Tak til jer alle for jeres svar.
Dette er bestemt en lidt nuanceret sag, og jeg vil gerne dele mine observationer fra en neutral, uafhængig mæglers perspektiv.
På den ene side er det forståeligt, at hvert casino anvender sine egne KYC-procedurer, som kan afvige fra andre operatørers. Derfor er resultaterne ikke altid ensartede, selv når lignende eller yderligere dokumentation fremlægges. I dette tilfælde identificerede Sumsub – en bredt anerkendt KYC-udbyder i branchen – den indsendte adressebevis som et redigeret eller skabelonbaseret dokument. Fra et strengt proceduremæssigt synspunkt har casinoet derfor ret til at handle i overensstemmelse med sine etablerede politikker, når en sådan afgørelse er truffet.
På den anden side er det også værd at bemærke, at aktøren udviste en vilje til yderligere samarbejde ved at tilbyde at indsende alternativ dokumentation for adresse og ved at acceptere at få den omstridte elregning gennemgået eller kommenteret i overensstemmelse hermed. En mere åben og fortsat dialog gennem hele KYC-processen kunne have bidraget til en klarere og mere gennemsigtig løsning i overensstemmelse med de standarder for retfærdighed og god praksis, der generelt forventes i branchen.
Kære Mattysword,
For at give yderligere klarhed og måske en potentiel løsning, beder jeg dig venligst om at indhente din elregning i et officielt PDF-format direkte fra Enovous. Den version, du tidligere indsendte, blev leveret som et billede snarere end en PDF; dette kan være en af grundene til, at den blev markeret af Sumsub. PDF'er betragtes generelt som et mere pålideligt og verificerbart format.
Det burde være nemt at få fat i regningen i PDF-format, og det kan typisk gøres enten ved at anmode om den via e-mail eller ved at downloade den direkte fra din online kundekonto. Sørg for, at PDF-filen er i sit originale, uredigerede format og ikke er blevet ændret på nogen måde. Send mig venligst regningen til min e-mail. michal.k@casino.guru .
Thank you all for your responses.
This is certainly a bit of a nuanced case, and I would like to share my observations from a neutral, independent mediator’s perspective.
On the one hand, it is understandable that each casino applies its own KYC procedures, which may differ from those of other operators. Consequently, outcomes are not always consistent, even when similar or additional documentation is provided. In this instance, Sumsub—a widely recognised KYC provider within the industry—identified the submitted proof of address bill as an edited or template-based document. From a strict procedural standpoint, the casino is therefore within its rights to act in accordance with its established policies once such a determination is made.
On the other hand, it is also worth noting that the player demonstrated a willingness to cooperate further by offering to submit alternative proof of address and by agreeing to have the questioned electricity bill reviewed or annotated accordingly. A more open and continued dialogue throughout the KYC process could have contributed to a clearer and more transparent resolution, in line with the standards of fairness and good practice generally expected within the industry.
Dear mattysword,
To help provide some additional clarity and perhaps a potential resolution, I kindly ask that you obtain your electricity bill in an official PDF format directly from Enovous. The version you previously submitted was provided as an image rather than a PDF; this could be one of the factors why it was flagged by Sumsub. PDFs are generally considered a more reliable and verifiable format.
Obtaining the bill in PDF form should be straightforward and can typically be done either by requesting it via email or by downloading it directly from your online customer account. Please ensure that the PDF is in its original, unedited format and has not been altered in any way. Please send me the bill to my email, michal.k@casino.guru.
Automatisk oversættelse: