UKGC confirmed position on new verification rules

EkJR

Senior Member
MM
Joined
Feb 3, 2018
Location
Glasgow
Ok, so, from the Rizk SOW thread @snorky510238 had posted about being able to deposit and then not play due to verification. The UKGC confirmed their position on this yesterday. Essentially it means that a customer can deposit and have the deposit held by the casino until verification is complete, which can take days! What's the fucking point! Why not just combine the rules and not allow anything to happen until verified?

In order to adhere to the new legislation operators must now verify a consumers age before they are allowed to deposit funds into an account. Operators may be able to do this by using electronic checks, such as checking credit referencing agencies and the electoral role. Consumers may not be asked for documentation to prove their age if operators can verify them this way. A consumer will be able to deposit once the operator has verified that they are over 18.

The next stage, and prior to allowing the consumer to gamble, is for the operator to verify the consumer’s identity, which means their name, date of birth and address as a minimum. Again, the operator may be able to verify these details electronically.
 

goatwack

Get dunked, big buns!
Joined
Aug 29, 2012
Location
Londonia
Yes, makes you wonder why casinos give players the runaround when essentially bank records hold key components, name, address, Source of Wealth etc

Almost like they enjoy it. Electronic verification is quite obviously easy to do and no great shakes. A casino I logged into recently after many a month presented me with dual options, to manually send in documents ( 'recommended' ) or to let them electronically KYC me.....as though the latter was the slower, more inconvenient option of the two! I don't think so Sonny Jim!
 

EkJR

Senior Member
MM
Joined
Feb 3, 2018
Location
Glasgow
Yes, makes you wonder why casinos give players the runaround when essentially bank records hold key components, name, address, Source of Wealth etc

Almost like they enjoy it. Electronic verification is quite obviously easy to do and no great shakes. A casino I logged into recently after many a month presented me with dual options, to manually send in documents ( 'recommended' ) or to let them electronically KYC me.....as though the latter was the slower, more inconvenient option of the two! I don't think so Sonny Jim!

I can only think that this was worded to allow the smaller operators a chance to adhere as they may not have the infrastructure to perform these checks simultaneously. However there is definitely room for abuse given here and is completely unnecessary.
 

mack341

Senior Member
Joined
May 8, 2018
Location
south east england
I can only think that this was worded to allow the smaller operators a chance to adhere as they may not have the infrastructure to perform these checks simultaneously. However there is definitely room for abuse given here and is completely unnecessary.

Ok, so, from the Rizk SOW thread @snorky510238 had posted about being able to deposit and then not play due to verification. The UKGC confirmed their position on this yesterday. Essentially it means that a customer can deposit and have the deposit held by the casino until verification is complete, which can take days! What's the fucking point! Why not just combine the rules and not allow anything to happen until verified?

In order to adhere to the new legislation operators must now verify a consumers age before they are allowed to deposit funds into an account. Operators may be able to do this by using electronic checks, such as checking credit referencing agencies and the electoral role. Consumers may not be asked for documentation to prove their age if operators can verify them this way. A consumer will be able to deposit once the operator has verified that they are over 18.

The next stage, and prior to allowing the consumer to gamble, is for the operator to verify the consumer’s identity, which means their name, date of birth and address as a minimum. Again, the operator may be able to verify these details electronically.

Wasn't snorky's a SOW test though, SOW isn't mentioned anywhere in the bold or does it now come under verification ?
 

snorky510238

Chief glockenspiel maker
Joined
Jan 12, 2018
Location
Uk
Wasn't snorky's a SOW test though, SOW isn't mentioned anywhere in the bold or does it now come under verification ?
I thought it was SOW so I did that but then it want verification ie bank statement, card used, drivers license etc.

The thing is I am pretty sure I was already verified so I should just of had to complete SOW. If I wasn’t already verified I have played there for 18 months and made many deposits and withdrawals so that begs the question why has it not been done before.

I hadn’t played there for a while on the principle that 2 of my favourite games were broken and they kept saying it was my issue and didn’t really want to know.

Anyhow I logged in the other day and checked them and they were fixed. It’s not a major problem to complete SOW it’s more the principle of how they went about it.

Obviously my account needed it and they had set this in motion to catch me next time I deposited. My question is if they knew prior to my deposit why not just drop me an email beforehand to ask me to complete? Again I know the answer because there would be a lot of customers who wouldn’t bother for one or another reason.
 

EkJR

Senior Member
MM
Joined
Feb 3, 2018
Location
Glasgow
I thought it was SOW so I did that but then it want verification ie bank statement, card used, drivers license etc.

The thing is I am pretty sure I was already verified so I should just of had to complete SOW. If I wasn’t already verified I have played there for 18 months and made many deposits and withdrawals so that begs the question why has it not been done before.

I hadn’t played there for a while on the principle that 2 of my favourite games were broken and they kept saying it was my issue and didn’t really want to know.

Anyhow I logged in the other day and checked them and they were fixed. It’s not a major problem to complete SOW it’s more the principle of how they went about it.

Obviously my account needed it and they had set this in motion to catch me next time I deposited. My question is if they knew prior to my deposit why not just drop me an email beforehand to ask me to complete? Again I know the answer because there would be a lot of customers who wouldn’t bother for one or another reason.

Of course it becomes very clear that some operators were doing absolutely no proper verification before May unless someone was trying to withdraw substantial amounts of money. Now we have cases of doing everything all together, like age check, verification and SOW. Most operators have been doing these checks seamlessly for years yet it's the same old faces who consistently get things wrong.
 

mack341

Senior Member
Joined
May 8, 2018
Location
south east england
It’s not a major problem to complete SOW it’s more the principle of how they went about it.

I can't get my head round scanning my bank statements and sending them to messrs betfair, william hill etc.. for their perusal and considered assessment.

I think SOW tests should be restricted to patterns - amounts deposited/lost, bet size...and not just because they feel like requesting one. It sounds like in your situation the £20 deposit meant you reached a threshold they have set.

I don't think it would be too hard to identify customers doing a lot of financial harm or potential launderers, no system is going to 100% eliminate all the issues so instead some balance and common sense is required.
 

snorky510238

Chief glockenspiel maker
Joined
Jan 12, 2018
Location
Uk
Yeah it’s ridiculous. It really is. I used to really enjoy the slot sessions but everything has changed lately.

Slots Imo seem to be tighter than tight. Breaking somewhere near even is considered a bonus to me nowadays and then all the this inconvenience on top.

I am at the point of calling it a day it’s becoming more of a chore than enjoyment. A pointless exercise so to speak. The more I think about this SOW thing the more I think what a load of bollocks.

I was allowed to deposit without being verified but I can’t withdraw my deposit without being verified. Would that really stand up in court if I had deposited £10,000, didn’t want to complete SOW and asked for it back.

I wonder if a similar threshold is in place at land based casinos now. I know a few people who have been asked for SOW in the past year. Also I have had a couple of decent wins on the roulette £300 & £400 (big for me) and when I have cashed out the ticket the cashier has asked for my name and written it on the ticket. It maybe policy for certain amounts but they don’t bother with £50 etc..
 

mack341

Senior Member
Joined
May 8, 2018
Location
south east england
Yeah it’s ridiculous. It really is. I used to really enjoy the slot sessions but everything has changed lately.

Slots Imo seem to be tighter than tight. Breaking somewhere near even is considered a bonus to me nowadays and then all the this inconvenience on top.

I am at the point of calling it a day it’s becoming more of a chore than enjoyment. A pointless exercise so to speak. The more I think about this SOW thing the more I think what a load of bollocks.

I was allowed to deposit without being verified but I can’t withdraw my deposit without being verified. Would that really stand up in court if I had deposited £10,000, didn’t want to complete SOW and asked for it back.

I wonder if a similar threshold is in place at land based casinos now. I know a few people who have been asked for SOW in the past year. Also I have had a couple of decent wins on the roulette £300 & £400 (big for me) and when I have cashed out the ticket the cashier has asked for my name and written it on the ticket. It maybe policy for certain amounts but they don’t bother with £50 etc..

sorry snorky I meant to reply yesterday but the thread alert slipped off my radar, I think they would have to return the deposit or approach the police/ukgc for instruction if they really felt it was a laundering/crime scenario...but I don't think it ever happens, why don't the casinos and ukgc brag about how many launderers they are catching and sending to court, even as a deterrent to other launderers it must be worthwhile publicising.

Yes I bet the B&M casinos are attempting to piece together some sort of paper trail for their business and customer's activity.

It is becoming very difficult to break even and get one decent bonus out of hundreds spent, it's starting to make me think roulette is a better risk than slots, yes you have to lump on but the odds are better, but then I'm sure I read at william hill for example they don't like you using systems to play roulette which seems a bit harsh.
 

snorky510238

Chief glockenspiel maker
Joined
Jan 12, 2018
Location
Uk
sorry snorky I meant to reply yesterday but the thread alert slipped off my radar, I think they would have to return the deposit or approach the police/ukgc for instruction if they really felt it was a laundering/crime scenario...but I don't think it ever happens, why don't the casinos and ukgc brag about how many launderers they are catching and sending to court, even as a deterrent to other launderers it must be worthwhile publicising.

Yes I bet the B&M casinos are attempting to piece together some sort of paper trail for their business and customer's activity.

It is becoming very difficult to break even and get one decent bonus out of hundreds spent, it's starting to make me think roulette is a better risk than slots, yes you have to lump on but the odds are better, but then I'm sure I read at william hill for example they don't like you using systems to play roulette which seems a bit harsh.
If you are talking live roulette at a land based casino fair enough but be careful with systems. If you are talking electronic roulette (software) I would say absolutely not. It’s rigged without question.
 

snorky510238

Chief glockenspiel maker
Joined
Jan 12, 2018
Location
Uk
I saw a guy asked to leave for playing a system at my local casino a while back. He wasn’t very old about 20 at a guess.

I don’t know if there was more to it than just winning but a few people I know said it was simply that. He was playing 4 tables at once and covering 2 out of the 3 lines (top, middle, bottom).

He was escorted to the cashier allowed to cash £18,000 then escorted to the door.
 

snorky510238

Chief glockenspiel maker
Joined
Jan 12, 2018
Location
Uk
As much as I love roulette I never play it online. I saw to much of the FOBTS and how they were programmed to beat system players.
 
Top