AFFORDABILITY CHECKS BEFORE YOU CAN BET

dustybin
It makes my skin crawl aligning with the likes of Davies on any issue but thats the ideosyncratic nature of politics sometimes.

Me too dusty, I had thought the one silver lining of a tory government  would be that this type of nonsense would never happen.

The trouble is, you can't have it both ways. If you believe it's the state's responsibility to crack down on and ban the things you want to see prohibited and banned, then it's also eventually going to crack down on and ban things you yourself want to be left free to enjoy.

^^^ that is a bit of an extreme argument and ignores the variance of the gambler who still has the £10k he won over previous months (but has withdrawn it) and is now blocked from playing. 

You also still sidestep the issue of whether the proposal is proportionate which is where this mini-debate started.  The firms have masses of data on their customer's behaviour.  They know what problem gambling looks like and how it develops.  The GC should be looking at AI solutions and education first rather than a massive intervention in the lives of people who like a bet.

Unregulated, illegal operations will be delighted if these restrictions go ahead.

Those are both fair points.

The trouble with the first one (a punter might win a lot, then lose a little) is that it opens up the can of worms that some other punter must have lost a lot then won a little. A particular problem when trying to defend betting exchanges. But yes. It's a fair line of defence.

I think the second one (that it's the betting firms themselves who are the ones guaranteed to have the long-term records) is the one that might save us. If they can convince the Gambling Commission that they are willing to put in place properly defined rules around how to use their data to monitor problem gamblers, then we might be allowed to bet a bit more in line with how we're used to.

But punters saying, "trust us, we know how much we win and lose overall", isn't going to get us anywhere. The response would just be a list of sob stories from punters who kidded themselves that they were going to get even in the long run.

shouldnt the betting firms be doing that already and are not really doing it and thats why the GC are looking into things

These types of restrictions are the nuclear option.

They should at least start with a ban on advertising & promotions.

GAZO, Yes, that's what the betting firms should have been doing, but haven't. But the Gambling Commission aren't just "looking into things". They've completed the looking into bit, and have taken the final decision that they, the GC, are going to take over responsibility from the betting firms.

We need the betting firms to convince the GC that they, the betting firms themselves, are still the ones best placed to police gamblers' behaviour effectively, and for the GC to reverse their decision. I don't see any other way out really. Sending submissions to the GC asking that we punters should be allowed to police ourselves as individuals is a non-starter imo. That world has gone for ever.

how can the betting firms convince anybody when by their actions we know they encourage problem gamblers over people who try to understand the game,just like fobt's they had chances to do things themselves but thought everything would be done in their favour so did nothing

They've completed the looking into bit, and have taken the final decision that they, the GC, are going to take over responsibility from the betting firms.

But they can't do that, as I have been saying, unless their proposals are proportionate and effective.  I and others have been replying to them saying that their proposals aren't.  Despite your cynicism, they are obliged to document these replies and state why they are ignoring them.

look at this (page six for an example)

http://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/PDF/Consultation-responses-2020/LCCP-information-requirement-and-reg-returns-responses.pdf
.

Well, that example on page 6 just reported broad support from respondents for the GC's proposals in that particular case, and one minor technical query answered. We're going to need a bit more than that here.

I do hope you're right though, and that the responses from you and others do cut through.

the point is they detail responses and can't simply bin them (assuming they are legible and printable).

Yes. That's fair enough. I got that wrong (I hope).

Interesting that Labour goon Neil Channing is most vocal on this issue. He must have forgotten what was in the Labour Party's manifesto with regards to gambling. This is just a case of the Government acting under increasing pressure from Labour/Liberal to make these changes.

https://www.yogonet.com/international/noticias/2019/11/22/51649-uk-labour-partys-manifesto-brings-significant-changes-to-gambling

Labour are also proposing a levy to tackle problem gambling and a “curb” on gambling advertising in sports, and promises to introduce “a new Gambling Act fit for the digital age”. Its wording is vague, but the aims of the new Act will, it seems, include “establishing gambling limits” and “mechanisms for consumer compensations”.

when did labour get into power ?

Doh!

Dont worry as from September last Flutter took on Tom Watson as a "gambling advisor ". You really couldnt make this sh** up. This guy really does have a history in relation to much more than gambling !!!

Curious as to how this will affect poker players - I'd estimate a larger percentage of the playerbase make a living from it as opposed to sports bettors.

The idiotic Mr Blair has a lot to answer for eg liberalisation of Gambling Laws; fobts; no restriction of free movement of people and labour within EU. But, the most damaging of all the invasion of Iraq. Its people are still paying the price today almost 2 decades later!

Sky Sports Racing are having a "Racing Debate" special about this issue at 11am today. Here is some info from their website:

With the gambling industry under the spotlight and facing challenges from proposals being made by the Gambling Commission and a separate wholesale review of the Gambling Act 2005, what does this mean for horse racing and those who bet on it? Ahead of a Racing Debate Special on Sunday, here is some background information.
Sunday 31 January 2021
News
Share this   
This Sunday at 11am, Sky Sports Racing will broadcast a Racing Debate Special on the Gambling Commission proposals and the Gambling Act review. On the programme, Sean Boyce will be joined by Martin Cruddace, CEO of Arena Racing Company, Carolyn Harris MP, Brigid Simmonds, Chairman of the Betting & Gaming Council and Matt Zarb-Cousin, director of Cleanupgambling, to discuss how the proposals and review could impact horse racing and those who like to bet on it.

Gambling Commission Consultation

The Gambling Commission issued a Consultation and Call for Evidence on Remote Customer Interaction on 3 November 2020, ahead of the Gambling Act Review, proposing  changes to operators’ existing customer interaction requirements, including carrying out affordability checks and setting affordability thresholds. It’s possible that the Gambling Commission may require operators to take action on policing “affordability” even before the Gambling Act Review is complete. It is clearly a very hot topic. Why?

In recent years there have been press stories of punters who have gambled huge sums, often money that wasn’t theirs, to bet. Some very big betting brands have faced eye-watering fines for failing to spot -and stop – such cases. There have also been well publicised incidents of betting operators actively encouraging high rolling betting via VIP schemes.

Up for consideration are financial checks on how much individuals can afford to bet but also blanket limits on how much can be lost  (£100 per calendar month is mentioned as the lowest possible threshold), with punters having to provide information about their income in order continue betting beyond those limits. For Racing, which is a high-turnover, high-frequency betting medium, such limits pose obvious challenges. That is why this area is of particular interest to Racing and to racing punters and among the topics the panel will be discussing are:

Personal freedoms
Impact on punters and Racing
Implications for the ‘Black Market’

Gambling Act Review

On 8th December 2020 the UK Department for Culture, Media and Sport made an announcement. The minimum age to purchase National Lottery tickets was to rise to 18 and a full-scale review of the regulation of betting and gaming was to take place.

The Gambling Act Review is now underway, with evidence being invited from all interested parties. It’s a big undertaking and it’s easy to get lost in the detail so it’s worth asking three simple questions: What is the Review? Why is it happening? How might it affect you personally and how might it affect Racing?

The Review is the first wholesale consideration of regulation since the Gambling Act of 2005. A lot has changed since 2005 though. Technological advances have driven most of those changes but attitudes have changed too. There is more awareness of, and sensitivity towards, the issues of problem gambling.

When announcing the Gambling Act Review Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, Oliver Dowden, said: “Whilst millions gamble responsibly, the Gambling Act is an analogue law in a digital age. From an era of having a flutter in a high street bookmaker, casino, racecourse or seaside pier, the industry has evolved at breakneck speed.

“This comprehensive review will ensure we are tackling problem gambling in all its forms to protect children and vulnerable people. It will also help those who enjoy placing a bet to do so safely.

The Gambling Act Review has 6 areas of focus:

1. The protection of online gamblers

2. The impacts of gambling advertising and sponsorships

3. The effectiveness of regulation

4. Customers’ access to redress

5. Children’s access to category D slot machines and protections of the young and vulnerable

6. Outcomes of changes to land based gambling from 2005 Act, especially casinos.

Sean will be discussing with the panel the first two points on this list and how greater controls on online product design, on online gambling accounts (as well affordability limits) might impact punters and Racing, as well as looking at the impact that stricter rules on advertising and sponsorship could have on the money that comes into Racing, betting turnover and the Levy.

The Gambling Commission Consultation closes on 9 February 2021

The Gambling Act Review Call for Evidence closes on 31 March 2021

Don't miss our Racing Debate on Sunday morning at 11am on Sky Sports Racing.

Who the feck is this woman ?

Must be Chris Biggins sister.


Want to stop all gambling

She's a nincompoop.
She is attempting to draw a distinction between 'online gambling' and 'horseracing'
What about online gambling on horses?

I find it extremely difficult listening to anyone with purple hair.
She needs to focus on educating her chumps who are too daft to help themselves, when they are a tiny minority.
Sentimentality regarding daft people shouldn't drive legislation.

I'd like to see a blanket ban on betting/gaming advertising as compulsory. Also, ban betting/gaming platforms on mobile (not laptop/tablet) to reduce the propensity to place a bet by youngsters and likely future compulsive gamblers - a clear distinction from recreation ones.

Fobt (on the high street) must not be reciprocated in online gambling.

If Karen is heading up the committee looking into gambling god help us.

The appearance of the woman tells us she is on a mission to feck us/anyone over.


Will run for years though,bet she has a large herd gathering along with all her MP privileges.

cruddance is right, who is going to do affordability checks, not me.

But will legislation make bookmakers check you are fit to gamble with them...

Whats that whistling?
Has she got the kettle on?

That's Fallon in her kitchen.

Good god turn the hearing aide down you are defening everyone ducks.

Id like the Gambling Act to define exactly the position of media thats used for gambling and for it to be brought under the remit of whoever the regulator that replaces the GC, rather than Ofcom that bares no significance to its useage or to the abuse that is occurring for IR gambling resulting from it.

Carolyn Harris is a cartoon figure.
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3D8670smTI

dusty the UKGC could prosecute for "interfering with the process of gambling", but they dgaf.

Jan 31, 2021 -- 11:26AM, 11kv wrote:

But will legislation make bookmakers check you are fit to gamble with them...

According to the survey that I saw posted yesterday you'll have to give them access to credit ratings. Not sure exactly what credit ratings prove though.

Dave
I think that needs considerable clarification as to what is 'interference'
They need to address responsibility of those who bid for the contracts of such media and hold them accountable where they clearly are abusing their position.

The problem we have is exactly because the media isnt considered a product that is a facility of gambling, instead its considered 'entertainment' and is open to abuse from those who can provide whatever they wish as long as there isnt any swearing before the watershed.
This is clearly unacceptable when the product is evidently intended to be used for the purposes of gambling.

2021 - the year of the nanny state. Stay in to 'protect' your health, widespread censorship to 'protect' your mind, restricting how you spend YOUR money to 'protect' your wallet.

Anyone that cant feel the totalitarian noose slowly tightening its grip isn't paying enough attention.

Access to credit rating (agency)? Bookies are not governed or approved by the FCA. Imagine being in dispute with a bookie. The bookie could threaten to damage one's credit agency rating.

Any advice against being taken for a ride by bookies is not such a bad thing. The bookies are parasites.

^idiotic

dusty "interfering with the process of gambling" is deliberately vague to allow the UKGC to take people to court and let the jury decide by citing the conduct and citing the financial gain arising from that conduct.  (Assuming of course there is such activity.)  As I said they dgaf and have I believe used their powers once in 15 years.

Clearly why they need guidence on the issue then, showing that its an area that they take seriously that wasnt even thought to be a problem when the Act was written.
When the indusrty call the product 'Watch and Bet' they cant pretend the product isnt intended to be used to facilitate gambling during the event.

dusty - the UKGC thinks all gamblers are losers and has no inclination whatsoever to enforce its statutory mandate of fair and open gambling.  Remember it was by choice they allowed gambling firms to go bankrupt taking punters money with them. They think it is reasonable for someone in dispute with a firm to go to court in Malta.

The UKGC take their steer from government who are presently indulging in the massive humbug about gambling reform.

is it 100 deposit  a month or 100 loss month ?

I dont doubt it Dave
But simply replacing the regulator doesnt in itself mean the issue will be addressed.
It requires the Act to highlight its significance in a world that contains IR betting.
Around 20% of matched money is bet IR, its a significant part of gambling and needs proper direction.

£100 loss/month

With the amount of money Betfair make from in running on horse racing will it be acceptable as part of the review to explain that the live video product they supply is more than 1 second behind live but they apply a 1 second delay so you can cancel bets ?

That isn't the way laws are written dusty.  And the problem is the government steering the priorities of the UKGC and underfunding them.

so you blocked from betting after 100 loss till the next month even if you already  have 10k in a betting account ?

Correct fashion.. that’s how it reads at present, or else everyone would just be keeping their balances high now.

Fashion Fever

so you blocked from betting after 100 loss till the next month even if you already  have 10k in a betting account ?

Can't be. Would have to be done on deposits surely, otherwise the game's well and truly up.
100 is ludicrously low.

I agree ease should be a deposit

so from rinsing the stupid and vulnerable of £100 every 30 seconds on machines impossible to win on, to limiting us all to the same amount per month on real events where you have a fair chance.
Any chance of these numpties getting a sense of proportion?

to limiting us all to the same amount per month on real events where you have a fair chance.

Where do you get that from?

Elton John WILL NOT have the same limits as someone on universal credit.

He will if he doesn’t hand over bank statements etc.. that’s the point of this!!!

Carolyn Harris - Labour MP

Say
No
More

the labour mp won't be making the final decision, the govt will, so no point blaming her if the govt goes ahead with this crap is there

Tbf, there are also a number of paternalistic tories like Ian Duncan Smith who believe they know best on how people should be spending their money.

what is the chance of this being a storm in a teacup and there will be no limits on gambling??for anyone?

and what is next?? should poor people be allowed to go in to a pub or will that be banned?

It's worth noting that the passing of legislation isn't the sole remit of the govt.

If MPs table amendments to a bill, & it is passed, not much the govt can do about it.

Remember there was cross party support for the fobt curbs.

I just don't see the limit being as low as a 100 a month, that would be ridiculous, i'm just hoping there are no limits and the sites can vet customers who they think are in trouble and have a word with them, you can't have blanket laws for this.

No-one saw the £2 limit on fobts coming either tbf.

I get the feeling that the likes of Harris are concerned more about online casinos etc but they're in danger of throwing the baby out with the bath water.

The revenue that could be lost from the industry eg £60/100m is neither here nor there (it's a a figure out of thin air not supported by concrete facts). But, problem gambling and addiction esp amongst the young must be sorted and eradicated ay all costs - this category of individuals could be the future. Thus, a complete ban on adverts in the media, and on mobile is absolutely vital. Also, online betting on slots and games must be monitored very closely under the gaming/betting act like the casinos not the present analogue one.

I do not care how much the industry will lose as a result of this review because it's only a small drop in the ocean in comparison to the mega profits made by bookies. The bookies have been sleep-walking dealing with problem gambling, and this is testified by the regular fines imposed on nearly every major bookie, online and high street.

Bookies have brought this onto themselves for being greedy and deliberately oblivious problem gamblers, and where their deposits came - legit or not. The bookies were only concerned with profits (at all costs).

Bring in a new more focus and professional outfit to police the industry. Similarly, the role of the BHA; reforms were missed under the stewardship of Mr Rust as he was too closely related to the bookies (his former paymaster). His blind-eye to the mega annual profits of bookies from fobt was a concrete example, and his understanding of the damaging effects of fobt to players (addicts) and society were insensitive, selfish and downright stupid as head of the BHA eg he claimed it was only a "perception" fobt was damaging and addictive.

The Gambling Commission must be reformed with a new broom and remit attached; the present leader of the BHA must show the BHA truly represent horse racing and punters that were severely lacking under its previous leader. Otherwise, replace it altogether with one more appreciative and understanding of the value of the sport.

The Gambling Commission must be reformed with a new broom and remit attached

This is its remit

(a)preventing gambling from being a source of crime or disorder, being associated with crime or disorder or being used to support crime,
(b)ensuring that gambling is conducted in a fair and open way, and
(c)protecting children and other vulnerable persons from being harmed or exploited by gambling

It doesn't need a new remit, it just needs to stop almost entirely ignoring

ensuring that gambling is conducted in a fair and open way

Fashion Fever 31 Jan 21 18:36 
I agree ease should be a deposit


What happens if you deposit £100, win a grand and withdraw the grand, then lose the £100 that is left and then get blocked from depositing further despite the fact you are a grand up?

Also all this talk about proving you can afford to bet, what about talk about the fact that despite being physically affording to be able to bet, it still doesn't mean that many don't need help and protection.

If you've got 1,000's to burn and lose 1,000's, you need help.

Merson could afford to bet, needed help though didn't he, yet under this review, he'd be getting a pass.

The books will still be able to capitalize on the Merson's of this world as they'd all pass the affordability checks.

Thanks. That will do me. Just get in the right people with dedication, qualification, knowledge and understanding to right the wrongs of the the present betting/gaming industry and its damage esp to the young and problem gamblers.

An immediate suspension of licence to trade if contravening t&c of new Digital Betting/Gambling Act. No mitigation; suspension 1st, mitigation can come later.

Merson could bet thro' "friends" like he did in the mid-80's - he was doing exactly that with a mutual friend. It just postponed the inevitability.

dave135731 Jan 21 20:49Joined: 05 Sep 10 | Topic/replies: 16,219 | Blogger: dave1357's blog
The Gambling Commission must be reformed with a new broom and remit attached

This is its remit

(a)preventing gambling from being a source of crime or disorder, being associated with crime or disorder or being used to support crime,
(b)ensuring that gambling is conducted in a fair and open way, and
(c)protecting children and other vulnerable persons from being harmed or exploited by gambling

It doesn't need a new remit, it just needs to stop almost entirely ignoring

ensuring that gambling is conducted in a fair and open way

Dave is spot on. Almost all regulatory bodies in the UK are there to provide the illusion not the reality of regulation. Therein lies the problem.

When's this likely to be put in place

The commission is taking feedback from consumers, charities etc up to Feb 9th.


Would be many months, years perhaps before anything concrete is put in place

Quite a few pension pot drawdowns, stolen money and money that the 40 per cent of deposits received by online bookies. placed by the .V.I.P. punters will have been spaffed up by then.

leif, yep, be a good while yet before anything put in place, nothing to worry about for many a moon.

won't take years if the govt listens to the affordability brigade, all it will take is a bill in parliament

Just  think if you bet with a firm like Hills, with their restrictions I guess your average at least fifty losing bets in a row before you would approach the ton.

https://www.racingpost.com/news/latest/affordability-checks-could-see-some-gamblers-turn-to-black-market-operators/471067


No **** sherlock, they dont seem to understand that most people dont like being controlled and will go out of their way to break stupid nanny state rules.

I'd rather go black market than trust my financial info with a bookie or stop betting altogether. But, the status quo ie punters welfare at the whims of the bookies cannot exist a minute longer than necessary.

Nationalise betting/gaming as a last resort.

https://www.racingpost.com/news/comment/affordability-checks-are-even-worse-than-you-might-think-and-heres-why/471244

very good article.

Nationalise betting/gaming as a last resort.


rofl what a clueless clown

The Racing Post is a bookie paper and given any opportunity will bat for the bookies - their paymaster.

Nothing is worse than not being able to place a bet (after a small win) or gain a price advantage to sp or have a bet restricted even for £20 on a 10/1 antepost all at the whim of a bookie; nothing is worse than having an id verification imposed after requesting a withdrawal at the whim of a bookie (again).

The Racing Post was silent on the above-mentioned behaviour of the bookies; silent on the destructive and disruptive consequences fobt on players, their families and society. The Racing Post is forever practising "Silence is Golden", on any non-bookie conducive issue concerning betting.

I'm not for the "Affordability Checks". But, what I'm seriously aggrieved with is this has come about because of the greed and soulless behaviour of bookies about fobt ie their reluctance to admit it was toxic and destructive to some players! Why not just ban these games altogether? It's that simple!

Why "Affordability Checks" imposed on recreational punters too? If an "Affordability Test" is absolutely necessary or compulsory for users of betting/gaming websites why not a "Credibility Checks" on bookies fit-to-trade too? The bookies have been behaving like scumbag bullies for over 2 decades hiding behind the analogue Betting/Gaming Act.

Maybe contemplate a nationalisation of the betting industry. At least then the proceeds can go to the NHS, education and good causes - not the satchels of bookies.

https://www.attheraces.com/atrplayer/highlights/604488/harris-speaks-for-gambling-related-harm


started off mildly reassuring, gradually descended into what I expected, absolutely clueless.

Feck me , an essay from impossible , must have lots of time on his hands in the asylum

Feb 2, 2021 -- 6:05PM, JetLoneStar wrote:

https://www.attheraces.com/atrplayer/highlights/604488/harris-speaks-for-gambling-related-harmstarted off mildly reassuring, gradually descended into what I expected, absolutely clueless.

agreed

Harris has now got herself in over her head, IMO. She thought it was another bit of 'do-gooding' but did not realise what she was stirring up.

Neither did she realise that horse racing is such a big industry with so many direct and indirect jobs. But I could see this is what would happen way back in the autumn when the provisional recommendations included affordability checks after £100 of losses. To stat with, how out of touch was that recommendation anyway?

Putting aside the bleeding-heart brigade who think most of the country is living in poverty despite most of the poorest still having expensive mobile telephones (among much else) £100 is not a big sum of money these days and it amazed me that MP's could be so naive. That is why I submitted my 'evidence' and views back in December and then again in the shortened version two weeks ago.

Now whether or not Harris can extract herself from this mess of her own making through some political shenanigans, or goes for broke and stupidity wins the day remains to be seen. My guess is a compromise on affordability checks but with a higher loss limit before they are invoked.

But I would again implore everyone on here to submit their views to the review using the website. It will cost nothing and the  more that tell them what real life is really like the harder they will find it to do something totally unacceptable.

(BTW, Screaming Beneath The Waves...we all want status quo but that is now at risk fir us all. Surely you can submit an opinion without getting into your prowness or otherwise as a punter?)

The main point we all need to make is that there is a universe of difference between betting on casino games etc and betting on sports. The former requires no skill and, quite frankly, does need further regulations, while the latter requires skill, restraint and judgment and can safely be exempted from any government meddling.

But I fear that we could see the opposite happen. Remember any crackdown on casino type online betting - and we have seen some already this week - takes us closer to the point where the morality of the National Lottery - especially the scratch card variety - will have to be questioned. And that is too much of a cash cow for the government. Hence, to satisfy the ego of Harris and her hand-wringing mates sports betting might well be the first thing in the cross-hairs. Hopefully it might be focused more on football shirt sponsorship by bookies and the like, but it is better we all prepare for the worst while hoping for the best.

to me this is'nt about gambling,it's about
telling people what they can do with their hard earned.
The more you think about it the more the blood boils.

i'd say it's not so much about that penz, for me they are trying to protect vulnerable / ill disciplined or stupid people with legislation that is too heavy handed, simply because they don't have a clue re the scope of what they are really dealing with and have approached it from a very simplistic one dimensional angle

on course what will happen?
people who go and want a bag,maybe 2
on something they really fancy.You got
to pull out your passport/bank statement
to be checked?

just to add something, if any of you are filling out that gov survey, some of the early questions are heavily biased towards getting positive answers re protecting people, there's little scope to the paper, it's almost certainly been written by someone trying to lead on the vulnerable message so that they can drop a headline number of say "80% of people agree we need to protect those at risk", that's simply all they are focusing on in this initial evidence gathering

Quite important that people emphasise the data protection issue, as the "industry" might not be keen on admitting that they can't be trusted with personal info.

do you know dave if they put this back a month, i thought they'd extended the consultation period?

or maybe that was from Jan to now, can't rem

Whatever the limit that people are allowed to lose, that should be the limit that bookies must accept as a liability on a bet from anyone.

^^ yes they say

Please note this consultation deadline has been extended by four weeks

on

https://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/news-action-and-statistics/Consultations/remote-customer-interaction-consultation-and-call-for-evidence
,

The link in the OP is a "short survey" and not the full consultation.

ta, i did find it later - i suspect you've read the stuff that supports the consultation and the reasons they are doing it, but what struck me was how little there is in there (as in none) re the betting industry, the levy, jobs, tax etc and the impacts loss of revenues would have, they've purely come at this from the addict/uncontrolled losses aspect, also something not mentioned on here is it wasn't just the losses that might constitute an operator to have to intervene, time online was also a key measure

Submitted my reply.

Affordability Checks SURVEY

The bookmakers have brung this upon themselves, they know within a handful of bets if you are handy. The also know exactly who the mugs are and who shows addictive behaviours and HAVE CHOSEN OVER THE YEARS TO DO ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT THIS!

^ as you are on a peer to peer platform, have you asked betfair to ensure that you don't interact with any mugs?

Survey closes tomorrow.

By now you will have read much about the prospect of punters facing affordability checks should they wish to continue betting. There is a chance the perceived affordability of your betting will already have been checked. One such punter has gone through the experience and very much wishes he had not.

The punter whose story is being told here wants to remain anonymous, which is indicative of one reason why the Gambling Commission's move towards affordability checks is so concerning.

The individual, a racing fan who likes to bet on his favourite sport, was good enough to divulge some of his relevant financial information for the purpose of this column. His wish for confidentiality stems from the fact he does not want the whole world to know how much sits in his bank accounts. More pertinently, he now wishes two of his bookmakers did not know, either.

Any interested parties have until Tuesday to take part in the Gambling Commission's consultation. If you are reading this column it is likely you enjoy betting on racing and it is therefore likely you should be an interested party. That is because if the commission does indeed order bookmakers to carry out affordability checks when a customer loses as little as £100 per month, you will very possibly be affected and inconvenienced. You will potentially also have your freedom to enjoy a perfectly legal hobby - which for most punters is harmless - severely curbed.


The Gambling Commission is considering imposing affordability checks on punters
The Gambling Commission is considering imposing affordability checks on punters
Towards the end of last year our punter was contacted by two major bookmakers. They informed him that due to Gambling Commission regulations they were required to establish the origin of funds whenever a customer spends above a certain amount. (That amount was not specified.) As such, they asked him to send in photographic identification and detailed material that showed the specific source of the funds from which he bets. One of the bookmakers stated they would place a not inconsiderable sum of money in his account to thank him for what he was doing.

The punter duly sent over evidence showing an annual income of £50,000 and £60,000 in savings. One of the two firms assessed the evidence presented and responded by saying he could carry on as before. In contrast, the firm that topped up his account informed him that due to the affordability check he would in future be permitted to deposit no more than £625 per month. The punter believes that over the years he is "slightly ahead" with that bookmaker, which underlines affordability criteria seemingly ignore the fact punters win as well as lose.

"I truly don't understand why the firm has limited me, but if it's a precursor to how affordability will affect players and, by consequence, racing, there is a problem," says the punter.

"I now regret sending in copies of my P60, savings statements and other material, but I can't undo it. Despite the one-off payment given me by the bookmaker, I wish I hadn't done it. I understand the 'know your customer' angle in the responsible gambling context, but inconsistent metrics are at work regarding affordability."

He adds: "I feel foolish, as having bet for many years with the bookmaker now limiting me, and shown good evidence of savings and income, I am in a worse position than ever, in that I have been restricted. I'm also uncomfortable that they have copies of my very personal documents. Should any other firms ask for them, the answer will be 'no'.

"The more I think about this, the more I feel I sleepwalked into giving highly personal data, and I regret that. Whatever the consequences, I won't do it again for any other firms, and I wouldn't recommend anybody else does it."

Therein lies one of the many problems for bookmakers and racing. How many punters will choose not to share private information and, as a result, walk away from punting, thus depriving racing of an enormous chunk of its income? This story also begs the question, what metrics have the commission so far given to bookmakers and how are they being interpreted, if one bookmaker imposes a limit equivalent to around £150 per week and another bookmaker determines no limit is necessary?

Anybody who opines on this subject will surely agree problem gambling is a real curse, one that needs to be addressed now and one that should previously have been tackled with greater vigour. For any number of reasons, though, this is the wrong way.


Kempton 26.1.09 Pic:Edward WhitakerWychwoods Legend (white) tracks the leaders in the early stages of the 2 miles and 5 furlong handicap hurdle
Kempton 26.1.09 Pic:Edward WhitakerWychwoods Legend (white) tracks the leaders in the early stages of the 2 miles and 5 furlong handicap hurdle
Edward Whitaker
Given those who suffer gambling addictions are more likely to be hooked on casino and slot games, as opposed to working out who will win a horserace or sporting event, why are bookmakers not required to have separate websites and log-ins to differentiate their gaming products from what we would class as more traditional bookmaker products?
Why are funds commingled between two wildly different offerings?

Why, also, is the Gambling Commission not simply asking bookmakers to use credit agency checks as a way of assessing a person's financial health?

The Gambling Commission has conceded its proposals "will remove some freedoms from some customers". Unless it also wants to interfere with how much people spend outside of the online realm, including in casinos, bingo halls or on lottery tickets, it is a very selective removal of freedoms.

The absence of a similar clamour within politics and the media for monthly limits to be set on how many bottles of wine, cans of beer or packets of cigarettes a person can buy underlines the extent to which the demonisation of gambling has become, for some, a very specific addiction in itself.

No wonder, then, so many feel affronted by what is being proposed.

Suddenly people in the racing press are churning out indignant articles about account restrictions?
Where have these indignant protectors of civil liberties arguments been for the past 20 years? - slurping gravy from their bookmaker paymasters!

They have not ever said a (collective) dicky-bird about restrictions for winning accounts - suddenly they are up in arms at the prospect of slots and casino losers having their accounts restricted. Hilarious article - and again a massive (scaremongering) misrepresentation of what is likely to happen.