Lee Mottershead : 300k savings, 70k income, £200 after affordability check.....

Thread title pretty much nails it. At the end of a column discussing other ways in which racing is going to hell, Mottershead finishes:-

One Racing Post reader contacted me on Thursday to say he agreed to share extensive affordability data when asked to do so by a bookmaker with which he had bet for many years.

He showed evidence he has savings of more than £300,000 and annual pension income in excess of £70,000 a year. He does not have a mortgage, nor has he ever suffered from gambling problems.

Despite having all that in his favour, he was told by the bookmaker they would now impose a monthly deposit limit of just £200.

"I genuinely give up," says the bewildered punter, admitting he feels "a bit foolish" for handing over the information. He is also puzzled, which is hardly surprising.

"They may be understandably concerned about being able to demonstrate social responsibility, but it's totally disproportionate in my case," he adds.

"It also says to me that if a bookmaker can't separate those who need to be restricted, and those for whom it can be a measured restriction based on facts – I'd settle for £500 a week with each provider –  then they need to learn to do it better.

"I'm pretty disillusioned, but what I have done is started using shops again. There's no 'best odds guaranteed' because I won't get loyalty cards to get it, but at least I can have a bet."

Tellingly, he concludes: "I gamble for fun. I always have. I have good and bad – and the odd very bad – days. However, the underlying trend is I do it affordably, for enjoyment and usually make a small profit. Above all, I love it, but it has gone a bit sour with these experiences."

The punter has closed two accounts because of what he calls "the intrusive checks". That's bad news for the bookmakers in question. At a time when the key metric of racecourse attendance is seemingly moving in the wrong direction, it's also another ominous warning for racing.

https://www.racingpost.com/news/members/comment/300k-savings-70k-income-but-a-200-monthly-limit-after-affordability-checks/554957

This is interesting from earlier. Kindred = Unibet. Affluent customers are walking away from affordability checks.

Excerpt:-

"With the tools that we have at our disposal to estimate affordability and basically requiring questions to be asked of customers, a large part of the customers and especially in the high net worth segment are reluctant to provide the documents necessary to clear them.

"As a consequence we are unable to accept that kind of business. That's the biggest impact we have seen during the quarter and especially in the high-value segment."
https://www.racingpost.com/news/members/insight/new-affordability-checks-impacting-on-kindred-profits-due-to-reluctant-customers/553760

Cheers, seems like they don't want his business unless they've collared him on Single Customer View or his paperwork shows he has various big losing accounts.

Anybody know of any trustworthy whatsapp bookies in the offing?

Again the bookie mouthpiece reporting a case of selective business practice by a bookie rather than what Affordability Checks (AC) is designed to prevent and protect. Clearly the bookie did not want the individual's business, and using AC as a tool to achieve their objective.

I think the individual concerned was naive and foolish to furnish the bookie with personal financial data; bookies are not governed by the same Banking Act as a financial institution eg banks.

There has been a lot written about this so perhaps someone could clear up a situation
Say betfair imposed a limit of deposit £200 per week and you had £10k in here so wouldn't need to deposit for a while anyway.
Would a loss limit apply to that account? Per bet?

If I'm subject to the same I'd tell the bookie to sling their hook given my present betting pattern and amount. I'd bet with another entity - legit or not.

It is the perfect opportunity for the bookies to weed out non profitable punters, and at the same time keep the mugs on side.

This also allows them to say we have carried out the affordability checks,which of course they have, but used them in such a way to increase their profits, and actually add to the gambling problem that is out there.

It is an absolute joke.

Are you subjected to 'affordability tests' when playing roulette or Blackjack in a casino ?

Affordability Checks are being used to facilitate the bookies' sharp practice ie selectively refusing or restricting bets.

I hope bookies' stooges ie Mottershead and Kerr will get real and not twist AC to suit their paymasters. Disingenuity is a sickening trait for any human being, esp practised professionally.

As Ive said a few times on this subject; If you are a PC payer how can bf be justified in either asking or looking to shut you down when they take between 20-60% off you?

The bottom line for all these bookmaker sponsored articles in the Racing Post is this:

The on-line bookmakers (that have been restricting winning accounts for 20+ years) want you to lobby the government for them, so that they don't have to restrict losing accounts!

The problem if affordability comes in and survives the Human Rights courts, there will be a lot of Black Market betting and return of commission agents. Addicted gamblers won't be stopped, they will find their way around it. Yet another example of a Johnson plan that is just too stupid and will be shot down in the Human Rights court. the lack of understanding amongst this Government is stunning.

The Dealer.

Can i ask you are question has anybody actually shown proof of funds, they have not in dark and depressed Darlo.
can i also ask have you got many people self excluding on the fobts  they seem to be going through the roof.

hope you are well
have a good day
regards
Ronnie.

Hi Ronnie,

Same here, no one has shown proof of income, they have just went elsewhere. Up here we are still making more from OTC and especially from the ssbts, which is nearly all on the football. Our list of self exclusions is around 16 but most of them were through moses and were people who have never been in the shop. Haven't had any new self exclusions for months. Our fobts are a bit hit and a miss but yesterday was really busy, with nearly £4K in them but that's not the norm, usually just around a thousand.

The Dealer

thank you

Ronnie.

How does one get a pension in excess of £70,000 a year?

DOCTORS

Must have had to have been born around the Boomer generation.
Gilt edged pensions, free education, cheap housing and a job for life....all goooown

more than likely company director/buisness owner. I know plenty 'boomers' who worked down the pit had a free education as they do now, lived in poor quality council housing and retired on a small mineworkers pension with of course all the health problems breathing in coaldust for 40 odd years brings.

A 'free education' doesnt mean that thing upto 11plus
It generally means the one that you had to show an ability in academia to get offered a place.

You could be given the world and still f-it up.

talking about Boris and Putin there,dustybin?

Comrade Jeremy Corbyn has a pension pot of over £1.6m paying over £50k per annum, and an accumulation of over £3.6m in salaries from his political life. And, he's as thick as treacle; not a single long term vocation; no known degree of any sort only cronyism that's facilitated this colossal figure.

I don't think having no mortgage, £300k in the bank or a large pension is the key factor.
I think that the person will be regarded as a problem gambler by bookmakers because of this statement:

I do it affordably, for enjoyment and usually make a small profit.

But does he
GAMBLE?

don't want small winners, want mega-losers. this affordability thing basically gives them carte-blanche to tell anyone to p!ss off if they don't fit the bill.

They've had carte blanche to do that for decades. Hell, they were even doing it to Sid James and his budgie fifty years ago. This has nothing to do with looking for excuses to ban winners. They've been doing that anyway.

100% correct screaming

The Racing Post do well to keep finding all these "winners" that are worried about deposit limits!

Remember: The Racing Post are reporting for the benefit of their paymasters ie the bookies. They are not independent but reporting to scaremonger recreational punters into believing the AC is bad for them.

AC is to monitor and police bookies for their blatant abuse of problem gamblers and addicts.