There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 492 comments are related to the topic:
Latest on Affordability Checks
Latest on Affordability Checks
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 492
|
By:
And they've limited her to loss limit of £500 until proof is given
She's well up! Safeguarding the losers my @ss |
|
By:
All bf accounts are available if theres an audit, let them wade through the fine print if they wish, the major figures are easily determined and passed.
|
|
By:
No solicitors, thank you.
|
|
By:
J-c-m, I've recently had dialogue with the tote as well.
The put a block on my monthly deposits and said I had overshot my limit. So I say what limit is this then as I'm not aware of any. It was unlimited but changed to £1500 which I exceeded with Glorious Goodwood on. Then I'm refusing to talk via email and I want to speak to the decision maker who is looking at my case. Which, fair play, they acted promptly and I'm talking to the right person now who I have to say was very knowledgeable and had a no nonsense approach which suited me just fine. Just to say that since I opened a tote+ account, whenever that was, it's in front albeit not by too much. On requesting my bank account statements I said I'm going to stop you there, I'm simply refusing to give you anything, you can patently see for yourself how this account has been managed by me. It's pretty much solely for placepots and occasionally win singles for shrapnel and it has zero peaks and troughs and is in profit so I see no need whatsoever to provide any documents whatsoever and the lady was understanding and perfectly reasonable at that explanation. My closing gambit was, that if you do not reinstate my original no limit deposit all that's going to happen is that my businesses will have to go via other firms and not direct into the tote+ pool so how exactly is that going to help anyone? In fact, as soon as this conversation is over I'm going to deposit with Hills to do a couple of placepots for later, that's how ridiculous this whole episode is. After a couple of hours the tote woman called me back and said her decision is 'no limit' and apologised for any inconvenience. |
|
By:
Thanks Slippy, your dogmatic approach seems to have swayed the Tote
This implies that there is no legal requirement for all the financial info, it is just a Tote requirement. |
|
By:
I recently took some profit from my IG account, and although having used the bank to initially deposit funds I was told I might be required to send screenshots of address and logo of bank and name on account and statements etc.
I waited and it cleared without, but shows the depth of this information collection that is across the board. Banks have ways of validation without you doing anything given the way instiutions now exachange info on everyone. |
|
By:
I have provable employment income, so wouldn't mind proving my earnings with wage slips that way. But, I would not permit requests to see my bank statements. That is a different issue of privacy for certain, knowing exactly everything and how I spend my money during my wider life.
Though I would have thought sending a payslip as proof of income would surely be enough? |
|
By:
|
|
By:
Cynical truth (is that an oxymoron?) from racing66999.
|
|
By:
The politicians used headlines like ‘the crack cocaine of gambling’ to highlight a fraction of idiots who refused to help themselves and actually thought they could win on them, then when the public was sufficiently coaxed into the narrative applied affordability measures to ALL FORMS OF GAMBLING.
People who think protecting the minority from themselves was good value have royally had their pants pulled down. As for the fact profit comes from losers….look at anything at that’s the source of it. Wages are the profiting from work applied by others, Shareholder Value Maximisation is economic speak for ‘look after those with wealth and shaft the poor in the process’. They seem to be ok though. |
|
By:
Karl Marx said ‘all profit derives from child labour…’
|
|
By:
"look at the clowns at Unibet who say they will have 0% revenue from irresponsible gambling in the next 2 years."
It is laughably ridiculous. Gambling is irresponsible, period. At least it is for those who have no hope of winning If the powers that be have determined that "affordability" is losing £100 a month and energy prices are rising by £200 a month, then £100 a month is no longer affordable. Using that logic, the economy grinds to a halt and we might as all commit mass euthanasia. If we all act responsibly we end up with an infrastructure like Cuba. Spending millions of hours determining whether someones spending is responsible. It's as daft as it gets |
|
By:
Betfair exchange is person v person
No comparison to the tote Many make their living on ere. Nobody needs the tote |
|
By:
Does anyone know the answer to this question:
When they ask for payslips, do they require originals or will scans or photocopies be acceptable? Also, how much does the latest version of photoshop cost? Many thanks. |
|
By:
Yep.
Take home 36k allows 360quid someone said Need prime minister slip and that still not enough |
|
By:
Only betting 1% of your income isn't betting, but just a boring leisure activity like doing the crossword. What sort of life do these do-gooders lead? A pretty boring one from the look of it.
|
|
By:
Catering for minorities to the detriment of the majority is a ruinous attitude towards business.
Where the fook did these people get the temerity to decide what is "best" for us? I neither respect them nor care about their world view. |
|
By:
1% of your yearly Sal a month.
But yep 12% of your salary if you do it in. Might not even be true. |
|
By:
If only there was a way to identify "problem gamblers" and just intervene there, without impacting upon anybody/everybody else.
It's such a shame that the online bookmakers don't have a record of such things!  The absence of such records must also make their day to day operations so difficult. Just closing and restricting accounts at total random. Sending cross-selling marketing (free spins) at random, inviting people to VIP events (hospitality) at random, etc, etc. If only they had kept some records and categorised their customers accordingly.    |
|
By:
Nobody knows who the "problem gamblers" are, so the online bookmakers (in the absence of having kept any customer records) just have to put everybody through this process!
And yet everybody on here is still so blind that they are blaming "do-gooders" |
|
By:
I suppose at least their lack of customer records would explain why they keep getting fined for sending "free spins" to people that have already self-excluded!
 |
|
By:
At any point a 'target' can force those bookies to desist, if they dont they get fined heavily.
But apparently those spinning on these products are too daft to realise there is only one winner and refuse to get the help thats funded by the bookies. Still doesnt explain why MPs used online slots as a vehicle to create a narrative only to then come up with AC that effects all forms of betting....almost like they are disingenuous isnt it? |
|
By:
dusty - If the online bookmakers don't have a record of who the "problem gamblers" are (
) - what else can the MP's do? If only those online bookmakers were more business focussed and organised - and had kept some records! |
|
By:
Well if Betfair are having trouble identifying "problem gamblers" they should give me the job of sifting through the data to eliminate those who aren't in remotely in this category: For starters, anyone who has ever paid Premium Charge should be exempt from Affordability Checks. Anyone who has been on here for 10 years and not suddenly started increasing their depositing rate should also be exempt. That should narrow it down a bit.
|
|
By:
TM
They could have done what they implied - address the problem of 'problem gambling' of online slots that they argued was the mainstay of the problem, instead of using it to gain support before dishing out something totally different. |
|
By:
they being 'MPs'
|
|
By:
Marksman - are you aware of anybody currently paying PC that has been subjected to an Affordability Check?
Rico - said he was - but got it waived pretty quickly - not aware of anybody else, are you? No doubt they are hopelessly incompetent and have caused some accidental collateral damage - but from all the posters so far involved - they all have in common that they were losing and therefore depositing. So while I think that what is happening is undoubtedly a panic driven bodge job - you can't really argue that those aren't the correct triggers (losing/depositing) imo. |
|
By:
Its never a phrase I have used before...but infact 'dogwhistle' fits perfectly what MPs did here.
|
|
By:
Dusty - again - you can't blame the MP's for their ignorance of a complex subject.
If only there was somebody else involved that was clever and understood the issue of "problem gambling" thoroughly. Maybe somebody that had data that showed "problem gamblers" only account for about 10% of the problem and the other 90% are "problem gamers". If only such data existed and could be used to address the real problem! |
|
By:
Management, I did actually pay some Premium Charge a long time ago, and it is true that I have not been subjected to any Affordability Checks. But I believe that this is due to not making any deposits recently (because I am scared of the checks).
|
|
By:
I was ... Had to email Peter Jackson to get it sorted. I now apparently have a £5k deposit limit. Not sure whether that's a day, a week, or a month. I can definitely deposit £5k in a day, but whether I can deposit £5k the following week I really don't know.
|
|
By:
You've been sucked into blaming "do-gooders" when the real culprits (and the reason this is playing out the way it is) are the online bookmakers.
Gaming is so lucrative that they are happy to gamble their old business model (gambling/bookmaking) in order to protect at all costs their much more lucrative new business (i.e. gaming). If you can't see this you are blind. Twenty years of breaking the law (the existing 2005 gambling act) have brought this about and the gamble (that I describe above) is why it is playing out this way, rather than just a simple targeted intervention. |
|
By:
Thanks for info CB29
Ditto Marksman. Can I ask though, was that just when they incompetently fecked up the initial delivery of PC? i.e. they got it horribly wrong initially and it took them about a year to rectify it. |
|
By:
But even in your imaginary world TM you would still have the problem of a government body controlling the data that a private company holds.
Now Im having the argument that some areas of the economy need nationalisation for energy security...but not private enterprise. This is the realm governments stay out of, and its fantasy to assume government are going to work within shareholder corps to the effect that you envisoned. Eitherway, it didnt happen, they blew the dog wistle because it wasnt about helping a tiny fraction unilaterally. It was about ideology and clamping down on public activities, just like smoking was. |
|
By:
I don't know what you mean. The PC was taken off me correctly according to their rules. I stopped paying it when I had some substantial losses. Since then I have probably churned a bit on the way back to modest profitability just to make sure that the PC is still quite a way off.
|
|
By:
There is nothing imaginary about the 2005 gambling act Dusty - it's real and it exists.
It's also true/real that online bookmakers have been breaking that (existing) law for 20 odd years. The act requires that they identify "problem gamblers" and intervene - it doesn't suggest they identify them, groom them and take them for everything they have got! It also references affordability, etc. You might not like it - but that has been the law since 2005 - maybe you should finally actually read it - as that would save a lot of your posts! |
|
By:
Says 'x % of earning' allowed to be lost does it?
|
|
By:
ok Marksman - no worries.
When they first introduced PC (Bf being Bf) they bodged it! - iirc initially they didn't take "lifetime" into account, so they caught a lot more people in the net initially than they intended. It took them a year (BF being BF) to sort it out! The result would have been a lot of people (that shouldn't have done) paid pc for that period and they would not necessarily actually be long-term or lifetime winners, and could well actully be losers - but would have paid PC for a year or so. |
|
By:
Appearntly no MP review was rquired then....the law was already there, the regulator and bookies neither paid attention to it.
So the MPs could have saved them a hell of a lot of time saying telling them to do so, instead of telling everyone who doesnt have a problem how much they are allowed to gamble. All fanciful Im afraid given bookies offer the facility to stop the targetting and seek out paid for help. |
|
By:
I didn't realize that, Management. I didn't pay Premium Charge when it was first introduced. It may have been in existence for just over a year when I first paid it.
|