Lat I did deposit a lot... £50k.  I was asked for ID and proof of funds which I sent.  I was even told they were OK.  Then they still suspended.  I definitely paid a chunk in PC just before they suspended as the reason I made the deposit was to oppose Trump.  Thankfully I withdrew all but £5k either the same week or the following week before they suspended.

Actually, that does ring bells for me, CB!  Would that have been a big deposit for you?  (it would have been a chuffing huuuuuuuuuuuuge one for me!  )

Yes it was a one off.  £5-£10k wouldn't have been too abnormal.

Yes really.  I even got a patronising concerned phone call some time after that which was bewildering.  I think once you are "marked" they don't remove it, even if it should never have been there in the first place.

No losing run and possibly not a single extra deposit.  Mebbe a grand max.  Annoying thing was I would've laid Brian Rose to be London Mayor for at least £20k, but I just thought it wasn't worth the potential risk of having the account suspended again.  Then the account got suspended anyway!

Agree with Brentford about the golden age from 2003-2007.  What happened in 2007 was that Paul Nichols, with Kauto Star, won the Betfair Millions and to pay for it we were faced by a stiff hike in commission rates in 2008 meaning that the vast majority were put on 5% or close to it.  Premium Charge followed close on it's heels, but liquidity had now peaked and was going into decline.  The current rate of 2% came in too late to stop the rot and was only a response to what Betdack had been doing for a while.

Oh the patronisoing concerned phone call is the best ive heard (as in the worst but sarcasm I suspect)

The magic card they love ti use to basically put all the problems being you and not them, whilst pretending they care so much despite robbing you blind into the bargin ffs

The old tricks that only work on a very gullible society

If it is proof of income then you should be  able to redact everything bar entries pertaining to income.

If its affordability then a bank statement and wage slips wouldn't suffice in isolation anyhow because you'd need a complete breakdown of all your outgoings, mortgage/rent, weekly shopping, energy costs, pension, insurance, fuel etc etc.

Plus for most who are in a partnership then there is probably the partner's statement that would have a portion of the household outgoings going through it, if they want an accurate representation of "affordability" then they'd need to see your partners statements.

However they are not asking for any of this stuff and the reason is that they talk about affordability and such like, this is really a ruse in order to gradually strangle the life out of the sports bettors.

What would turn things on its head is if GOVT forced the books to reveal the percentages of what type of bettor has been targeted particularly if it was shown that they had not been even handed with sports/casino players.

There are a couple of other issues raised here that I’ve now looked at, and I’m in no way defending this requirement, I’ve made it very clear I’m against the need to provide evidence simply to be allowed to bet how you wish.

Somebody said they receive marketing emails for slots etc (presumably unwanted)….All marketing whether gambling or not has a responsibility to be appropriate, with the receiver being in control. All emails have to have the option to unsubscribe, it’s right down at the bottom in the small print. Give it 7 days from the point of registering your disinterest and if they still send then contact them direct;y, they will have to take this seriously now.
On that issue, this is where we have ended up, blame everyone culture. Just take back control it’s not difficult.

On banking information. It’s advisable to show caution, but there are serious ramifications for mismanaging data such as this. If you go to my account there’s a document uploaded, this is a secure link. If they say they destroy the data after viewing then they must, if they don’t they can be fined heavily. It’s further speculation bordering on paranoia saying they will be irresponsible.

Beyond all this, if you really want to pass the credentials then open up a separate bank account/ bond with adequate funds showing. Sure it’s a bind but again it’s just good housekeeping. I’ve had a designated bank for gambling for over 10 years, everyone should consider getting their accounts in order based on the environment they find themselves in.

This leaves us with the ethics. Ofc people should be annoyed, but it’s the hand wringing MPs who are out of line, you should be getting p1ssed off with them, they don’t really care about your freedom, they are bending over to the ill thought out emotional lot, the same who haven’t thought out the gender cr4p and listened to the voices who supplied confirmation biases. Now the whole information is landing and the picture is changing….as will the gambling environment once this made period has been weathered.

I read this and I automatically thought of Affordability Checks ..........

Ms J.T. writes: In April, I was on holiday in Tenerife with my partner when he suffered a massive heart attack and died. After getting myself back home, I needed to bring him home so I contacted his bank, NatWest, as his account included travel insurance. I supplied his death certificate, but a month later I checked his emails and there were endless messages from NatWest, asking him to get in touch about his claim. I emailed and called, reminding the bank that the claim was for the £3,000-plus cost of bringing his body back, and unfortunately the dead body could not contact them. Tony Hetherington replies: You might think that you had gone far enough by reminding them, but no. Letters began to arrive from NatWest, all addressed to your dead partner, asking him to make contact. You gave me one that was sent to him in June, saying: 'We've tried to contact you as we need some information to progress your claim. Please give us a call.'  Tried to contact you! For heaven's sake – what were they using? A medium? A ouija board?

You called the bank again and again, and eventually you said you wanted to make an official complaint. The result? Another letter urging your late partner to get in touch!
All this was from the travel insurance side of the business. Meanwhile, NatWest's banking operation was fine. It closed your partner's account and sent you the balance as you are the executor of his estate.  The closest you got to an explanation was in one of your many phone calls to NatWest. When you explained once more that there was no point in asking a dead man to give them a call, the speaker told you that emails and letters were automatically generated and 'the computer settings could not be altered'. You told me that the whole episode was a macabre version of the Little Britain sketch, with you insisting that your partner was dead and could not give them a ring, and NatWest insisting: 'Computer says no!'

"Beyond all this, if you really want to pass the credentials then open up a separate bank account/ bond with adequate funds showing. Sure it’s a bind but again it’s just good housekeeping. I’ve had a designated bank for gambling for over 10 years, everyone should consider getting their accounts in order based on the environment they find themselves in."

Dusty, I don't think they will care you much you have in the bank or big gambling winnings from yesterday and back in time. What they want is to see regular non-gambling income wages or pension etc.

What is adequate funds

Say I'm restricted too 100 a month
I show them a bank statement with 10k or 20k or 50k
In it. What will they put my limit up to

It would help if bf did their own damn clarification through a newsletter of another QA
The problem is those that bought the exchange years ago arnt great at innovation.

I cant verify it one way or the other just reporting what Id read on here, though it seems dependent on the individual experience.

But why cant 0.5% be right?
They wont calculate it on sustainability more on annuity Id imagine. I doubt if bookies have a responsibility to think of protecting your nest egg.

These Affordability Checks are just the start of a process to control the population.  Gamblers are just an easy target and the masses can be convinced that this a justifiable action. But, in the end, they will come for everyone.  It will be NeoCommunism:  At first just a cashless society.  Then a system of electronic rationing of resources, such as energy and healthcare.  Once this rationing has become common place, even electronic money can be scrapped.  They will claim that this will stop undesirable practices such as gambling and prostitution.  People who try to escape the new system by hording gold will be firstly demonized and then prosecuted.  You don't have to watch Neil Oliver's monologue to see what is happening.  The OP says that this is the end for him, but eventually it will be the end for all our freedoms.

Rico on 5k a day limit

Disgraceful

Basically I think its them saying winning will not be tolerated full stop with all this now

Even small losses are frowned upon it seems as well

Basically do you balance on casino games or feck off is their attitude