vinylweatherman
You type well loads
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2004
- Location
- United Kingdom
There are quite a few issues that need working on, and only some have been addressed.
1) Unexplained delays in withdrawal, and it taking over 10 days for "management" to send a substantive reply down to front line CS and the player.
2) 1) above shows a serious communications issue, as does 3) below
3) Unresponsive CS. 30 minutes "on hold" and then giving up, along with the problem persisting for 24 hours. Unresponsive email communications too, as the player with the 10 day delay on the withdrawal sent in the documents and only got an autoresponder, and still no update as to whether these documents are OK, or have anything to do with the delay.
4) Exclude list wrong. No mention of Portugal, so player from Portugal wastes their time registering, only to be told they can't play. This is enforcement of "secret" terms, and does not look good as it is the kind of thing that can simply be made up on the fly to hide the TRUE reason for a decision against a player.
5) Aggressive marketing, taken to the extreme in another thread where a player has been phoned EVERY day he has held off from depositing, with his request not to phone about this subject being ignored.
6) Notarised documents also seem to be an issue, and saying it is "rare" does not help. A lottery win is "rare", but the only way to be 100% certain of not winning is not to play. Players need to have a way of 100% verifying themselves before play should they wish, so that they are in a position to not play should the casino decide they cannot be verified in the usual manner.
What triggers a request for notarised documents is largely unknown, and it seems to affect players that it should not, those with properly established credentials, permanent address, good credit history, etc. These players are NOT "chancers" who know they may have to deal with such problems, and factor this in to their play, they are expecting to be treated as genuine customers because that's what they are. To them, any additional obstacles that suddenly crop up only when they win look like the stalling tricks of a rogue business, rather than "security requirements". Apart from the address issue, other requirements are often imposed on players that are impossible to meet legitimately, which again makes them think the purpose is to ensure they fail to meet them and give an excuse to the operator for not paying.
Casinos never give accounts on specific cases, but what is needed is general guidance as to what pitfalls are awaiting the legitimate player, and how they can ensure they do not fall into them. This type of guidance is given quite freely when it comes to the pitfalls that can stop one getting a loan or mortgage, and a number of consumer sites offer guidance as to what to check first, and what to do, and more importantly, what NOT to do as it only makes things worse.
Case studies HAVE been discussed here, and the biggest problem has been the INDUSTRY, with errors in the datasets being used a major factor. This is largely something the average consumer is not aware of, so has no idea what and where to check for innacurate data. In the more secretive casino industry, innacurate data must also be a problem, yet much of the industry is in denial about this, and insists they have 100% data accuracy. Where notarised documents are requested, and then approved, we seem to have evidence that innaccurate data has been the cause, with the notarised documents being a form of data validation check. It is when they are NOT approved, or the request makes the player disappear, that a "good call" has probably been made.
I am sure that there are many common factors between having ID verified for a loan, mortgage, etc and being verified for a withdrawal. In both cases, a fraud would cost the supplier money, be that an unpaid loan or a withdrawal based on an invalid deposit.
A UK player could make the checks reccommended for making a loan application if they are worried about, or experience, additional document requests from casinos. They may find errors in their data that not only lower their credit score, but that show up when processors for casinos make their own checks.
I have not seen this kind of advice on a casino website, but it would certainly help legitimate players steer clear of pitfalls they might be unaware of, as well as other pitfalls specific to the casino industry, such as what other members of the household are doing online.
1) Unexplained delays in withdrawal, and it taking over 10 days for "management" to send a substantive reply down to front line CS and the player.
2) 1) above shows a serious communications issue, as does 3) below
3) Unresponsive CS. 30 minutes "on hold" and then giving up, along with the problem persisting for 24 hours. Unresponsive email communications too, as the player with the 10 day delay on the withdrawal sent in the documents and only got an autoresponder, and still no update as to whether these documents are OK, or have anything to do with the delay.
4) Exclude list wrong. No mention of Portugal, so player from Portugal wastes their time registering, only to be told they can't play. This is enforcement of "secret" terms, and does not look good as it is the kind of thing that can simply be made up on the fly to hide the TRUE reason for a decision against a player.
5) Aggressive marketing, taken to the extreme in another thread where a player has been phoned EVERY day he has held off from depositing, with his request not to phone about this subject being ignored.
6) Notarised documents also seem to be an issue, and saying it is "rare" does not help. A lottery win is "rare", but the only way to be 100% certain of not winning is not to play. Players need to have a way of 100% verifying themselves before play should they wish, so that they are in a position to not play should the casino decide they cannot be verified in the usual manner.
What triggers a request for notarised documents is largely unknown, and it seems to affect players that it should not, those with properly established credentials, permanent address, good credit history, etc. These players are NOT "chancers" who know they may have to deal with such problems, and factor this in to their play, they are expecting to be treated as genuine customers because that's what they are. To them, any additional obstacles that suddenly crop up only when they win look like the stalling tricks of a rogue business, rather than "security requirements". Apart from the address issue, other requirements are often imposed on players that are impossible to meet legitimately, which again makes them think the purpose is to ensure they fail to meet them and give an excuse to the operator for not paying.
Casinos never give accounts on specific cases, but what is needed is general guidance as to what pitfalls are awaiting the legitimate player, and how they can ensure they do not fall into them. This type of guidance is given quite freely when it comes to the pitfalls that can stop one getting a loan or mortgage, and a number of consumer sites offer guidance as to what to check first, and what to do, and more importantly, what NOT to do as it only makes things worse.
Case studies HAVE been discussed here, and the biggest problem has been the INDUSTRY, with errors in the datasets being used a major factor. This is largely something the average consumer is not aware of, so has no idea what and where to check for innacurate data. In the more secretive casino industry, innacurate data must also be a problem, yet much of the industry is in denial about this, and insists they have 100% data accuracy. Where notarised documents are requested, and then approved, we seem to have evidence that innaccurate data has been the cause, with the notarised documents being a form of data validation check. It is when they are NOT approved, or the request makes the player disappear, that a "good call" has probably been made.
I am sure that there are many common factors between having ID verified for a loan, mortgage, etc and being verified for a withdrawal. In both cases, a fraud would cost the supplier money, be that an unpaid loan or a withdrawal based on an invalid deposit.
A UK player could make the checks reccommended for making a loan application if they are worried about, or experience, additional document requests from casinos. They may find errors in their data that not only lower their credit score, but that show up when processors for casinos make their own checks.
I have not seen this kind of advice on a casino website, but it would certainly help legitimate players steer clear of pitfalls they might be unaware of, as well as other pitfalls specific to the casino industry, such as what other members of the household are doing online.
