There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Punters are reporting increasing difficulties with affordability checks, intrusive and stringent in some cases, despite the fact the results of a Gambling Commission consultation on the subject have not yet been made public.
The imposition of checks by various operators has already resulted in closed accounts and widespread frustration that is likely to undermine interest in racing and the financial support it receives from bookmakers.
The Horseracing Bettors Forum said on Thursday it had been contacted by three punters recently because of checks requested by the Tote, where a low-level trigger of £750 in total deposits appears to have been introduced.
The Racing Post has also heard from a punter who reports checks being made by a range of companies, while one betting industry insider has described the potentially calamitous effect on the business for which he works, and by extension for racing.
The news comes after the end of the betting regulator's affordability review last month. Among the possibilities raised in the consultation was the prospect of the introduction of a threshold on net gambling loss of as little as £100, which would lead to customers having to provide evidence they could afford to lose more.
The consultation received around 13,000 submissions amid deep concern about the intrusion on privacy and the likely impact on sports like racing which derive significant income from betting companies. An owners group recently named the issue as "the number one thing racing has to deal with effectively".
Colin Hord: "We understand that the Tote have set a limit"
Colin Hord: "We understand that the Tote have set a limit"
David Carr
"We understand that the Tote have set a limit to say, once you get to £750 total deposits on your account, you're going to undergo some sort of affordability check," said Colin Hord, HBF chairman. It is believed a figure around £300 is applied for those under the age of 25.
The Racing Post has seen an emailed request from the Tote to one of those customers, seeking details of gross annual income, net monthly income and normal monthly outgoings. It also asks whether the customer would consider deposit limits "to manage your spend".
The email states: "We apply a £750 deposit limit to all customer accounts before needing to ask for additional verification ... We are determined to make gambling not only fun but also affordable for all our customers".
"We haven't heard from anyone who's filled that in," Hord continued. "One person has refused and said they would rather bet on the black market than provide that information. The other person wrote, 'Private, private, not going to tell you', and we haven't heard what happened as a result. The other guy has only just received it and he's considering how to approach it."
Susannah Gill, the Tote's communications director, responded: "Our priority is to provide a safe and enjoyable betting experience for our customers. As part of this, we collect some personal information from individuals to help ensure they are betting safely and affordably throughout their time as customers of the Tote.
"This may make some people uncomfortable but is part of an established regulatory environment for the gambling sector, where it is important we know our customers, to support both our legal and social responsibilities."
The owners of Ladbrokes Coral acknowledged that checks are in place, but would be triggered only where risk was identified and not applied to all customers.
A spokesman for Entain said: "As part of our Advanced Responsibility and Care ARC programme, and as announced in November, we have implemented additional checks on customers who may be at risk of potential harm. These checks operate on a personalised risk-based approach rather than blanket restrictions which would be detrimental to the wider betting and gaming ecosystem, including the horseracing industry."
One punter approached by the Racing Post, who asked to remain anonymous, said he holds accounts with a dozen firms, half of which have sought some kind of affordability check in the past six months, varying wildly in vigour.
"Some pay it lip service – 'We just need to check you're happy with the amount you're spending' – and you just say, yes, and that's the end of it.
"At the other end of the scale, with one firm it was almost like a tax investigation. I had one of their guys ringing me for half an hour and he literally grilled me, it was like MI5. 'We checked, in one specific hour in the past month, you placed 15 bets. Why did you do that? How do you manage to find the time for this, with your work?'.
"It was a strange scenario. I was caught a bit off guard. Thinking about it afterwards, I should have said, 'Get lost, I'm not having this conversation. If you want to shut my account, just shut it. But I'm doing a perfectly legal activity, so why are you asking me all these questions?'.
"But at the time I thought if I went along with it, I'd get rid of him quicker and be able to carry on doing what I was doing. But then they said, we're setting a monthly deposit limit."
'Where's the future of their business?'
The punter, a fan of racing, expressed concern about the impact such checks will have on the sport's share of bookmaker profits. "I do know people who have just said, 'I'm not going through this rigmarole'. And it is a time-consuming rigmarole. It's not just the privacy issue. It can take weeks doing this stuff, going back and forth.
"From the bookmaker's side, if they're having to shut down losing accounts and restrict everyone to losing £100 a month, where's the future of their business? At the moment, you get shut down if you win because they don't want your business and you're shut down if you lose because the Gambling Commission says the bookies are not entitled to this business."
That chimed with the thoughts of a betting industry insider, who also asked to remain anonymous. He said the firm that employs him has lost three-quarters of its biggest 100 racing punters since last year's Cheltenham Festival as a direct consequence of checks aimed at establishing what they can afford to lose, either because they chose to close their accounts or because they were closed for non-response.
The insider added that punters in 2021 are an oppressed minority. "Nobody understands you, everybody thinks you're curable and everyone thinks there's something wrong with you and you should be controlled. A punter in 2021 is starting to feel like a lesser member of society."
He said that Gambling Commission action behind the scenes, including criticism of operators during formal inspections, had helped bring affordability checks into force "even without the whole affordability thing having come anywhere near any kind of statute".
The commission said it would not speak on the subject until it responds to its consultation.
Hord set out the HBF's position: "The vast majority who do not bet very large amounts of money and have a proven record of betting on horse racing responsibly should not have to undergo intrusive checks."
https://www.racingpost.com/news/latest/accounts-closed-and-punters-frustrated-as-affordability-checks-start-to-bite/480913
The imposition of checks by various operators has already resulted in closed accounts and widespread frustration that is likely to undermine interest in racing and the financial support it receives from bookmakers.
The Horseracing Bettors Forum said on Thursday it had been contacted by three punters recently because of checks requested by the Tote, where a low-level trigger of £750 in total deposits appears to have been introduced.
The Racing Post has also heard from a punter who reports checks being made by a range of companies, while one betting industry insider has described the potentially calamitous effect on the business for which he works, and by extension for racing.
The news comes after the end of the betting regulator's affordability review last month. Among the possibilities raised in the consultation was the prospect of the introduction of a threshold on net gambling loss of as little as £100, which would lead to customers having to provide evidence they could afford to lose more.
The consultation received around 13,000 submissions amid deep concern about the intrusion on privacy and the likely impact on sports like racing which derive significant income from betting companies. An owners group recently named the issue as "the number one thing racing has to deal with effectively".
Colin Hord: "We understand that the Tote have set a limit"
Colin Hord: "We understand that the Tote have set a limit"
David Carr
"We understand that the Tote have set a limit to say, once you get to £750 total deposits on your account, you're going to undergo some sort of affordability check," said Colin Hord, HBF chairman. It is believed a figure around £300 is applied for those under the age of 25.
The Racing Post has seen an emailed request from the Tote to one of those customers, seeking details of gross annual income, net monthly income and normal monthly outgoings. It also asks whether the customer would consider deposit limits "to manage your spend".
The email states: "We apply a £750 deposit limit to all customer accounts before needing to ask for additional verification ... We are determined to make gambling not only fun but also affordable for all our customers".
"We haven't heard from anyone who's filled that in," Hord continued. "One person has refused and said they would rather bet on the black market than provide that information. The other person wrote, 'Private, private, not going to tell you', and we haven't heard what happened as a result. The other guy has only just received it and he's considering how to approach it."
Susannah Gill, the Tote's communications director, responded: "Our priority is to provide a safe and enjoyable betting experience for our customers. As part of this, we collect some personal information from individuals to help ensure they are betting safely and affordably throughout their time as customers of the Tote.
"This may make some people uncomfortable but is part of an established regulatory environment for the gambling sector, where it is important we know our customers, to support both our legal and social responsibilities."
The owners of Ladbrokes Coral acknowledged that checks are in place, but would be triggered only where risk was identified and not applied to all customers.
A spokesman for Entain said: "As part of our Advanced Responsibility and Care ARC programme, and as announced in November, we have implemented additional checks on customers who may be at risk of potential harm. These checks operate on a personalised risk-based approach rather than blanket restrictions which would be detrimental to the wider betting and gaming ecosystem, including the horseracing industry."
One punter approached by the Racing Post, who asked to remain anonymous, said he holds accounts with a dozen firms, half of which have sought some kind of affordability check in the past six months, varying wildly in vigour.
"Some pay it lip service – 'We just need to check you're happy with the amount you're spending' – and you just say, yes, and that's the end of it.
"At the other end of the scale, with one firm it was almost like a tax investigation. I had one of their guys ringing me for half an hour and he literally grilled me, it was like MI5. 'We checked, in one specific hour in the past month, you placed 15 bets. Why did you do that? How do you manage to find the time for this, with your work?'.
"It was a strange scenario. I was caught a bit off guard. Thinking about it afterwards, I should have said, 'Get lost, I'm not having this conversation. If you want to shut my account, just shut it. But I'm doing a perfectly legal activity, so why are you asking me all these questions?'.
"But at the time I thought if I went along with it, I'd get rid of him quicker and be able to carry on doing what I was doing. But then they said, we're setting a monthly deposit limit."
'Where's the future of their business?'
The punter, a fan of racing, expressed concern about the impact such checks will have on the sport's share of bookmaker profits. "I do know people who have just said, 'I'm not going through this rigmarole'. And it is a time-consuming rigmarole. It's not just the privacy issue. It can take weeks doing this stuff, going back and forth.
"From the bookmaker's side, if they're having to shut down losing accounts and restrict everyone to losing £100 a month, where's the future of their business? At the moment, you get shut down if you win because they don't want your business and you're shut down if you lose because the Gambling Commission says the bookies are not entitled to this business."
That chimed with the thoughts of a betting industry insider, who also asked to remain anonymous. He said the firm that employs him has lost three-quarters of its biggest 100 racing punters since last year's Cheltenham Festival as a direct consequence of checks aimed at establishing what they can afford to lose, either because they chose to close their accounts or because they were closed for non-response.
The insider added that punters in 2021 are an oppressed minority. "Nobody understands you, everybody thinks you're curable and everyone thinks there's something wrong with you and you should be controlled. A punter in 2021 is starting to feel like a lesser member of society."
He said that Gambling Commission action behind the scenes, including criticism of operators during formal inspections, had helped bring affordability checks into force "even without the whole affordability thing having come anywhere near any kind of statute".
The commission said it would not speak on the subject until it responds to its consultation.
Hord set out the HBF's position: "The vast majority who do not bet very large amounts of money and have a proven record of betting on horse racing responsibly should not have to undergo intrusive checks."
https://www.racingpost.com/news/latest/accounts-closed-and-punters-frustrated-as-affordability-checks-start-to-bite/480913
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 5
|
By:
"Nobody understands you, everybody thinks you're curable and everyone thinks there's something wrong with you and you should be controlled. A punter in 2021 is starting to feel like a lesser member of society."
Punters , social deviants? Punters asked to wear sackcloth, and ring a bell on their way to the betting shop for fear they infect decent folk with their deviancy  |
|
By:
Gosh, I never realised I was part of an oppressed minority. We must immediately organise a violent protest, ignoring social distancing protocols and injuring some police whilst we are at it.
But seriously, some of his remarks do ring true. I am sure many of us can relate to being looked at in a pitying way when we meet someone for the first time and tell them how we spend our time. |
|
By:
Protect the punter
save lives over weight people restricted to how much sugar , fat they buy save Iives It's for your own good Simples |
|
By:
Dear Nanny,
The only way to improve the overall "affordability" of your product is to lower your takeout percentage. Kind regards, Muse |
|
By:
The gambling commission are shooting themselves in the foot! No gambling, no need for a commission. No gambling, no horse or greyhound racing, no need for betting shops ect. This will result is hundreds of thousands of redundancies ultimately.
Tote have set a limit of £750, it's like we don't mind you loosing £750 but anymore and we need to see the inside of your trousers, what if that £750 was a weeks wages he has lost? This just shows how out of touch these people are and continually roll out ill thought out ideas. Up until this week I couldn't see this being passed but after extending COVID-19 powers without good reason, this will be the last nail in the horse racing industry that shuts it down. |