There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
In recent months the Racing Post has, on a daily basis, provided readers with imbalanced stories about the ongoing financial risk consultation and frequently failed to seek a right of reply from the Commission.
In light of this we penned a letter to the Racing Post’s readers page so we could set out our position on the consultation and clear up misunderstandings about the proposed checks.
The Racing Post has refused to publish the letter despite its content being highly relevant to readers.
Considering this blatant lack of balance in a newspaper we have decided to publish the letter on our website.
Open letter to Racing Post readers
Dear Racing Post readers,
I write to you about our ongoing consultation about proposed financial risk checks.
We understand that there may be some concerns about the Government and the Gambling Commission proposals from consumers who are concerned about potential privacy issues.
However, as a regulator we must help clear up misunderstandings about these proposed checks so that all Racing Post readers can engage with our consultation (opens in new tab) in an informed way.
Firstly, readers could easily assume – based on the volume and nature of the coverage - that under the proposals a good proportion of gambling consumers would have to be handing over payslips or bank statements when they want to place a bet.
This is not true.
It’s estimated that just 3 percent of accounts would undergo financial risk assessments. And by our estimates at most just a tenth of that 3 percent would not have a frictionless check via credit reference agency or open banking data. So our estimate is that at most just 0.3 percent of account holders would ever be asked to directly provide the additional financial information that operators are already requiring of some customers.
This means 99.7 percent of customers would not be asked to directly provide any information.
The financial risk checks consultation is Racing Post readers' chance to engage in the development of policy, and we would invite your views on how the 0.3 percent of account holders could have their financial risk assessed if they are not asked to directly provide the additional financial information.
The vast majority of financial risk assessments - around 90 percent - would be carried out through credit reference agencies and open-source banking via a regulated third-party provider under the proposals. These checks will not give gambling companies access to customers’ full bank account data, and any information operators receive must only ever be used for assessing risks of harm, rather than practices like identifying and restricting winners.
Secondly, little of the commentary specifies that these proposals relate to online gambling only. They would not apply to betting in bookmakers or at the racetrack. High street bookmakers may decide to carry out checks based on social responsibility or anti-money laundering risks but these changes being consulted on apply only to online gambling.
And thirdly, although there is often the assumption that credit checks impact a credit rating and could damage credit scores, these soft credit checks will not. Credit scores will be unaffected and data on a customer’s gambling behaviour will not be shared with the financial sector under these proposals.
There are also other misunderstandings which are set out on our website and information which may be helpful for those interested in the consultation proposals.
The Health Survey for England 2018 (opens in new tab) suggests that the percentage of people who have bet online with a bookmaker in the past year and are experiencing problem gambling is 3.7 percent. 5.2 percent are at moderate risk of gambling harm.1
The Government's White Paper proposed that one way we will tackle this is by implementing financial risk checks. This would introduce a frictionless system which is not currently available and make sure the smallest possible number of customers are unnecessarily inconvenienced by checks at all.
In summary, most customers would not undergo checks under these proposals. The government and the Gambling Commission have also been clear that we would not mandate operators to implement checks at levels such as those proposed in the consultation until we were sure that they can be delivered frictionlessly for the vast majority of customers who would be checked. We would be looking to trial this following the consultation should we decide to proceed.
There remains another four weeks of the consultation and we welcome all responses to ensure we strike the right balance between protecting the freedom of the individual to gamble and protecting those most vulnerable from gambling related harm.
Andrew Rhodes
Gambling Commission CEO
In light of this we penned a letter to the Racing Post’s readers page so we could set out our position on the consultation and clear up misunderstandings about the proposed checks.
The Racing Post has refused to publish the letter despite its content being highly relevant to readers.
Considering this blatant lack of balance in a newspaper we have decided to publish the letter on our website.
Open letter to Racing Post readers
Dear Racing Post readers,
I write to you about our ongoing consultation about proposed financial risk checks.
We understand that there may be some concerns about the Government and the Gambling Commission proposals from consumers who are concerned about potential privacy issues.
However, as a regulator we must help clear up misunderstandings about these proposed checks so that all Racing Post readers can engage with our consultation (opens in new tab) in an informed way.
Firstly, readers could easily assume – based on the volume and nature of the coverage - that under the proposals a good proportion of gambling consumers would have to be handing over payslips or bank statements when they want to place a bet.
This is not true.
It’s estimated that just 3 percent of accounts would undergo financial risk assessments. And by our estimates at most just a tenth of that 3 percent would not have a frictionless check via credit reference agency or open banking data. So our estimate is that at most just 0.3 percent of account holders would ever be asked to directly provide the additional financial information that operators are already requiring of some customers.
This means 99.7 percent of customers would not be asked to directly provide any information.
The financial risk checks consultation is Racing Post readers' chance to engage in the development of policy, and we would invite your views on how the 0.3 percent of account holders could have their financial risk assessed if they are not asked to directly provide the additional financial information.
The vast majority of financial risk assessments - around 90 percent - would be carried out through credit reference agencies and open-source banking via a regulated third-party provider under the proposals. These checks will not give gambling companies access to customers’ full bank account data, and any information operators receive must only ever be used for assessing risks of harm, rather than practices like identifying and restricting winners.
Secondly, little of the commentary specifies that these proposals relate to online gambling only. They would not apply to betting in bookmakers or at the racetrack. High street bookmakers may decide to carry out checks based on social responsibility or anti-money laundering risks but these changes being consulted on apply only to online gambling.
And thirdly, although there is often the assumption that credit checks impact a credit rating and could damage credit scores, these soft credit checks will not. Credit scores will be unaffected and data on a customer’s gambling behaviour will not be shared with the financial sector under these proposals.
There are also other misunderstandings which are set out on our website and information which may be helpful for those interested in the consultation proposals.
The Health Survey for England 2018 (opens in new tab) suggests that the percentage of people who have bet online with a bookmaker in the past year and are experiencing problem gambling is 3.7 percent. 5.2 percent are at moderate risk of gambling harm.1
The Government's White Paper proposed that one way we will tackle this is by implementing financial risk checks. This would introduce a frictionless system which is not currently available and make sure the smallest possible number of customers are unnecessarily inconvenienced by checks at all.
In summary, most customers would not undergo checks under these proposals. The government and the Gambling Commission have also been clear that we would not mandate operators to implement checks at levels such as those proposed in the consultation until we were sure that they can be delivered frictionlessly for the vast majority of customers who would be checked. We would be looking to trial this following the consultation should we decide to proceed.
There remains another four weeks of the consultation and we welcome all responses to ensure we strike the right balance between protecting the freedom of the individual to gamble and protecting those most vulnerable from gambling related harm.
Andrew Rhodes
Gambling Commission CEO
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 269
|
By:
To provide balance, I have posted this open letter because the Racing Post wouldn't publish it.
|
|
By:
Regulator of what ? Telling the people what to spend…..get stuffed ffs
|
|
By:
I wrote a very fair letter to the racing post regarding premierisation in it I did politely criticise the online bookmakers and both arc and jcr and defended the small privately run racecourses,there was no reason it could not be printed other than it didn’t suit the paper.
Over many years they have printed every letter I had previously sent. |
|
By:
Thank you for taking the trouble to post marksman
|
|
By:
Dear Mr Rhodes,
The problem is FOBT's and website Casinos. Tackle them and we will all be grateful. Thank you. |
|
By:
 get stuffed I’ve not heard that for years ,nowadays people are not so polite |
|
By:
The RP has steadfastly been the mouthpiece of bookmakers and not racing. While it continues doing that the Gambling Commission will continue to treat its input as biased. I don't think the RP has helped racing or racing punters cause with its bias. Mottershead and Kerr need to stick to racing and stay away from politics.
|
|
By:
I've read the letter of The Gambling Commission (GC) to the Racing Post readers diligently. I applaud the GC for addressing and pointing out the outrageous bias of the bookies' paid horseracing paper The Racing Post.
Who'd you believe? GC or the Racing Post? I concur with the majority (if not all) of what Mr Rhodes of the Gambling Commission eg 10% of the 3% subject to Affordability Check (AC). Also, the bookies have not been mandated to ask for personal financial info eg bank account/payslip/etc. Even then only 10% of the 3% subject to AC ie o.3% meaning 99.7% of bettors would not be subject to AC. But, in reality the bookies subject bettors to AC is significantly more than 3% (let alone the 0.3% as claimed by GC). Questions:- 1) Who'd authorised the bookies to subject the majority of bettors to AC eg for very personal financial info/document eg bank statements/payslip/etc when AC claimed on 0.3% would be subject to AC eg a soft credit check? 2) Why have the bookies done this when the bookies have not been mandated to? (Please do not tell me for fear of regular mega fines) 3) What is the purpose of what the bookies are doing eg demanding excessive and very personal financial info from bettors? GC understands the reluctance by bettors to comply given most bettors (except the 0.3%) are exempt; bookies are not qualified or governed by the FCA code of practice. Over to you The Racing Post to try and answer the 3 questions above. |
|
By:
To me that smacks of the placating of the masses betfair engaged in when implementing the PC
‘Congratulations on being the 0.5% of winning customers’ I seem to recall was the tagline they used when arguing why they should extract much higher charges on winners. These checks may or may not inconvenience just 0.3% via ‘frictioned’ (by definition) stumbling blocks. But they will affect perhaps 100% of long term winners (who have to lose to win) |
|
By:
The issue is not whether the checks are frictionless or not frictionless, the issue is that they are being carried out at all and on some occasions, these frictionless checks will lead to customers being wrongly pursued as the frictionless checks erroneously flag up someone for more less frictionless divulgence of information.
|
|
By:
The question of who do I trust more…..
Well I never read the racing post other than what gets posted on here….but do I therefore trust the GC? Like bollox I do. How can anyone trust the GC/WP combo who between them argue there needs to be stipulated lines in the sand (1k over 24h, 2k over 3months and a 7-day P/L requirement) While also saying the betting company themselves have to determine what is appropriate on the data they have on the customer? Which is it? And what data determines no further data is required if a long term winner experiences a certain loss over the period in question? |
|
By:
rhodes must fall. the horrible fat ugly twerp has never had a proper job. hes always been on the public payroll and wouldnt earn a nana outside the cosy confines of the quangocracy
this 3% number is disingenuous. most punters are very occassional and prob make up 80% of who are potentially liable but unlikely to be asked for anything more likely that about 15% of regular punters will be hassled by this. and they are likely to bet more and generate turnover and levy. not something fatso will understand, never having a bet himself and marxman can do one, whoever you are. not a wagon, im sure of that |
|
By:
I think the Racing Post has scored an own-goal by publishing this letter from the GC; the Racing Post asked GC for a sit-down meeting/discussion, but was turned down. Personally, I'd have done the same to the Racing Post; I'd snub their request. Why? The Racing Post does not represent horseracing, or punters BUT only their paymasters ie the scumbag bookies!
Now, may I suggest to anyone subject to intrusive AC to ask:- 1) Why are the bookies applying intrusive AC to most bettors when the bookies have not been mandated to do so? 2) Suggest the GC figure of 0.3% only (99.7% exempt) subject to intrusive AC? The rest at most a soft credit check ie no bank statement/payslip/etc. 3) Why are bookies applying intrusive AC which is detriment to the horesracing and betting industry? |
|
By:
I don’t think they published it impossible
|
|
By:
Further more I'd ask for a public discussion/debate on air with representatives from the betting public eg AC and non-AC affected; horseracing industry eg staff/owners/trainers; betting industry eg bookies/paid associates and Gambling Commission.
Bettors/punters need to know the truth about AC as they are the ones most affected (not bookies/their paid associates). |
|
By:
I123
You know the answer….because the regulator/government wanted to look like they were appeasing both camps by threatening the sector while giving washy washy directives. They still havnt clarified even now. The question ppl should ask is where is the arbitration and by whom, if bookies are believed to be acting outside those guidelines. |
|
By:
I have been critical of the RP on many occasions over many years but on this subject they appear to be a lone voice in tackling the GC. The BHA have been deafening in their silence and Ministers only pay lip service without rocking any boats.
The bottom line is that the GC has churned out unproven and unprovable statistics despite the data they must already possess from their consultation to date, a further 4 weeks is unlikely to produce anything which supports their proposals. Will punters ever see the actual results or will the GC mash it up to suit their own agenda? I think a fair guess is that over 90% of respondents are against their proposals and have made the point that they are an infringement of their civil liberties, will the GC acknowledge the results and change the ludicrous proposals? I very much doubt they will because ultimately they are a law unto themselves and the average budgie would have more knowledge of the gambling and horseracing industry than they. Like it or not, the RP is where the outcome will ultimately be debated on behalf of the punter. |
|
By:
'dustybin', I believe a public debate/discussion on air eg horseracing programme is necessary to get to the bottom of this ie who's blatantly lying; the discrepancies between GC and bookies/paid associates are massive .
What I find nauseating is the Racing Post's "self-proclamation" they represent punters and the horseracing industry; the Racing Post was conspicuously absent and silent when punters' accounts were restricted/closed by bookies citing traders decisions wily-nily. The Racing Post even denied any knowledge of its existence despite numerous letters to them on this matter. |
|
By:
Impossible, you have highlighted the problem here: The bookies were carrying out this checks and account closures before they even knew what the GC's requirements would be. They just like playing God: Sifting out the successful players so that they are left with only "recreational" punters. I don't know which side the Racing Post is on but, by refusing to publish the GC open letter, they seem to be trying to make the gambling commission look worse, whilst portraying the bookmakers as blameless. The only time I have had trouble with depositing was caused by my bank, The Halifax, who blocked a deposit of £200. I had to answer all sorts of questions before they would allow it. (I avoid withdrawing at the moment because I don't want to be "checked".)
|
|
By:
Well i123, don’t you consider it the epitome of insanity then, if the GC apply a new rule that licensed ops have to follow, knowing they were already closing winning accounts, while having zero avenue for arbitration?
If they want to come across as not the bearer of intrinsic anti freedoms then why give the operators unrestricted cause to apply them as they see fit? The GC have simply handed another weapon to the bookies without thinking of the repercussions, if they don’t follow up on making sure they are imposed diligently but fairly. |
|
By:
Racing post are just representing the views of horse racing punters who have written in to tell them their experiences of either being asked for documents, having their accounts restricted, or in some cases, having their accounts closed.
The vast majority of punters don’t want these checks. They have also printed Rhodes open letter. It’s on the same article as their reply. |
|
By:
When the racing post received letters from it's readers complaining about bookies restricting therm to pennies in years gone by.
Did they publish these letters? |
|
By:
The argument here is with the gambling commission and people being stopped from betting against their own wishes.
Account restrictions (for winners) are a completely different argument. |
|
By:
'Marksman', I can fully understand your position. I'm a very small recreational punter now probably depositing less than £100 per month; I'm only interested in antepost and prestigious Group races. However, I did deposit near £1k last May (no intervention from bank) despite 6-months earlier an enhanced due diligence on my account; I think it was because I'd quite a few money transfers eg 2.4% over 24 months for tax and investment purposes.
But, no AC presently. If AC, my betting account will be closed the next day for sure. I'd never give financial info to anyone not governed or accredited by; bookies a definitive NO! I do not think bookies have been given authority for unrestrictive and intrusive AC. I firmly believe the bookies have jumped the gun and acted on their own accord, and for their own interest; the bookies were already enforcing intrusive AC prior to consultation or issuance of White Paper. This AC business is easily solved with a bit of common-sense deployed; the bookies know what they are doing is unsustainable, over-zealous and detriment to horseracing and betting industry yet the bookies are persisting. Why? To protect their golden egg ie fobt. The bookies are trying to maintain fobt under the horseracing umbrella when they know full well fobt ought to be subject to the same betting rules as the casinos. As for the Racing Post, they do not represent the horseracing industry or punters. They only represent their paymasters the scumbag bookies. |
|
By:
I think we all know the answer to that question duffy
|
|
By:
Impossible, where else would 9,000 punters have responded to a betting survey? Your narrow view and hatred of bookies and the RP ignores just about everything that is actually going on, the only thing you have said of any value is of FOBT's being a separate issue and which I highlighted long ago.
|
|
By:
I'm 100% certain the Racing Post have received letters condemning them of their reluctance to act or print the letters against fobt and bet restriction and account closures. Did the Racing Post print any?
Also, why have the Racing Post or their scumbag paymasters not defended fobt and AC publicly eg live on air infront of an audience? I've not known the Racing Post being so vocal about GC; previous GC head honcho advocated £50 per spin, and too subservient and aligned to bookies. Now, with a new broom loads of accusations, mostly unjustified. Do you think it was a coincident the head honchos at the BHA and GC left in 2021, the latter very suddenly? |
|
By:
As a matter of fact I do not hate the bookies. I used to temp for a while at a bookie at the same time as an assistant manager (then) who was voted the best betting manager of 2021; I think he presently worked for StarSport in Mayfair.
I despise the present bookies for their lack of social ethics and for exhibiting utmost greediness regardless. Horseracing is not being run for the benefit of the industry, but bookies. |
|
By:
You’ve got some weird views, impossible123.
I think the last head of the GC left because of the football index scam, he seemed to leave very quickly after that unfolded to be a ponzi scam which the GC gave a license to. It’s also the gambling commission that insist on FOBTs, online casinos, online slots etc are to be treated the same as sports betting and horse race gambling. They have been pressed on this, and they have refused point blank to separate gambling from gaming. They say they don’t recognise the difference between losing £100 on a FOBT, or losing it on a horse race. I don’t know what you want to happen with FOBT anyway? Do you want them banning? Do you think that will help? Given that there are literally hundreds, maybe even thousands of crypto casinos and illegal offshore casinos for people to play on. |
|
By:
You say you agree with the majority of the GCs agenda impossible, I think that is enough for the vast majority of punters to understand that you are in a miniscule minority, particularly saying the accusations against the GC are mostly unjustified.
We can only be thankful that the RP have taken up the cudgel for the current crisis and we are aware that lack of understanding of the infringement of civil liberty is confined to a couple of disgruntled posters on here!!! |
|
By:
Using a shoulder to prop up the competition Cagliari….ffs
|
|
By:
Fobt is insidiously bad and has no place on the high street. The bookies are exploiting and being disingenuous with AC.
|
|
By:
Calgari is talking nonsense as usual. There is no crisis or any infringement of civil liberty. We have a vice that the wider society is trying to get to grips with. As punters that bet horses we don't want to get mixed up with the online casino stuff but the RP is simply forging ahead with 'individuals should be able to spend their money how they want' nonsense. This just supports the bookies and does nothing to differentiate horse racing punters with all pother gamblers. Impossible is right about bookies disgraceful ethical practices and that needs to be addressed. The RP should should be calling them out and supporting sensible measures that maintain punting on horses for the benefit of racing.
|
|
By:
Point out the nonsense honcho?
|
|
By:
I did. have another read.
|
|
By:
Between yourself and impossible it would be difficult to find anyone less informed about the GCs agenda.
|
|
By:
They probably have no place on the high street, I kind of agree. Though take them away, most shops will close, people lose jobs, and problem just moves online (even more so).
Bookies may well be being disingenuous with AC, but that is just another reason why they should be stopped. Nobody wants affordability checks for a number of different reasons, and that is why the racing post is speaking out against them. Again, it’s the gambling commission that is insisting that they are necessary, and they are also being disingenuous about how many people are going to be affected. They are also refusing to go into what actually happens after the check. What if somebody refuses to hand over their documents, what if somebody fails the check. This is what the main problem is, this is what is leading to the account closures. You state that you yourself will refuse to hand over documents if asked. If you do that, your account will most likely be closed. You will be stopped from gambling against your own wishes. This is what the racing post, and others are campaigning against. |
|
By:
There is a place on the high street for bookies; there is a place on the high street for bookies with managers who'd understand odds, settle and payout without using epos eg 'ronnie rails' here. Those who cannot they'd take a hike for all I care; they are not bookies merely custodians of fobt. Sadly, there are quite a few of them presently. And, if a comparison needed these shops could all close unlike those working for Wilko.
The bookies produce nothing tangible except miseries. |
|
By:
Between yourself and impossible it would be difficult to find anyone less informed about the GCs agenda. - You just need a mirror mate.
|