There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Good news, for a change. £25000 upper limit per year.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 95
|
By:
How’s that good news?
|
|
By:
not sure what is going on - there is a "new code" that says that financial documents are not needed until net deposits are £25k, but on the other hand the proposals for checks (albeit "frictionless") are:
However, in the plans set out by the commission, that will change to those checks happening for customers with a net deposit of more than £150 a month on gambling, focusing on publicly available data. There was no mention of a yearly total. The commission said that, following the consultation, it would not require operators to consider an individual’s personal details such as postcode or job title. The checks will initially come into force at £500 a month from August 30 before reducing to £150 a month from February 28 next year. The problem is what does "frictionless" mean? Will you have to give a betting firm authority for open banking? links https://www.racingpost.com/news/opinion/comment/new-code-on-affordability-checks-is-a-hard-won-victory-but-concerns-remain-aG2Vg1H414Xe/ https://www.racingpost.com/news/gambling-review/gambling-commission-confirms-plans-for-six-month-pilot-of-frictionless-affordability-checks-a8EAi3g1armJ/ . |
|
By:
Gambling Commission is a waste of money. We need to do an affordability check to see whether public finances can really support organisations like this one.
|
|
By:
Its just words from the Racing Post. No chance im giving open banking to anyone.
|
|
By:
The initial proposals contained in the government's white paper had set a first tier of financial vulnerability checks at £125 net loss within a 30-day period or £500 within a year.
My tv and internet bill is over £500 a year, how the fk have we come to this?   |
|
By:
The "new code" is "interim" - so it's not really very clear what the long-term implications are. Looks like a last minute break out of "common sense" (to some extent) and maybe a step in the right direction but still more questions than answers.
A tentative Well Done to Tom Kerr, The Racing Post and the BGC for deceiving proper punters and racing people into uniting to save their paymasters casino & slots empires. Maybe the gamble will pay-off after all. |
|
By:
I spend over £10k a year on cigarettes and alcohol, but no one is checking on me.
 |
|
By:
For enhanced checks the commission said it would carry out a pilot, working with credit reference agencies and gambling businesses, and examine potential consumer impact.
The initial proposals had set thresholds for the second tier of checks at losses of greater than £1,000 within a rolling 24 hours or £2,000 within 90 days. However, following the pilot the commission said it would explore "the exact financial thresholds the assessments would be conducted at". Consumers will not be affected during the pilot period. Gambling Commission chief executive Andrew Rhodes said: "As a gambling regulator it’s vital that the introduction of new rules is based on evidence and takes into account the views of consumers and other interested parties. |
|
By:
Definitely more questions than answers and still very confusing.
What happens to accounts already closed and heavily restricted by spend budgets and deposit limits etc. It says on the racing post people are free to apply for their accounts back, though they may still be subject to checks and document requests for other reasons. So that basically means nothing changes. |
|
By:
Here's the problem: The BIG spenders that somewhat prop up racing in the UK have already left, and the BHA and everyone in racing knows this.
After all this, I imagine nothing changes and the money men will always get what they want. |
|
By:
Booster - I know we "fell out" quite violently when discussing this subject previously - but regardless of whether your predicament was caused by overly greedy bookmakers or interfering do-gooders, I do hope that todays development might see you extricate yourself from the position you had inflicted upon you. GL
|
|
By:
Its a step in the right direction but the goal has to be to get all affordability checks removed.
|
|
By:
The main thing at play with all of this now is politics.
The GC have made a right mess of this and are now looking, along with the politicians who supported them, to quietly save face. No wonder it takes so long nowadays to see anything done in the UK - politicians and civil servants cannot be seen to have made mistakes. In the real world, sadly one a lot of punters divorce themselves from with their tall tales of betting 'derring-do', the head of the GC should be resigning with immediate effect. After all, we've gone from the madness of £100 a day losses to £25k a year net deposits. What a climb down and it is my bet that most of this will fade away during the 'pilot' and the head of the GC will be moved elsewhere to start meddling in another group of people's lives! |
|
By:
Marksman 930 post
Absolutely spot on sir |
|
By:
Trying to understand these new revisions and pilot schemes is like trying to understand quantum physics and relativity. Yes, you think, I understand this bit, okay I can follow that bit... then, you put it all together and it's complete, self-contradictory nonsense.
It's Schroedinger's Cat all over again: punters are now simultaneously free to deposit 25 grand, unless they actually do so, in which case they'll be affordability-checked at the £150 mark. |
|
By:
Thanks TM.
I don’t see how this changes anything though. The GC has stated that companies are still required to take due diligence and step in when they think people might be experiencing harm or spending too much. They can still get fined for allowing you to gamble. You are basically still at the mercy of the safer gambling squads, whether you spend £500 in a month or £5000. Nothing changes. They need to announce that a customer is entitled to choose their own deposit limits, not have them either thrust upon them, or worse still, have their account closed by the betting company. |
|
By:
You just have to keep reminding yourself that all of the "players" in this "game" are utterly clueless about the subject matter and mostly incompetent - except for the "bookmakers".
MP's = Clueless and incompetent (both the Govt & Opposition) GC = Clueless and incompetent The Anti-Gambling movement = clueless and only semi-competent Bookmakers (Despite bringing this entirely upon themselves) = Clued-up, joined-up/united, co-ordinated, cunning and conniving. It's why I have maintained throughout that nothing (very) serious will come to pass at the end of this fiasco and if anything does come to pass, it certainly won't be a solution to problem gambling. |
|
By:
Booster Rooster is right. Now that the dust has settled, it looks as though the abolitionists at the Gambling Commission have got their way. This talk of a £25,000 figure is pure misdirection:
At lower levels of spend, bookmakers will be expected to continue carrying out customer interactions, including questionnaires, phone and live chat interactions and requests to set a deposit limit. If interactions show evidence of "potential financial vulnerability", bookmakers will be expected to deploy a range of interventions including deposit limits and account closures. https://www.racingpost.com/news/gambling-review/new-interim-affordability-code-introduces-25000-threshold-for-submitting-financial-documents-abDWB3y7nnZq/ |
|
By:
BoosterRooster01 May 24 11:46Joined: 17 Feb 01 | Topic/replies: 352 | Blogger: BoosterRooster's blog
Thanks TM. I don’t see how this changes anything though Not immediately - but I'd that think it will at some point. The lack of any "interim" guidance is to blame for a lot of problems. Now there is some and it looks much more sensible, proportionate and "liberal" (for want of a better word) that the nonsense that the books have been making up as they go along, things can surely only get better for the people that have unfairly got caught up in this fiasco. |
|
By:
I'm depositing and withdrawing more then ever,.never had a single problem. Are they checks just random?
|
|
By:
*these
|
|
By:
Still seem pretty random.
This time last year I could have made the same statement, depositing and withdrawing without any problems. Though then came the dreaded “intervention”. Once they have you in the affordability net, they make it incredibly difficult for you to get out. |
|
By:
Summary is:
Net deposit threshold of £500 from August, then £150 from Feb 2025. Once per year this will trigger a financial vulnerability check with a credit bureaux which, essentially, just makes sure you're not bankrupt or in any serious arrears. No customer interaction will be required, and it won't affect your credit record. No need for open banking or any documents to be shared. From August they will be piloting a scheme that uses a financial risk assessment from a credit bureaux to assess affordability in higher spenders. The thresholds are yet to be decided, but are targeted to equal approx 3% of active customers. In the RP they suggest this might be £5k net deposit per month. Again this should require no customer interaction, won't affect your credit record, and open banking is not required. It is anticipated that 0.3% of active customers will require interaction and sharing of bank statements etc if they trigger higher thresholds, such as the £25k net deposit per year suggested in the RP. |
|
By:
What people continue to miss is the mere fact that they are snooping around checking up on you, even if they are not bothering you directly, still constitutes intrusion.
|
|
By:
All the limits and amounts that triggers this that and the other are completely pointless.
Nobody says what happens if you fail the checks, get flagged up, or if the company decide they need to intervene. At the moment, the customer either gets a heavily restricted deposit limit, or a closed account. So people who fall into this, are being told they have to stop betting. Whether they are addicted, harmed, or just enjoy betting. The customer still has no say in this. If it was that simple, addicts could just self exclude, and that would be that, all this financial stuff is completely unnecessary. Ultimately, whether winning, losing, addicted or professional, it is up to the punter to decide when they stop betting. All this achieves nothing. |
|
By:
And the books, many of whom have used this to mess about those punters they don't want will continue to do exactly the same thing anyhow.
When they want to get someone they'll just say, we know the limits have eased but we're responsible and don't agree so we'll get you out anyhow as it's our company and can do what we want. |
|
By:
The Management 01 May 24 10:14
Booster - I know we "fell out" quite violently when discussing this subject previously - but regardless of whether your predicament was caused by overly greedy bookmakers or interfering do-gooders, I do hope that todays development might see you extricate yourself from the position you had inflicted upon you. GL Jesus,talk about creepy…..violently on a forum….ffs…..yuk ! |
|
By:
I hope the day-release/job placement traders here are aware of this new AC development. I think £25k per annum is a lot of money for gambling; just under 50% of the London wage of £44k.
|
|
By:
So it's 25k net deposit a year whilst at the same time 150 a month???
How does the fook does that work then? Tat aside, the mere fact that they are looking at you if you've done 150 in a month is clear evidence that precisey nothing has changed. |
|
By:
Whataboot the peops on a hunner a month
|
|
By:
Seems like many are confused and probably do not understand that the Govt have given a concession that overrides the GC's proposals albeit on an interim basis and still involves statutory money laundering regulations?
The £25K cap on deposits is not sacrosanct or set in stone before checks are triggered as winnings are also allowed to be considered by bookmakers before any intrusion has to be made in terms of the £25K? |
|
By:
dave1357 the problem is what does "frictionless" mean? Will you have to give a betting firm authority for open banking?
The answer is if no risk is identified a customer would continue with no further action, but what isn’t mentioned is that in certain cases due diligence would be assessed these checks would take place primarily via a credit reference agency, with no impact on credit score. But affordability is just one of many checks that are done in Safer Gambling which may lead to Account restrictions, and these can also lead to Source of funds documents being asked for or deposit limits being applied. layingisthewayforward with bookmakers the risk Assessments come when a customer shows up on the daily/weekly/reports and there are a lot of reports from If a customer comes through on a report of which there are many, examples being late night play, time spent playing online, playing through funds from a healthy winning position, high number of deposits daily/weekly etc Not up to speed with how BF and the exchanges do their Safer Gambling checks they may have different variations on their reports than normal bookmakers when customers appear on these reports |
|
By:
What I resent most is AC is more stringent with a bookie than a tax return from HMRC. The latter is a legal government representative; the former a PLC without legal qualification or governance.
|
|
By:
The sad thing is that all these limits, however implemented, are only per online bookmaker (or bookmaking group) because there is no way to aggregate a person's spend. With so many providers out there - plus the ability to bet cash in shops, casinos or at the track - there's no limit in practice and the only people who will be affected are exchange players because Betfair has an effective monopoly. Not that this moan is from self-interest of course...
|
|
By:
That’s why they are pushing for single customer view, so that they can gather and share all your online betting data across every operator.
It’s obviously wrong, and they should not be allowed to do it. Though also pointless, as with betting shops, casinos, bingo halls, and a 24hr arcade full of slots in almost every town centre, any addict who gets stopped betting online can seamlessly transition their gambling to the land based sector. That’s even before you go down the road of betting in other peoples names, off shore, black market etc. There was a conspiracy theory that this is all being done just to boost the land based sector. Whether that theory is true or not, that does look like being the outcome here. Loads of those 24 hr slot arcades out there already, I reckon there are going to be even more after this. |
|
By:
Fangsy, the reasoning behind asking for people to prove affordability is a perfect answer to your post. When the customer provides bank statements, wage slips etc these are assessed and from the findings a decision is made whether that customer is betting beyond their means,if any transactions are showing like paying back loans , playing from over draft, playing with other betting sites this is all taken into consideration in the decision of whether that customer will be allowed to carry on playing or account remains restricted or closed permenantly.
As for BF having a monopoly how about Smarkets,Matchbook,**** also Casino & Shops have their own safer gambling checks |
|
By:
Hello Gib, welcome to the forum
As you've stated you work for a bookie in Gibraltar... When the gambling firm considers the customer's circumstances by looking at wage slips, bank statements etc as you say, before deciding on any limits... Are they all playing to the same guidelines? And who is monitoring this? What I'm suggesting is that no bookie wants to be over zealous if they think their rivals will be more lenient and therefore lose business to them |
|
By:
Like Freddie said earlier...what about the people currently on 100 a month???
|
|
By:
not really an issue, they might get up to £150 a month, but they are still severely restricted.
|