asked for ID again on a withdrawal from an account ive had since 2021

geordiecolin

geordiecolin

Member
Messages
45
Reaction score
67
Points
18
5y i've had this account. verified when i opened it, passport, the lot
won £340 on the villa game tuesday, put the withdrawal in, and thursday i get an email wanting proof of address dated in the last three months and a photo of us holding the ID next to me face
ffs security checks my arse. they've had five years to check us and they wait till im owed money like
 
happened to my bro in june mate, same thing, wh acc older than mine. send the stuff in and it'll clear. annoying but it's not them trying it on, it's usually that something in your registration doesn't match what their checker expects

what name did you register under? full name?
 
spindoctor99 said:
happened to my bro in june mate, same thing, wh acc older than mine. send the stuff in and it'll clear. annoying but it's not them trying it on, it's usually that something in your registration doesn't match what their checker expects

what name did you register under? full name?
Click to expand...
colin. thats me well at least what everyone calls my. why's that matter
 
Well it matters more than you'd think and the Commission put out a warning about this three weeks ago.

More than a quarter of all complaints to its Contact Centre are about identity verification. It's also one of the most common things going to ADR. The finding was that a number of licensees aren't collecting enough information at registration to satisfy Licence Condition 17, so the check that should have happened when you opened the account happens when you try to take money out instead.

They also flagged fuzzy matching, where the third party checker accepts something close rather than exact. That's how you get verified at signup with a name that doesn't quite match your documents, and then fail at the point it actually matters.

The examples they gave of what causes it were an initial instead of a full name, a nickname, a middle name used as a forename, and a commercial address instead of a residential one.
 
no its their fault for accepting it and then acting surprised five years later. if colin wasn't good enough it shouldn't have been good enough in 2021
they took his deposits for five years with that name. suddenly it matters when he's up £340. that's not a systems problem that's a business model
 
Both things are true at once, which is why it's taken this long to get addressed.
Commission's criticism was aimed squarely at operators deferring verification until withdrawal, and it told them to fix onboarding rather than leave it to the exit. That's the regulator agreeing with @BillThornes, in writing.
But the mismatch itself is real and it has to be resolved before anyone can pay you. @geordiecolin send the documents. The delay is genuine, the annoyance is justified, and neither of those speeds it up.
 
yea thats standard now on most sites, been like that a couple of years. they call that crap a liveness check. think it's to stop someone using a stolen document
 
but where does that photo live afterwards. thats the bit nobody answers... every site you've ever signed up to has a picture of your face next to your passport sitting on a server somewhere and you''ve got no idea who their third party checker is or where they keep it
 
that's the actual story here and it's being told as a customer service problem. the regulator's complaint isn't that too much data is collected, it's that not enough is collected early enough. read the warning again with that in mind. the fix they're demanding is more information at registration, held longer, matched harder against external records.
and the same fortnight they published that, they published the results of the financial risk assessment pilot, which failed partly because they couldn't match enough people to credit reference agency records. so one document says get better at identifying people and the other says we couldn't identify enough people to run the checks we wanted. those are the same project wearing two hats.
nobody sat in a room and planned it. it doesn't need planning. every institution asks for a bit more and the direction is only ever one way
 
The FRA pilot is a fair thing to raise but the framing isn't quite right. The whole design goal was to avoid asking players for anything. It used credit reference agency data in the background specifically so nobody would have to upload bank statements or payslips. The reason it struggled is that operator-held identity data was too poor to match people to those records, so customers came back "unmatched" and then needed the manual process the pilot existed to prevent.
You can argue the pilot shouldn't exist. But it failed in the direction of less intrusion, not more.
 
i wonder is this the same thing as the deposit limit stuff coming end of the month??.
 
different. in fact its completely separate thing. 30th of september is a technical standards change. operators have to offer gross deposit limits, call them deposit limits, and put them at least as prominently as any other limit type. thats it
nothings being imposed on you. its about what the site has to make available and what its allowed to call it
 
Gross means every deposit counts, with net winnings taken out of the calculation entirely. Say your limit is £100 a month. You deposit £100, win £60, withdraw it, then deposit that £60 back. Under a net calculation some operators treated you as having deposited £100 overall, so you could keep going. Under a gross limit you've deposited £160 and you're done for the month.

That's the whole change, and it's why some operators quietly removed the gross option at some point. From the 30th they have to offer it again, and only that type is allowed to be labelled a "deposit limit".
 
right, so a limit that actually limits. cant argue with that being clearer
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top