There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
...that could mean one in five regular punters are asked for financial documents.
Bookmakers have threatened a legal challenge to the implementation of affordability checks that the industry believes will mean one in five punters with an annual spend of as little as £200 are asked to provide financial documents.
The controversial checks, termed financial risk assessments by the Gambling Commission, could be given the green light by the regulator at its board meeting on Thursday, despite serious concerns around the pilot, which has highlighted contradictory information being returned on the same bettors. Bookmakers claim they would be required to request financial documents, such as payslips, from as many as 480,000 customers as a result.
In a letter sent last month to the Gambling Commission's interim chair Charles Counsell and seen by the Racing Post, Betting and Gaming Council (BGC) chief executive Grainne Hurst wrote that a decision to implement the checks at this stage would be "disproportionate and potentially open to legal challenge", adding that it was incumbent on the regulator to consider whether there is a valid reason to introduce them.
The letter, which was also sent to culture secretary Lisa Nandy, gambling minister Baroness Twycross and the Gambling Commission's acting chief executive Sarah Gardner, laid bare the "grave concerns" of operators, who have identified "serious failings" such as unreliable data from credit reference agencies, and also spelled out the knock-on effect for the Treasury if punters migrate to the unregulated black market.
A senior Gambling Commission executive claimed on Tuesday that affordability checks cannot be evaluated until they are implemented. One betting industry source said: "People are united and incredibly angry. The Gambling Commission aren't engaging and they aren't listening. They're giving every impression they don't care about the betting public and there's every chance now that this ends with a judicial review."
In the letter the BGC stated that the checks will not fulfil their purpose as set out in the gambling review white paper due to "significant problems with data relevance, accuracy and consistency" and "fundamental implementation issues". It is also claimed the checks would result in a "significant volume of increased document requests" from customers due to problems with the data provided by credit reference agencies.
Hurst wrote: "The evidence from the pilot is that financial risk assessments are not fit for purpose. Accordingly, the BGC and its members would have to consider all available options should the Gambling Commission implement them without taking into account those findings. Such an approach would harm consumers, harm the regulated industry, harm the taxpayer, boost the illegal market, and, most likely, be irrational."
The Gambling Commission has said only three per cent of customers would ever be subject to checks, but the BGC, which represents the major bookmakers, estimates the percentage of accounts that would trigger the process is five per cent, increasing to ten per cent if only including punters who bet every month, while the percentage increases again to 20 per cent if customers with a net annual spend of £200 per annum or less are removed.
The letter described the piloted checks as "ineffective and counterproductive" and warned of the potential for hundreds of thousands of people to be turned away from the regulated industry due to their reluctance to provide sensitive financial information, which would have severe ramifications for the funding of British racing and potentially lead to the loss of up to £300 million in lost tax receipts from betting and gaming duties.
"Government ministers and Gambling Commission officials have consistently stated that the pilot is a testing and evaluation phase," wrote Hurst. "If FRAs are not effective and would result in more customers playing with illegal operators to evade checks, or alternative approaches are available that meet the purpose set out in the white paper (including where such approaches are already in place), they should not be implemented."
The Gambling Commission was asked if the concerns raised in the letter would be considered when deciding whether to implement affordability checks, whether it was concerned about a legal challenge and if an "urgent meeting" requested by Hurst in the letter had taken place.
In a statement, a spokesperson said: "We reiterate that we're continuing to work on financial risk assessments, with one of the key focuses being on removing unnecessary friction for consumers.
"If introduced, the checks would apply only to a small proportion of the highest-spending accounts and would be frictionless for the vast majority of those assessed. No decisions have yet been made and we'll shortly be putting recommendations to our board on next steps.
"We're continuing to engage regularly with industry and other stakeholders as the pilot progresses, and will continue to provide updates as this work develops. Any future implementation would be carefully considered, evidence-led and introduced in a measured and proportionate way."
The Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) and the BGC were also approached for comment on Saturday.
https://www.racingpost.com/news/britain/bookmakers-threaten-legal-challenge-to-affordability-checks-that-could-mean-one-in-five-regular-punters-are-asked-for-financial-documents-asPwH4S2BvQt/
Bookmakers have threatened a legal challenge to the implementation of affordability checks that the industry believes will mean one in five punters with an annual spend of as little as £200 are asked to provide financial documents.
The controversial checks, termed financial risk assessments by the Gambling Commission, could be given the green light by the regulator at its board meeting on Thursday, despite serious concerns around the pilot, which has highlighted contradictory information being returned on the same bettors. Bookmakers claim they would be required to request financial documents, such as payslips, from as many as 480,000 customers as a result.
In a letter sent last month to the Gambling Commission's interim chair Charles Counsell and seen by the Racing Post, Betting and Gaming Council (BGC) chief executive Grainne Hurst wrote that a decision to implement the checks at this stage would be "disproportionate and potentially open to legal challenge", adding that it was incumbent on the regulator to consider whether there is a valid reason to introduce them.
The letter, which was also sent to culture secretary Lisa Nandy, gambling minister Baroness Twycross and the Gambling Commission's acting chief executive Sarah Gardner, laid bare the "grave concerns" of operators, who have identified "serious failings" such as unreliable data from credit reference agencies, and also spelled out the knock-on effect for the Treasury if punters migrate to the unregulated black market.
A senior Gambling Commission executive claimed on Tuesday that affordability checks cannot be evaluated until they are implemented. One betting industry source said: "People are united and incredibly angry. The Gambling Commission aren't engaging and they aren't listening. They're giving every impression they don't care about the betting public and there's every chance now that this ends with a judicial review."
In the letter the BGC stated that the checks will not fulfil their purpose as set out in the gambling review white paper due to "significant problems with data relevance, accuracy and consistency" and "fundamental implementation issues". It is also claimed the checks would result in a "significant volume of increased document requests" from customers due to problems with the data provided by credit reference agencies.
Hurst wrote: "The evidence from the pilot is that financial risk assessments are not fit for purpose. Accordingly, the BGC and its members would have to consider all available options should the Gambling Commission implement them without taking into account those findings. Such an approach would harm consumers, harm the regulated industry, harm the taxpayer, boost the illegal market, and, most likely, be irrational."
The Gambling Commission has said only three per cent of customers would ever be subject to checks, but the BGC, which represents the major bookmakers, estimates the percentage of accounts that would trigger the process is five per cent, increasing to ten per cent if only including punters who bet every month, while the percentage increases again to 20 per cent if customers with a net annual spend of £200 per annum or less are removed.
The letter described the piloted checks as "ineffective and counterproductive" and warned of the potential for hundreds of thousands of people to be turned away from the regulated industry due to their reluctance to provide sensitive financial information, which would have severe ramifications for the funding of British racing and potentially lead to the loss of up to £300 million in lost tax receipts from betting and gaming duties.
"Government ministers and Gambling Commission officials have consistently stated that the pilot is a testing and evaluation phase," wrote Hurst. "If FRAs are not effective and would result in more customers playing with illegal operators to evade checks, or alternative approaches are available that meet the purpose set out in the white paper (including where such approaches are already in place), they should not be implemented."
The Gambling Commission was asked if the concerns raised in the letter would be considered when deciding whether to implement affordability checks, whether it was concerned about a legal challenge and if an "urgent meeting" requested by Hurst in the letter had taken place.
In a statement, a spokesperson said: "We reiterate that we're continuing to work on financial risk assessments, with one of the key focuses being on removing unnecessary friction for consumers.
"If introduced, the checks would apply only to a small proportion of the highest-spending accounts and would be frictionless for the vast majority of those assessed. No decisions have yet been made and we'll shortly be putting recommendations to our board on next steps.
"We're continuing to engage regularly with industry and other stakeholders as the pilot progresses, and will continue to provide updates as this work develops. Any future implementation would be carefully considered, evidence-led and introduced in a measured and proportionate way."
The Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) and the BGC were also approached for comment on Saturday.
https://www.racingpost.com/news/britain/bookmakers-threaten-legal-challenge-to-affordability-checks-that-could-mean-one-in-five-regular-punters-are-asked-for-financial-documents-asPwH4S2BvQt/
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 74
|
By:
The bookies have no shame. Most affordability checks are spurious, over-zealous and with self interest at heart only eg ladcrooks, a betting entity I hardly bet with.
Ladcrookes targeted me with an unsolicited promotional email eg stake £20 to get a £20 free bet. Upon depositing and almost immediately requesting a withdrawal after a change of heart I was subject to an AC eg requesting personal and financial info / document. An online chat with a manager was to no avail; only an email to Stella David did I manage to get my deposit back. |
|
By:
Horse has bolted now, should have been challenged when they were first introduced. Next Thursday the GC are expected to sign off the next wave and then we'll see some fun.
|
|
By:
Stop bleating bookies! Just deal with it. You are professionals, are you not? Other businesses deal with whatever legislation they may face. I'd ban all form of advertising on tv and mobile.
AC has come about solely because the bookies have been behaving incredulously badly, unprofessionally and uncaringly towards venerable bettors esp those playing fobt - the crack cocaine of betting. If the kitchen is too hot, get out of the kitchen. Moaning is not an option or professional. |
|
By:
That disagreement with Ladbrokes seems to be the highlight of impossible's life.
can't stop telling us about emailing Stella David. |
|
By:
James Noyes
@jranoyes Last week I resigned from an evaluation panel looking at the DCMS Gambling Act Review. Selected parts of my resignation note were leaked to the Sun newspaper and have since been covered by various news outlets. Because of this, it no longer makes sense to keep the resignation note private — so I am making it available in full https://x.com/jranoyes/status/2055693034734387471?s=20 |
|
By:
I'm interested in info here as not read up properly
how many punters here if questioned, asked for docs wud just give the big fo and withdraw funds.. also that is entirely possible right ? there is no legal framework to freeze funds until info enabling withdrawal.... correct ? |
|
By:
Some want to have access to your account (via open banking) or want statements unredacted. As the guy in the Racing Post says complying with this doesnt magically cure you from being a Compulsive Gambler.
|
|
By:
A lot of jobs are going to go just because a few people are anti gambling.
It seems the madness in this country gets worse and worse by the day. |
|
By:
The bookies are not governed by the FCA (Financial Conduct Authority) formerly FSA. As such, anyone would be foolish and wrong to supply financial and non-financial document to any bookie, why? The bookie is not responsible if the sensitive info falling into the wrong hands eg disgruntled / rogue bookie employees. Until the bookies sign up to the FCA t&c never do it.
|
|
By:
Job? Jobs have always been used as an excuse very similar to human rights to suit. What does the bookie produce? Anything tangible for society? I'd charge the bookies for the ramifications of a dereliction of duty pertaing to the t&c of the betting / gaming licence. Even the repeated mega fines were a prize worth paying in exchange for a bigger profit and dividend to shareholders.
The profits generated by bookies are easy-money. Very little effort is needed, certainly not clever business acumen or sense, required. The colossal profits from bookies eg from fobt are regular and automatic - no effort is needed. |
|
By:
It's a bit rich isn't it, it's as if they don't want to restrict punters.
The truth is that if A/C stopped tomorrow there would still be just as many restricted by the bookies who bet on sports, they just don't like that these checks are impacting the casino fodder that they ant to keep. |
|
By:
want
|
|
By:
I'd be among the last candidate to be subject to an AC. I barely deposit more than £50 a month, usually about £20 each. I've 3 accounts opened over two decades ago.
Yet, I was subject to a business trickery of sequestrating my deposit - a claim the departmental manager at 'ladcrookes' could not deny, except citing the right of the bookie and t&c of the company.. |
|
By:
Nobody cares impossible you need to give Stella or Sheila or whoever a rest and this letter by MP's to Nandy who doesn't look so youthful now what good will that do exactly this will happen we are doomed simples god help us all giz a job.
|
|
By:
Boring tw*t kills every thread about the bookmaking industry.
5 posts saying exactly the same things he's said dozens of times before. Even managed to squeeze in the crack cocaine of betting thinking we'd missed the 200+ times he's mentioned it before. |
|
By:
I'd not be happy but I'd rather take my chance and lose my money with a bookie operating in the grey market than a licensed bookie like 'ladcrookes' using trickery to try and "steal" my money citing company t&c.
But, at the end of the day it's only horse betting,...a probable irrelevance in the scheme of things happening in the world eg Ukraine War, Strait Of Hormuz, Ebola, etc. A sabbatical from horse betting is no bad thing either. It could even be therapeutic. |
|
By:
Everything is slowly but surely being spoilt bit by bit. Betting, free speech, shrinkflation, TV and Films, Music etc etc. Glad I've only got 20 years left if I'm lucky.
|
|
By:
If you lose £999 in the 3pm race Monday ....you better not have another bet until after 3pm Tues
 |
|
By:
howard it is just bizarre that some don't get it if you check betting you MUST check other things for example drugs and **** and booze surely it is illogical.
|
|
By:
Imbecile123
A sabbatical from horse betting is no bad thing either. It could even be therapeutic. If you were only taking a sabbatical from this forum it would be most therapeutic for the rest of us. Just bore off from posting your daily repetitive twaddle. |
|
By:
lib agree. Don't see why you can bet thousands at the track either.
|
|
By:
just wondering what the **** was apart from drugs and booze
|
|
By:
phags
|
|
By:
None of it makes any sense, how can it be in a society that sees gambling as the new demon, in the same breath turns a blind eye to bingo and lottery that is being promoted all day long on daytime tv as a harmless, warm and cozy pastime. Tea time quiz shows are sponsored by bingo companies whilst the impressionable, including children watch on.
 |
|
By:
I believe Horse Racing is the target but being smokescreened by the online slots.
|
|
By:
123.....did u not type on this forum in the past that u were on a 100 limit a month this site
|
|
By:
How much longer though?
Anti money laundering regulations will close that loop-hole eventually. |
|
By:
Punter’s €1,999.99 bet triggers debate over betting rules - 'Sadly, this is where the game has gone'
Published at May 12, 2026, 10:20 A punter’s story has hit the headlines this week and created extensive debate and conversations on social media channels. Journalist Johnny Ward, presenter Emma Nagle and former jockey and coach, Paddy Flood, discussed the incident on the latest episode of the Irish Angle. What happened? A Paddy Power customer was refused payment on course at Leopardstown on Sunday due to not having proof of address. The punter had placed €1,999.99 on 2/9 favourite, Doctor Du Mesnil, in the 4.25 at Cork. After the favourite won, the customer was asked to produce proof of address and ID. He had ID, but no proof of address and consequently, he wasn’t paid out on the day. The bet had reportedly been put through at €1,999.99 to avoid triggering the €2,000 threshold of providing documentation. However, the customer will subsequently be paid out by Paddy Power. This is the direction the industry has gone Journalist Johnny Ward said: “It’s the way the game has gone because of anti-money laundering regulations. “If you read Aaron Rogan’s book Punters, you’ll see how readily figures like John Gilligan used to go into betting shops and place huge volumes of bets. Betting has long been a very handy way to wash and launder money." He continued: “The reasoning behind an incident like this is sound. To a lot of people, €2,000 seems like a laughably small amount to trigger checks, but that’s the direction the industry has gone in. “Technically, this is the law and it’s what Paddy Power should have done.” Betting environments changing Johnny added that bookmakers themselves are often frustrated by the rules. “I’ve been at tracks where the anti-money laundering people are present and I know bookmakers find it difficult. “There’s a lot of betting happening through WhatsApp as well, so it raises the question of how strictly bookmakers can realistically interpret these rules on course. “It’s a far cry from what the betting ring used to be.” He said the story attracted attention because it reflected the reality of modern betting regulation: “Over €2,000 needs to be checked, as far as I know. Sadly, this is where the game has gone. “At a high level, I still suspect there’s a lot of washing money going on in racing, so the reasoning behind these rules is actually sound, even if people roll their eyes at it. In this case, Paddy Power was just doing its job.” Emma Nagle pointed out that the bet had reportedly been put through at €1,999.99 to avoid triggering the €2,000 threshold. “Part of the grievance from the punter was that the stake was deliberately kept just under the limit where the documents would normally be required,” Concerns over racing’s financial future Johnny then expanded on the wider impact regulation is having on horse racing. “One of the problems is that people in racing don’t fully understand the decline in turnover and how hard it has become to get proper bets on. “I did a piece on FitzBet before Cheltenham and most of their staff were compliance people. “On one level, that’s good because it’s trying to stop problem gambling, but the days of people putting serious money on horses and that money feeding back into racing, are pretty much gone.” He continued: “There has been a shocking loss of liquidity on the betting exchanges. A shocking loss. “That’s a huge issue for the future funding of racing, whether we like it or not. Maybe the sport was the Wild West for too long, but the days of people placing massive bets are basically dead.” https://www.irishracing.com/news/punters-199999-bet-triggers-debate-over-betting-rules-sadly-this-is-where-the-game-has-gone/264588 |
|
By:
“That’s a huge issue for the future funding of racing, whether we like it or not. Maybe the sport was the Wild West for too long, but the days of people placing massive bets are basically dead.”
|
|
By:
so he wasn't paid out because he couldn't prove where he lives. nothing to do with affordability ?
and last time i looked €1,999.99 was less than €2,000. |
|
By:
The only time they question you online is when you winning
|
|
By:
I'm fairly certain I'm on a £100 monthly limit on The Exchange. What the others are I do not care. Nonetheless, what'ladcrookes' did was unprofessional, cunning and opportunistic using trickery to entice a deposit, and then sequestrate the deposit. If their intention was to restrict or close my account, just say so like wjat 'sly' had done. I'd not mind that because my mindset with horse betting is "I can leave it" anytime, if I so choose.
What I found galling about 'ladcrookes' were the arrogance and incredulity they adopted at each level eg from the online advisor and his line manager, repeatedly citing it was within their right, and insinuating I should have known. The response from the bloke at a senior management level post email to CEO was of a similar narrative citing the above, and money laundering. However, he did concede the events leading to my email and grievance were truthful and accurate. I was reimbursed the next day, and my account was closed as instructed. Which other industry where one could deposit / wager, but not get paid out? Only the horseracing betting entities registered in the UK. Their licence is being used to "steal" money; the terms and conditions are to their interpretation only, and cannot be challenged externally. |
|
By:
He deposits £20 and immediately tries to withdraw the same £20.
Deliberate attempt by the the most boring person you'll ever come across to cause a dispute. |
|
By:
2G bet would be a huge bet to 99.9% of punters, to call it a relatively small bet Is planlily ridiculous, 99.9999999999999999% of people couldn't walk in to a betting shop and come within even a grand of placing a 1,999,99p bet ,for 90% of punters probably within 1,900 of getting it on, Johnny ward living in a fairytale world
|
|
By:
123 who placed the limit on ure account....u or Betfair themselves
|
|
By:
anyone on here with NO OTHER INCOME other than state pension and allowed to deposit MORE than £100 a calendar month ?
|
|
By:
Betfair did. I'd had numerous prompts whenever I logged-on but I just bypassed them. Just recently I saw a £100 limit per month attached which was acceptable. I barely bet these days.
AC is a good thing. This was necessary to mitigate or combat the blatant and unprofessional practice of most bookies. The regular issuance of mega fines was never a deterrent given the profits from others. They were merely a reflection of their might and position in the bookies table - a kudos if I may say. |
|
By:
If Betfair puts a compulsory 100 on an account.....that person has been reckless
|
|
By:
With there gambling in the past
|