travel two years back in time and start arguing that you didn't have enough money at the time to support level of your deposits.

If you still are communicating with them, i would really ask what's the outcome if you don't provide any single document to them, are you suspected about criminal activities for financing your gambling back then and how they have failed to recognize it back then or have they failed to again their social responsibilities and let you spend more than you can afford (still assuming that deposits in that period are more than few pounds as they so easily can state that you can't afford them) and why no any action wasn't taken back then?

Loads of assumptions here but somehow feel that you have provided reasonable SOW for them to get that passed so it gives idea that these amounts in question now really are somehow remarkable which can't be paid with social warfare, so why nothing happened back then, is their monitoring two years behind (and as you passed your SOW verification this still wasn't spotted) and what they seriously now are after? These transactions are paid by you, there are no chargebacks coming, you have provided them information about your financial situation so even you played online two years ago, you still are surviving, so what actually they are looking to happen now?

Looks really great for casinos AML/RG monitorin to file suspicious transactions which took place over two years ago or agree that they have failed to interact with possible problem gambler and been accepting his deposits worth of £££££ (and still going strong) even there were signs of possible problem gambling.

As said, don't know about amounts but something not make perfect sense if something now after so long time is now so relevant and it wasn't back then. If understand anything right, you are playing quite actively and if SOW you provided is covering everything else than small period two years ago, there must be quite a difference which is found now long time after when you already have spent your drug money or ruined your life with gambling addiction.
 
I was thinking about this while I was out, what you could do is say, yeah you're right, back in 20xx I was struggling, had a problem, borrowed money to fund my gambling, and you should have picked up on it then, or at least during the numerous previous occasions I've had to send documents into you. When will you be refunding my net deposits from that date?

There is absolutely NO reason for them to be looking at affordability from 2+ years ago, especially for any customer who has supplied anywhere close to what you have already.
 
It's bordering on the ludicrous now, discretionary or not, these 'subjective' and interpretational SoWs shouldn't go back further than 3-6 months, never mind two years.

Not to mention their laughable requests, the ass-clowns
 
Yup, not really make much sense that your activity back in 2017 was perfectly ok and accepted, didn't even raise need for SOW verification back then.

How in earth now when they are aware of your financial situation (more or less but enough to let you pass SOW once and get paid and continue playing and like you stated earlier, let you deposit quite high amounts right now) they inform you that you didn't have enough money to play that much back 2017, what is their expected outcome, you provide additional SOW to show you won from scratch card or they are willing to inform that they have failed their responsibilities once again and expect you to report them to UKGC for another fine?

Basically you only are informed by them that they failed their monitoring back in 2017 and they shouldn't let you keep on depositing and playing. I don't believe that SOW you provided and passed their verifications was showing that you have zero income and your parents are feeding you so still could be highly expected that if that time period you spent way more you can afford, amount is something what should have been ringing bells when player haven't been SOW verified at all and some action should have been taken.

Really confusing and hard to call this very professional approach. We always after chats as get survey to rate them, you might ask them to rate themselves in scale 1-5 how well they think they are handling your SOW/affordability checks.
 
Not read all the posts after Dunover's REMOD point, however do have to ask, why are they asking for docs/info as far back as 2017 when the new regs did not surface until this year.

Surely UKGC with all their infinite wisdom ( :rolleyes: ) would not fine a casino when the enforcement's and requirements were not even in place :confused:

Imagine us time served stalwarts having to prove affordability and SoW as far back as 2003 when I started this "Journey"

Pathetic!
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Meister Ratings

Back
Top