Racing Post Betfair affordability check article

Betfair punters have hit out at "intrusive" affordability checks claiming the exchange has requested information on where winnings have been spent as well as detailed documentation on income before lifting restrictions placed on accounts.

The level of information required from Betfair has turned some users away from betting, primarily on horseracing. One punter said the extent of the information being sought made the experience more invasive than applying for a mortgage.

Betfair are the latest bookmaker reported to be pre-emptively imposing affordability checks on their customers, despite the fact a controversial recent Gambling Commission consultation on the subject – which attracted a record number of responses – has yet to yield any official regulatory changes.

Lee Keys, a professional punter and Betfair user since 2003, said he received an email from the company "out of the blue" a month ago informing him an affordability restriction had been placed after he had made a number of deposits due to "a bad run".

Keys, who says his net winnings on the exchange are £700,000 and that he has previously been through stringent Know Your Customer checks, said: "With betting on Betfair being my living I reluctantly agreed to give them documentation. They asked for proof of funds – home ownership, land ownership, assets etc, bank statements – and I provided a bank statement and a share statement.

"I told them that across the board I earned £115,000 last year and they then asked where the £115,000 profit had gone, which is when I told them that enough was enough.

"What I didn't like is that they wanted more and that, to me, is a bit sinister. Why didn't they want that in the first place? Why would I provide details of my current and share accounts but then they want to see where the money I made went as well? I'm not having any of that."

He added: "If this is what you have to do to have a bet then how many people are going to go through this? I've been asked less intrusive questions when I've gone for a mortgage and it's absolutely ludicrous."

Another casual Betfair Exchange punter who spoke to the Racing Post said he was planning to rein back his betting on horseracing, which accounted for 90 per cent of his bets, after he was restricted to depositing no more than £1,500 a month.

In emails shared with the Racing Post, the user is told by Betfair's due diligence department that the restrictions will remain in place unless "a full explanation as to how you are funding your account (eg salary or other income) along with documentation that illustrates this" and "a copy of a bank statement dated within the last three months (name and address must also be clearly visible)" are provided, which the user has refused to do due to the nature of his full-time job.

Having informed Betfair that the deposits being made were from previous winnings and providing details of the account used on the exchange, the customer was then told he would need to show bank statements going back many months to prove that was the case.

An email from a senior Betfair employee to the user said: "I acknowledge that your account is in a profitable position over a longer term period, but in order to revert to your previous limits, we would need to gain comfort that your recent activity was funded by your previous winnings or that you have access to sufficient income/funds that would support a higher limit."

A spokesman for Betfair said: "There are multiple reasons we would ask customers for additional information. As a responsible gambling operator, Betfair has a range of controls in place to protect our customers and to ensure we meet our legal and regulatory obligations.

"We can't comment on individual cases but as part of the controls and processes we have in place to protect our customers and meet our obligations we may require an extra level of information from customers to ensure their activity is appropriate.

"Where we do request this information, customers can be assured we will deal with this information securely, discretely and in as swift a timeframe as possible."

Customer interaction, which closed in Febuary, included a proposal that a monthly net gambling loss of as little as £100 would mean punters would have to prove their income in order to continue to bet.

This has caused huge concern for British racing's leadership, who fear the sport could lose upwards of £60 million a year from lost levy and media rights income if punters are put off by intrusive questions about their finances.

A report by the Daily Telegraph last week claimed the Gambling Commission would not be allowed to act unilaterally on affordability checks, with the findings of its consultation being considered as part of the government's wider gambling review and the likelihood being that affordability checks would be watered down or shelved altogether.

However, in the meantime many punters have reported that bookmakers have already introduced often intrusive affordability checks.

In March, the Horseracing Bettors Forum said it had been contacted by several punters because of checks requested by the Tote, where a low-level trigger of £750 in total deposits appears to have been introduced.

Colin Hord, chairman of the Horseracing Bettors Forum, said: "We've responded to both consultations on affordability checks the Gambling Commission raised and also the Gambling Act review which we included some statements on affordability checks. Both times we've made the case that these checks need to be proportionate and should not be unnecessarily intrusive into people's financial affairs.

"There's a reasonableness that needs to be maintained. With Betfair we also want to ensure that people's previous betting history is taken into account and we've seen that quite a number of bettors have profitable accounts but run into losing runs and their profitability is not being taken into account when undertaking the affordability checks.

"Our concern is the level of intrusiveness and the level of information that's having to be provided."

He added: "The other thing worth raising is what qualification do the people within these bookmaking companies have to make the assessment that these people are or are not to continue gambling? That works both ways, because you can argue they'd be keen to keep people betting but in other respects they're cautious about who they're letting continue and who not."

Entain has also launched checks across all of its 14 brands as part of an initiative designed to identify customers in the UK at the greatest risk of potential financial problems, and to implement staking limits and tighter affordability checks.

This really is getting ridiculous, we all moved over to Betfair because of restrictions or closed accounts from the bookies and now Betfair are gonna restrict us if we have a losing run,so will the Bookies invite us back !

That'll stop you all losing money you can't afford     

They are targeting winners

There is another obvious worry, even if you do manage to stay under the radar. That is, if enough people stop betting on horse racing, there won't be any liquidity on here anyway.

The industry is dying a slow death. But it looks like many want to speed it up.

Two thoughts - one a surprise the other not:

Not a surprise - as with any new legislations and/or regulation the books twist it to suit their agenda and interpret it to their advantage. In most of the cases highlighted, although it's not even a requirement yet, it looks/sounds like "affordability" it's being used as another cover to weed out undesirable (winning) customers.

The bit that is a surprise - a lot of these self-professed "pro-punters" do seem to make an awful lot of deposits!

@The Management -- a lot of the self-professed pro-punters withdraw their winnings immediately so must make a new deposit next time they fancy a bet. Hence, lots of deposits.

Nah, I don't drink whisky.

undertaker11 May 21 09:15Joined: 21 Nov 02 | Topic/replies: 218 | Blogger: undertaker's blog
Why should Betfair care if I am winning or not (on the Exchange)?

Sorry - but that's just naive - it stopped being a p2p exchange about 14 years ago. If you are winning "too much" or "too quickly" they have measures in place - they clearly have a preferred customer type/MO.

Oh, and I'm not a trader, I only place back bets.

In short - I don't think it's accurate (given the ownership of the exchanges) to assume that the mindset and strategic/financial aim of exchange operators is significantly different to the mindset and strategic/financial aim of the books.

Black and Wray sold-out (don't blame them) and those days ("Join the Revolution" etc) are long gone.

“ I'm just pointing out it's not really a (p2p) exchange anymore and hasn't been for a long time.”

100% agree
FWIW – my observations of the markets (soccer) suggest that they are held together by the market maker and some other bots. Both sides of the market are controlled, and except for the bigger leagues games, genuine betting money from punters is in short supply. Maybe the exchange wont be around in a couple of years.
A cynic may say that doing all these affordability checks is to send a message to government that they are doing something, in an attempt to water down unwanted proposals that the government would otherwise make.
Betting is a minority hobby/occupation, and I have been involved for a long time, but momentum seems to be building in society for things to change. Too many people are hooked.
Most sports have sold themselves to the betting industry, and IMO too many lives are being impacted by this. All betting ads, including slots, show everybody winning and free this free that. We understand the reality, sadly those that suffer do not.
Finally, to the winners: your winnings come from the losers.

there is a good reason for people not to leave money in notfair. they can take it off you. i know of someone who logged in to find himself 4k light, and was told to get lost when he complained. they said he was avoiding the pc but there was no evidence beyond circumstantial.

I wonder what info is acceptable, to prove income/savings. You can have money for so many reasons without it being dirty.

You can inherit 5 or 10 years ago, the odds of you keeping any info about that is slim.
You save it up from your income over 30 years, do they want 30 years Bank Statements.
You can win from the bookies & lose on here, do they want copies of winning betting slips.

In Banking when money laundering started being checked, I remember we inconvenienced hundreds, and pretty much stopped nothing. Anyone with any sense always stayed one step ahead.

As for being asked what you spend your money on.....best keep your receipts from Tesco's, just in case.

Back in the day, the working man got paid weekly in cash on a Friday. It was his choice how much he spent on betting, booze, ****, housekeeping for missus, etc etc. If he was skint by Saturday teatime, that was it. No more cash till next Friday. No credit card, no bank account, no betting credit account. His life/spending was controlled by his readies. No click on a mouse, no advertising, no casino's. Sports Report at 5pm on a Saturday for the footy results and the dream of 8 draws.

I read the request about spending last year's profit as simply meaning is it now collateral?
Think the story has over egged the part about what its gone on, they might simply have asked if he still has anything.

I find it counter intuitive howver if you are a regular PC payer to have been asked any such questions.
How can they argue you might not be fit to play but are fit to have egregious artificial charges?

flutter shares taking a bit of damage
But then quite a few are today
Inflationary concerns making a strong £

I got the impression from today's Post that they were rowing back from such intrusive checks, prioritising 'those displaying signs of problem gambling'.

I'd be fairly certain they know exactly who the problem gamblers are, the ones who used to deposit on credit cards, the ones making multiple deposits daily, those withdrawing small amounts, then redepositing etc etc, in other words exactly the kind of customers they want to keep. Source of funds is another issue completely and the bookmakers are not the fraud squad.