grab yourself a cuppa and read this.........

It’s the number-one complaint from punters – so just why are some struggling to get paid out by bookmakers?

Lee Mottershead talks to punters and bookmakers about issues around withdrawing money from betting accounts


Everyone agrees it is a problem.

Too many punters are waiting far too long to be given their money by bookmakers. At times there are arguments around whether that money rightfully belongs to the backer or the layer. At other times there are questions about whether punters are breaking rules or bookmakers are exploiting them. All too often it is unclear who is in the right and who is in the wrong. What is absolutely clear is the status quo cannot – and perhaps will not – continue.

In 2023 the Gambling Commission's contact centre received in the region of 2,000 complaints about delays to withdrawals, making it the biggest single issue raised with the regulator. In its latest alternative dispute resolution (ADR) report, the Independent Betting Adjudication Service (Ibas) stated just under a quarter of all complaints it received involved matters relating to customer identity, the official reason for most withdrawal delay cases.

While some bookmakers ask new customers to provide all documentation – including where necessary in relation to source of funds and affordability – during the initial onboarding process, others choose to wait until a client attempts to make a withdrawal before demanding additional information. That policy has often left punters baffled and frustrated, especially when the bookmaker fails to explain in detail why money is not being transferred.

Some allege it is evidence of bookmakers attempting to evade payment and claim the lack of transparency in communication stems from firms cynically taking advantage of the legal requirement not to tell a customer when payment has been blocked due to inquiries relating to money laundering or other financial crime. Bookmakers believe the guilt sometimes rests on the other side and claim there are numerous cases of successful punters operating multiple accounts in the names of different people, thus flouting their terms and conditions.

In instances where bookmakers do have concerns about whether money in a punter's account could be linked to crime, they must file a suspicious activity report with the National Crime Agency. The number of those simultaneously forwarded to the Gambling Commission grew from 7,917 in the reporting year from April 2020 to March 2021 to 10,728 12 months later. The figure was 8,940 for April 2023 to March 2024.

In a blog posted three months ago, Gambling Commission chief executive Andrew Rhodes sought to provide clarity on permissible practice and behaviour, writing: "It is not acceptable for operators to introduce friction when a customer tries to withdraw from their account rather than when they deposit into the account, or to place the operator’s commercial interests over those of their customers."

That seems relatively clear, yet on both sides of the betting divide there is agreement the issue remains thoroughly opaque.

'I'm still £2,000 out of pocket'

Examples of punters who have been left chasing money are plentiful.

Among the most egregious is the case of a serious golf bettor who this summer visited two betting shops run by one of Britain's best-known firms and staked a total of £1,750 on a player to win a DP World Tour event. The golfer's victory left the man owed £31,000 in one of the shops and £25,000 in the other.

On returning to the first shop, he was paid £2,000 in cash and advised the remaining £29,000 would be sent by bank transfer. The transfer was never made. The team in the second shop promised to send across the £25,000 in five separate debit card payments. The money duly arrived in the punter's bank account. To his bewilderment, the payments were reversed the following day and the money disappeared from his bank account.

"I've spoken to lots of people and never heard of this happening before," says the punter, who through a solicitor organised for the bookmaker to be served with a statutory demand that could, theoretically, have led to the business being presented with a winding-up petition. At this point, and after a 12-week saga, he was contacted by the firm's head of customer service. The payment was processed the same day.

"At no point was I ever given an explanation for why I wasn't being paid," says the punter. "Whenever I rang, I was just told it was 'with compliance'. Even now, I'm £2,000 out of pocket because of solicitor's fees."

Similarly bizarre is a story about a group of racecourse bookmakers who won £40,000 in a darts wager placed with one of Britain's betting giants. After three months of back and forth and the production of numerous documents, one of the individuals was taken to a bank by a betting shop manager and paid £18,000 in cash. He was told never to frequent another of the chain's shops.

Professional punter Chris Fawcett used social media to expose his dealings with 10Bet, with which he won £2,000 across a weekend earlier this year. When trying to log in he found his account had been suspended. He was then asked to take part in a Skype video call during which the 10Bet representative neither made himself visible nor gave his full name. Fawcett was asked detailed questions about activity on an account he could no longer access. Eventually he was paid out but also restricted to the point where the account became useless.

Less fortunate was Imran, a client of solicitor Harry Stewart-Moore, who also used social media to highlight a case in which the punter won £39,000 after depositing £1,500 online with an online casino.

"The operator continues to refuse to pay out," says Stewart-Moore, who has represented a number of punters in dispute with bookmakers. "It simply says Imran has acted in breach of its terms and conditions in a way that entitles the operator to keep his winnings. They refuse to say what it is Imran is supposed to have done wrong. The clause is so widely drafted that Imran can't make an assessment of whether he may have inadvertently committed some kind of breach.

"The ability of a bookmaker licensed by the Gambling Commission to simply refuse to pay a customer substantial sums without explaining why is a failure of regulation."

Professional punter Neil Channing directs blame squarely in the direction of the leading bookmaker with which he made a profit of £40 after placing £1,700 of general election bets in a Devon betting shop. When trying to collect his £1,740, Channing was told he would need to email a picture of his passport, something he had already sent the bookmaker two years earlier. After a series of emails in which Channing's specific questions were never answered, he was paid out but told he would be barred from all the bookmaker's shops until providing specified personal financial information.

"They know who I am and they wouldn't have paid me out if they didn't," says Channing. "It's happened because they don't want unprofitable business. They should be open about that."

'Larger operators often take a more automated approach'

Explaining the wider problem, Horseracing Bettors Forum chair Sean Trivass says: "We don't deal with individual complaints but are seeing an overall picture of inconsistency from bookmakers with regards to what they are asking punters to provide.

"We hear of punters who have had an account for a long period of time who hear nothing from bookmakers until they have a good win, at which point they are asked to provide information. Punters report that bookmakers have no interest in them when they are losing. When they start winning, that changes. I have no evidence this is not happening to genuine punters.

"There is a lack of consistency and it appears clear bookmakers are asking for more paperwork at the point of withdrawal than deposit. For us, that has always been wrong. You should not need to provide more information when you want to withdraw money than you had to when the money was deposited."

Agreement on that comes from Colin Stokes, a director of Kalooki Sportsbook, an independent UK-regulated bookmaker that asks for anything it considers to be potentially relevant information at the point of client acquisition.

"Our customers consistently tell us they appreciate this proactive and transparent approach," says Stokes. "It gives them confidence we aren't looking to withhold their funds and that they can always speak directly to the staff handling their account, without their sensitive documents being passed around large teams, like it is at the bigger firms."

On those firms, Stokes adds: "Larger operators often take a more automated and reactive approach. While this might streamline onboarding, it can come at the expense of customer experience. Instead of requesting documents upfront, they rely on automated systems until certain thresholds are met, only then requiring verification. This can lead to frustration when customers are unexpectedly asked for documents before their winnings are paid out.

"In our experience customers prefer the peace of mind that comes from providing documentation at the outset, knowing their withdrawals will be processed smoothly without any delays when they win."

Offering the alternative view is one of the major operator's senior regulatory figures. They requested anonymity due to what was described as the "unhealthy" nature of the relationship between bookmakers and the Gambling Commission.

Explaining their policy on seeking information, the industry insider says: "Some operators are asking for things quite early but we don't want to make the registration journey too onerous. I accept there are issues when a customer has won a lot and we say we need information from them when they want to withdraw. From our perspective that's not an attempt to frustrate the withdrawal process, it's because we know in regulator assessments they will want to know how we know if money was not the proceeds of crime.

"Historically I'm sure bookmakers have tried to use the rules to their advantage, but most of the big guys don't do that. We're just trying to navigate a complex regulatory environment."

'The disputes keep arriving'

Openness can work both ways. The explosion of bonus offers in the 2010s led to a parallel explosion of match bettors. Ibas became aware of companies and syndicates recruiting students to either work for them or hand over ID documentation, in the process facilitating the sort of third-party account operation now popular with successful punters whose accounts have been restricted.

The 2022-23 Ibas ADR annual statistical report laid out a particular reason for disquiet, stating: "Our concern is whether the approach to third-party accounts is being applied consistently. While we do not condone the act of attempting to bypass security checks and/or betting in bad faith, we are concerned that it is only consumer-profitable accounts where checks are made and links are detected."

Expanding on the subject, Ibas managing director Richard Hayler says: "We understand that suspected third-party funding covers a wide range of themes, some of which are linked to criminality and other legally sensitive issues, but it would be helpful to see the Gambling Commission provide more examples of the types of practice they consider reasonable and unreasonable. There is no shortage of real-life case studies to work with.

"We frequently see different companies taking a wide range of approaches and all defending them as ‘being required by the licence conditions’. That hints at a consistency problem. The Commission’s recently updated guidance was a helpful start and signal of intent. We have been told there will be more regulatory focus on 'fair and open' practice in the months ahead. In the meantime, the disputes keep arriving and the problem isn't going away."

Stewart-Moore can also see both sides of the argument.

He says: "Undeniably, people who are restricted by bookmakers have used third-party accounts to try to circumvent those restrictions. I suspect that, at times, that practice has been relatively widespread.

"Bookmakers, in my view, have legitimate concerns about this. There is no rule forcing them to take bets from sharps and they are entitled to refuse to do so. However, in the race to sign up new customers, they too often don't properly establish who they're dealing with until they get their fingers burned and then they turn to their supposed regulatory duties to try to get themselves out of a hole. That is where regulation should step in."

Many argue the third-party problem is inextricably linked to excessive bookmaker restrictions.

The senior bookmaking industry insider says: "We would never want to restrict to the point where someone's experience is rubbish but we have to protect our business.

"I see things about people saying they've won ten times and can now only stake ten pence. That's not ideal and the sector needs to be better at managing that, including by being more transparent and having conversations with customers."

'We are under intense regulatory pressure'

Professional punter Nick Goff previously worked in bookmaking as a head football trader. Asked why delays to withdrawals have become such a common gripe, he does not mince words.

Goff says: "Some bookmakers are increasingly looking for ways not to pay people for business they have knowingly taken but which they don't like the look of, perhaps because of a pattern of horses they've seen backed elsewhere and they therefore assume the punter must be part of a syndicate or model. For whatever reason, bookmakers are using methodology that was designed to safeguard punters or the law as a way of deciding whether they should pay out.

"One of the things that prevents punters going to the black market is the worry they might not get paid. However, the experience of some punters is that it's regulated bookmakers who are trying to welch on bets."

That claim is rejected by the senior bookmaking industry insider who asked to remain anonymous in order not to upset the Gambling Commission.

"We are under intense regulatory pressure," says the insider. "The regulations and the environment created by the regulator mean we have to treat most customers either at high risk of gambling-related harm or high risk of criminality, which is a crazy situation. We are having to take decisions we don't want to take, but it's due to a fear of regulatory action. The normal bookmaker-customer relationship is becoming hard to maintain."

Stewart-Moore is similarly critical of the regulator.

"The Gambling Commission is at fault for failing to explain to operators what is expected of them clearly from the beginning," says Stewart-Moore. "Instead it waits until it comes across behaviour it decides after the event is unacceptable and imposes fines, some of which are eyewatering and appear to be plucked from the sky.

"The whole point of regulation is to remove or mitigate the problems that naturally occur in the market. In punting that problem is that the relationship between bookmaker and customer is entirely adversarial. The bookmaker wants to keep all money deposited by a punter and the punter wants to win as much money from the bookmaker as possible. Both sides sometimes go beyond what is acceptable to try to achieve those aims. A central part of a gambling regulator’s job has to be to appreciate that reality and impose a regulatory framework which deals with it.

"The Gambling Commission has not really done that, preferring instead to focus on matters perceived as more important outside gambling such as gambling harm. By allowing bookmakers to use their regulatory duties around anti-money laundering to demand private information from customers before releasing winnings, the regulator has, to a significant extent, made bookmakers referees in their own game. If two people play a game of tennis and one of them has been appointed referee, the likelihood is his opponent is going to lose."

The regulator appears to agree some bookmakers are being less than straightforward in their dealings with customers. As a result, the gambling sector could soon have to deal with new rules.

A Gambling Commission spokesperson says: "Withdrawal issues continue to be the number-one subject of complaints we receive and also feature prominently in cases raised with alternative dispute resolution providers. That is why we're investigating why consumers are experiencing such issues as part of our ongoing strategic assessment of the industry’s obligation to be fair and open.

"There can be legitimate reasons why some withdrawal requests require additional checks, but we are clear gambling firms should not be invoking bogus regulatory reasons to mask commercially motivated practices. Where appropriate, we think consumers would benefit from greater transparency to explain why some withdrawals are not processed instantly.

"Once this assessment is complete we will consider what action is necessary to ensure gambling in Britain is fair and open – and that could include rule changes."