There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
...consultation feedback
ANOTHER FRED SOZ
The Gambling Commission has set out the next steps for affordability checks, including a pilot of the enhanced tier of checks being proposed by the government.
The news comes just days before the key debate on the issue in Westminster Hall on Monday in response to the petition calling for the controversial checks to be scrapped.
A full response to the consultation the Gambling Commission ran on affordability checks last year is due to be published by the industry regulator next month. However, in a blog post on the regulator's website on Thursday, the commission's executive director Tim Miller gave an update on its approach to the two levels of what it describes as "financial risk checks" included in the government's gambling white paper last year.
At the lower level, customers would be subject to checks at a net spend of just £125 over 30 days or £500 in a year, focusing on publicly available data.
Miller revealed that following feedback through the consultation, this tier of checks will not require bookmakers to consider a customer's details such as postcode or job title.
He added: "To ease the introduction of these checks they will initially come into force at a higher threshold for a short period of time, before reverting to a lower threshold later in the year to smooth implementation for consumers."
The second tier of 'financial risk' assessments are proposed to kick in if a punter runs up a net loss of £1,000 in 24 hours or £2,000 within 90 days, and would entail more detailed checks of a customer's finances.
The government has promised such checks would be frictionless, although at present no frictionless method of finding such information is available.
Miller, who said checks would be frictionless "for the vast majority of customers who undergo them", added the commission agreed with consultation responses supporting a pilot of such a scheme, adding it would "enable us to test the details of data-sharing in practice, working with credit reference agencies and gambling businesses".
The pilot is set to run for approximately four to six months and operators will not be expected to act on the data they receive, although they will be expected to continue to implement existing safety measures.
In what might be a sign of success from racing's lobbying efforts, Miller said: "We will continue to gather data which will inform the final thresholds and definitions of loss or spend for implementation following the pilot period."
More details will be set out in the Gambling Commission's full response document.
The commission and betting operators are also working on an interim system of uniform checks until a truly frictionless solution is found, but there was no mention of progress on that in the blog.
In response to the news, a Betting and Gaming Council spokesperson, said: "The BGC has consistently called for frictionless, enhanced spending checks online, so those showing signs of financial vulnerability can receive swift, targeted interventions.
“It is essential enhanced spending checks online do not interfere with the vast majority who bet safely and responsibly, so they can continue enjoying their hobby without unnecessary intrusion. It is crucial no check is introduced which risks driving those who do bet safely and responsibly to the growing unsafe, unregulated gambling black market online.
"We continue to work closely with the government and Gambling Commission and believe there should be a robust and comprehensive pilot before any enhanced spending checks are introduced."
The government is also shortly expected to announce a new maximum £2 online slot stake for 18 to 24-year-olds, with a £5 limit for those aged over 25 bringing stakes in line with casinos.
https://www.racingpost.com/news/gambling-review/gambling-commission-announces-pilot-scheme-for-enhanced-tier-of-affordability-checks-in-response-to-consultation-feedback-auXJ14s24p2G/
ANOTHER FRED SOZ
The Gambling Commission has set out the next steps for affordability checks, including a pilot of the enhanced tier of checks being proposed by the government.
The news comes just days before the key debate on the issue in Westminster Hall on Monday in response to the petition calling for the controversial checks to be scrapped.
A full response to the consultation the Gambling Commission ran on affordability checks last year is due to be published by the industry regulator next month. However, in a blog post on the regulator's website on Thursday, the commission's executive director Tim Miller gave an update on its approach to the two levels of what it describes as "financial risk checks" included in the government's gambling white paper last year.
At the lower level, customers would be subject to checks at a net spend of just £125 over 30 days or £500 in a year, focusing on publicly available data.
Miller revealed that following feedback through the consultation, this tier of checks will not require bookmakers to consider a customer's details such as postcode or job title.
He added: "To ease the introduction of these checks they will initially come into force at a higher threshold for a short period of time, before reverting to a lower threshold later in the year to smooth implementation for consumers."
The second tier of 'financial risk' assessments are proposed to kick in if a punter runs up a net loss of £1,000 in 24 hours or £2,000 within 90 days, and would entail more detailed checks of a customer's finances.
The government has promised such checks would be frictionless, although at present no frictionless method of finding such information is available.
Miller, who said checks would be frictionless "for the vast majority of customers who undergo them", added the commission agreed with consultation responses supporting a pilot of such a scheme, adding it would "enable us to test the details of data-sharing in practice, working with credit reference agencies and gambling businesses".
The pilot is set to run for approximately four to six months and operators will not be expected to act on the data they receive, although they will be expected to continue to implement existing safety measures.
In what might be a sign of success from racing's lobbying efforts, Miller said: "We will continue to gather data which will inform the final thresholds and definitions of loss or spend for implementation following the pilot period."
More details will be set out in the Gambling Commission's full response document.
The commission and betting operators are also working on an interim system of uniform checks until a truly frictionless solution is found, but there was no mention of progress on that in the blog.
In response to the news, a Betting and Gaming Council spokesperson, said: "The BGC has consistently called for frictionless, enhanced spending checks online, so those showing signs of financial vulnerability can receive swift, targeted interventions.
“It is essential enhanced spending checks online do not interfere with the vast majority who bet safely and responsibly, so they can continue enjoying their hobby without unnecessary intrusion. It is crucial no check is introduced which risks driving those who do bet safely and responsibly to the growing unsafe, unregulated gambling black market online.
"We continue to work closely with the government and Gambling Commission and believe there should be a robust and comprehensive pilot before any enhanced spending checks are introduced."
The government is also shortly expected to announce a new maximum £2 online slot stake for 18 to 24-year-olds, with a £5 limit for those aged over 25 bringing stakes in line with casinos.
https://www.racingpost.com/news/gambling-review/gambling-commission-announces-pilot-scheme-for-enhanced-tier-of-affordability-checks-in-response-to-consultation-feedback-auXJ14s24p2G/
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 157
|
By:
125 quid in a month is absolutely ridiculous, so if someone bets 4 quid a day on a horse for a bit of fun they will be subject to checks?? unbelievable
|
|
By:
customers would be subject to checks at a net spend of £500 in a year
that's £1.37 a day you can't get on a fkng bus for £1.37 |
|
By:
Feels like they're trying to all but ban gambling without saying it. Like how they tried to stop everyone from moving and travelling until the push back was too strong.
|
|
By:
The pilot is set to run for approximately four to six months and operators will not be expected to act on the data they receive, although they will be expected to continue to implement existing safety measures.
Oh yeah? What firm is going to run this pilot scheme, find a punter flagged by it, and then not act on it? Of course the firms will act on it, because they'd have no defence before the Gambling Commission if that punter then goes and has a big loss. This is the end, my friends. |
|
By:
any trader / layer would be getting a flag for a check every 10 mins
|
|
By:
Welcome to North Korea 2nd…….unless you arrive by dinghy you’ll be fine……
|
|
By:
rules u out, you've sunk everything you've touched
|
|
By:
it would cost you more to get the bus to the bookie than you are allowed to bet once you get there ....
|
|
By:
can gamble £1.37 a day online, but if you go to the racetrack you can have 10 grand on the first favourite ....
|
|
By:
So basically nothing is going to change.
Trial period of 4-6 months, whilst bookmakers are expected to carry on making it up as they go along in the meantime. Looks like they just wanted to announce something before Mondays debate. |
|
By:
will be sharia law soon enough anyway
|
|
By:
No-one's going to being spending their UBI pittance on gambling.
And just think guys, by comparison we're only at the "two weeks to flatten the curve" stage, and we all know how that ended up for some - "get jabbed or lose your job". So my prediction is the end goal of this totalitarian tip-toe, will be: get caught gambling and face 10 years in jail. |
|
By:
If AC implodes due to a lack of compliance and no horseracing for a while can this be such a bad thing? There is far too much horseracing (bookies' benefit) already that an impromptu time-out may not be such a bad thing. Sometimes something bad has to happen to achieve something good for the long term. Ask an alcoholic or a drug user.
|
|
By:
There won't be any non-compliance from bookies for at least two reasons: the threat of massive fines, and the big corp bookies are fully on board with it anyway, official documents prove this.
As for non-compliance from punters, f*cking brilliant, that's what they want, to stop people betting, isn't that obvious? |
|
By:
impossible, I agree that there is far too much horse racing at the moment. But do you really want no horse racing at all for a while. Do you remember what life was like during the first lockdown? I could cope with not going out anywhere, but no racing at all...that was the last straw. I was counting down the days until the French action started and then had to get my head round the French form as soon as it went up on ATR website. Maybe "dark days" on Sunday & Monday and an end to the evening racing in winter could be the correct balance. France and Ireland could continue to provide the entertainment on Sundays.
|
|
By:
...and furthermore, the virtual Grand National was pathetic: No one believed that that was taking place in real time or that the result was not already known by some people.
|
|
By:
'Marksman', I still remember when the weather was Arctic or monsoon. There were days without no horseracing, just trotting from Enghien. At least the bookies were as much in the dark as punters. It was hilarious watching in the bookies, doubly fun if selection won. About "that" virtual Grand National I took part too, did not win though. Do not ask me how that happened, but I've come a long way since then, for the better I hope!
In the event horseracing was suspended for a lack of funding or AC compliance with AC, I'm sure the ever resourceful/cunning/money-grabbing bookies will dish out free bets like confetti for use on virtuals and even fobt. It will be an ideal opportunity for them (and an excuse) to get new punters for these two brainless games of chance. |
|
By:
She recently said "My husband is a proud Zionist"
methinks she is too |
|
By:
Suffice to say that's the wrong fred post
 |
|
By:
Old news. This has already been implemented with most firms for a few years. Just recycled news.
|
|
By:
If my understanding is correct,how will the betting shops be able to identify their clients turnover. On-line firms are already dialled in, with reems of info on everyone. This paper is imho a shambles and will make having a decent bet nearly impossible.
|
|
By:
.Marksman. 22 Feb 24 22:17
impossible, I agree that there is far too much horse racing at the moment. But do you really want no horse racing at all for a while. Do you remember what life was like during the first lockdown? I could cope with not going out anywhere, but no racing at all...that was the last straw. I was counting down the days until the French action started and then had to get my head round the French form as soon as it went up on ATR website. Maybe "dark days" on Sunday & Monday and an end to the evening racing in winter could be the correct balance. France and Ireland could continue to provide the entertainment on Sundays. Careful, if they are reading this they will be all over you!!!  |
|
By:
Welcome to 'Brave New World'.
|
|
By:
Is it the same thresholds for the crack-cocaine machines, per day, per rolling period etc?
|
|
By:
Nanny knows what's best for you!
 |
|
By:
The bookies' paper has printed the contribution from Mr Gosden in full. Of course it is anti-AC but, Mr Gosden opines the bookies are no innocents either as the bookies have cynically used AC to close accounts that were consistently beating SPs and they only want low staking consistent losers. Mr Gosden added: "The levy based on bookmakers' profits is therefore based on punters' losses, an unconscionable fact. It should be government policy to return it to turnover, a cleaner and fairer mechanism."
I cannot agree more. When bookies are closing accounts and restricting bets using AC can only reduce their horseracing profits resulting in a lower levy to horseracing. This is not rocket science yet the bookies will not admit this. |
|
By:
Bookmakers aren't going to start laying restricted accounts even if they switch to the turnover levy model.
|
|
By:
Punters expected to fund the levy by losing yet, at the same time having to potentially jump through hoops to carry on punting.
bad recipe |
|
By:
|
|
By:
Odd question to ask can you bet with Irish bookmakers without AC's don't mean Boiles or Paddies or other more sort of local offshore jurisdictions what about Gibraltar for example anybody have any ideas or doing that?
|
|
By:
Rishi should clearly be affected. £1k on the spur of tho moment on an unwinnable bet
|
|
By:
PM Sunak is a typical Asian. He'll never admit defeat in public despite he's staring defeat in the next General Election. I hope his wife will book a removal lorry as soon as a date is known even if he does not.
|
|
By:
liberator of the oppressed • February 23, 2024 6:39 PM GMT
Odd question to ask can you bet with Irish bookmakers without AC's don't mean Boiles or Paddies or other more sort of local offshore jurisdictions what about Gibraltar for example anybody have any ideas or doing that? doesn't matter where it's located - as long as it has a ukgc license it has to do what the ukgc says in respect of uk customers. Ireland is an interesting point. If you live there you probably are under a malta license at the moment and not subject to ACs, but I think that there might be Irish licences at some point. |
|
By:
The whole defence against the proposals set forward regarding affordability checks has been wrong from the start.
The racing media and racing bodies have tried to argue that this proposal will finish racing. But 90% of politicians and the general public could not give a damn about that. They just see it as gambling, which is a complete no no. Instead they should be fighting for the right to spend your money on anything you want. If you asked the general public how they feel about a ban on gambling, a huge majority would not care. BUT if you asked the same people, would you agree on the government telling you how you could spend your OWN money, then you could get backing. |
|
By:
Spot on Brandy
|
|
By:
Maybe people would move to purple exchange in droves if they don’t have the same strict policy on losses as Betfair if the rules come into play ? Would the PC charges on Betfair be counted as losses on your account?
|
|
By:
Of course it is, but you have to realise how deeply warped they have managed to make people in the last 10 years ago. Public are now conditioned to think paying less tax is a bad thing, and personal freedom is a bad thing. That wasting billions on people in/from another country is a good thing (in fact necessary), and not deporting hardened criminals is a positive thing (hooman whites). That if people can make it halfway across the channel, they should get free everything no questions asked (even now, a house). As they are oppressed victims and it's our fault, isn't it.
I've always stated on the numerous threads on this AC topic that we are powerless. Whatever happens in the debate in parliament, or who gets nominally elected, they will do what they are planning anyway. It's only how and how soon we get there, that could be influenced. Among other things, our institutions have had their integrity sanitized away. As only saw just this week with Hoyle changing the rules to appease the demands of terrorists, on a vote that didn't even count for anything. Wait till the important stuff comes up. |
|
By:
cider's post and similar illustrate why the gambling commission laughs at those who oppose it on this issue considering them to be cranks.
|
|
By:
the gambling commission laughs at those who oppose it
could have saved your finger, typing out the rest of it |