At the end of the day, we're not reinventing the wheel, we're just making do with the wheel because it's perfectly good enough. I fully understand they have to protect themselves but then so do we. They want too much and in this instance I couldn't provide it no matter what I did which as far as I could tell meant small print says it's my fault while they potentially keep money that isn't theirs.
They all should do this proof thing before deposits. I am adamant of that and I don't think I will be swayed if I am honest. It stops all the pain of hitting the brickwall.
I haven't provided a utility bill or similarly acceptable. They got part of an address on a screenshot and declined it. Sure, someone behind closed doors may have okayed it but that puts the question of legal standpoint in doubt. Whether that is because of a minimum/maximum threshold I don't know. Maybe there should be a known threshold. They have released the funds which contradicts the whole point of excessive albeit "required" ID. I support financial safety for buyers and sellers, so to speak but the key point here is that the ID was impossible to get and was bypassed.
I'm sorry but if you bank refused to let you have a statement then you should report them to the FCA, don't know who you bank with but I would be moving banks if they cannot/will not give you a statement. There are various reasons why you might need one in future, might as well get it sorted now. If you wanted a mortgage you would need one, if you claimed housing benefit you would need one, just 2 common examples.
The point I was making about your friends, simply, why do they not ask for ID of all customers at the door rather than just when they are required to by law? The answer is, because they would lose 90% of their business.
I do agree casinos aren't as up front as they should be, I have said on here many months ago, on the sign up form, all casinos should have a statement next to the 'I agree to terms' tickbox saying 'I agree to supply ID for KYC purposes, click here to see more' and a link to a page explaining what KYC is and what is required, and what might be required at different stages of the customer journey. However the law is clear that they don't have to, but in this case it was quite easy to see in the T&C's, MUCH easier than it is in some casinos, and some don't even mention it.
However, people would still ignore it, no matter how big and bold it was, I see it happen every day on different things.
The legal standpoint is clear, they haven't got round it here. It is that the casino have to be sure you are who you say you are. There is no law stating you need to provide any documentation to do this, just that the customer has to be identified. You supplied enough documentation to prove who you are, and, unlike many casinos, they applied common sense and allowed it. It would be much easier if all casinos were allowed access to CRA identification checks, but they aren't, so they have to do it another way. I'm sure Novibet would have much preferred to do an automatic electronic check in under 30 seconds with no staff intervention, than spend money on staff costs for the time it took to sort out.
