Credit file checked

Depends is called a hard or soft credit search - I believe if soft, usually if not given your permission, then they don't appear to others searching a file (though I am not an expert, just had it happen to me before, in non-gambling searches).

Why give these ponces a chance to do so?

Soft Stu , what right have they to look at my Business , they are not giving me credit , its shocking what is going on .

Unless you are seeking credit,absolutely no rights

Seems firms don't need any permission for soft searches - as say, happened several times to me with other companies (not gambling) even though I didn't realise.
I think they won't affect anything much though in terms of what others will see (as far as I know)

Yes they are invisible to everyone else. Not the point though, obviously. Bookies have no business sniffing around your credit report.

They are starting with the risk assessments now and if they dont like the look of you for any reason then you wont get an account or increased deposit limit. No reason given but you can ask for all the info they have on file and have used through a GDRP request. Always do it as you never know what info they have and it costs them to give it you and its also a legal requirement.

TBH cider, if it was a choice of a soft credit search or them asking for silly documents from me, I know I'd prefer the former - if that was enough to satisfy them I wasn't in finance difficulty which is should be.

Anybody with half a clue cannot get on with the Firms.
Simple as that

*it should be

Was meaning exchanges irons.

Losing A/C's on the year give BF the chance to bin them,stu and they do

There's no absolutely justification for it, but only part of the wider erosion of individual responsibility. And the operators will find a way to use it to their advantage.

Society is slowly imploding due to government interference. Everything is being spoilt bit by bit, you can't smoke unless you are at home or in a designated area (though thats one I have no issue with), gamble without intrutions into your finances etc. Food has sugar tax on it (has that made people healthier, I doubt it). You can't buy more that 2 packets of paracetamol in one visit yet you can buy 10 bottles of whisky and drink yourself to death. Cash is slowly disappearing so the government can track where your every penny goes. I'm glad I've lived through the best of times the 70's (although it didnt seem like it at the time), 80's (best decade ever for me) and half way through the 90's as I'd hate to be growing up now in this miserable fun less world. Rant over...

infantilisation and suicidal empathy. not a great combo! the most depressing part is that there is absolutely no prospect of it slowing down. gimmicks like number 10 north from an installed prime minister being lapped up by the chattering classes. as long as people feel good about themselves, substance is irrelevant.

Kim Jong rule…..

Bookmakers are definitely carrying out "soft" credit searches for affordabilty without the permission of the person to who the search relates.

I  have never had a credit card and and have a good  ( from what I can gather ) rating, the strange thing was the bank says to improve your credit rating get a credit card.

I am sure it is only my credit rating that has stopped me getting asked for any documents.

There's no such thing as a credit rating / score that is formal. These are made up by CRAs to sell subscriptions and gain commission from affiliates.

What counts is your credit report. It will have variables such as secured and unsecured debt, payment history, defaults, CCJs, bank current accounts, credit availability, hard searches et al.

Lenders will use their own criteria / algorithms to determine whether you are a suitable for them as a customer (upon a hard application, energy switches etc).

It's only a part of your financial jigsaw, and pretty useless in determining affordability for betting, imho.

Yes, getting a credit card and paying it off will help in a limited way, as it helps to demonstrate a customer is reliable, pays on time etc. Most adults will have built up a history though, it's only really significant for foreigners and people moving into adulthood.

365 did exactly the same to me. well over a year ago. without my permission, after which they auto increased me deposit limit by 200 a month.

couldn't believe their audacity. I didn't request any increases. this was for an account that bet mostly in fivers.

the Email I got from them regarding this was dressed up like it was good news or something. I responded telling them exactly where to go with their account and haven't used them since. never will either

not bothered about the unauthorised credit check, its the sneaky mind games. no thank you.

their AI systems could very easily spot problem gamblers now, if they really wanted too, but they only really care about being seen to care.

Anyone with a live Bet365 account is a problem gambler. They have a real problem finding any winners. Bet365 wouldn't exist without probkem gamblers.

cider I totally agree with what you say - but on this issue, what I meant is that if they revert to only using soft credit searching, instead of invasive requests for detailed documents (e.g. bank statements, pay slips etc) then I would still prefer it to be limited to a soft credit search.

If that can appease all this AC rubbish, then so be it IMO. Better the devil you can deal with essentially - a soft credit search wouldn't really bother me too much, many don't even realise it has happened.

I agree with wider points about control, in general in society, but let's make a deal we could deal with essentially if it's possible. This is still a less problematic end solution, in comparison to the earlier ideas of ACs we've all mooted as possible. Still not ideal, but more ideal than other options could be.

This is the salami slicing technique. Like locking down for three weeks. Not that we will be able to do anything about it, but recognising the approach is necessary.

Surely the key word here is "credit". If you are depositing an amount to bet with, that is not credit, so there should be no need to check anything.
Obviously this is about affordability. And therein lies the problem. The purpose of "soft credit checks" should only ever be about advancing credit, and any other purpose should outlawed.

@steerforth

Devil's Advocate time.  Could you not argue that if a punter is defaulting on his loan repayments, then his gambling deposits are not 'affordable'?

I personally don't have any big issue with some soft searches against my credit - as long as that is it. If it escalates again then I agree that is a problem.

But potentially using this form of AC could stop that happening.

Insurance and utilities are credit. Utilities are billed in arrears and most (not all) people like to pay for insurance monthly. Or at least, that's always included in the quote.

longbridge, I'd like to see how that is applied in practice. How many defaults, how old. Defaults show on the report for six years, after that time has passed, they drop off even if they aren't satisfied. Bankruptcy is discharged after a year. IVAs 5 or 6 years.

Many, many people get missed payments and defaults as they are dumb. Not potless. Change address, change bank accounts, don't open emails or snail mail.

There's a very very weak correlation I'd say, and most people n benefits aren't stacked with loans and credit card agreements. And that's your highest risk group I'd say. People spending money intended for rent and supporting kids being used for bingo, lottery and casino.

Don't include bingo and lottery, we have been clearly told that those pursuits are warm, fuzzy and completely harmless.

If you had to do anything, I would link it to people on benefits except for SP. And they are throttled at bookmakers and platforms by default.

That's why all utilities use CRAs though (as well as identity). Otherwise it's a prepayment meter.

For me it's the same story as the government. Nobody operates in what one might call the 'real world'.

Wonder if they carry out Credit Checks on the Casino Top players ?

Is there any thread you never turn into a political opinion cider? Btw there appears to be a difference between your "Real Word" and the actual real world e.g You stated that someone receiving a small personal pension would not qualify for Pension Credit and therefore not qualify for Housing Benefit, do you stand by those comments? Merely asking as you seem to be of the opinion that your word is gospel whenever you turn a thread into a politics platform for yourself.

So is it not prudent to challenge the gospel according to you, seems it might be as you don't seem keen to answer the question?

You can do whatever you want. Seems to me you are the person with the grievance. Your opinion is that ACs are not political, you're entitled to hold that, no matter how bizarre it seems to be.

I have not said anything of the kind cider so don't try and twist my input, it appears that your ego is more important to you than actual facts which is all I have challenged, it happens on a forum or democracy in general?

Right. So you're accusing me of turning this thread into a political opinion. But now seem to agree that ACs are political, which is what I have been commenting about. It's not easy, but now you have completely lost me.

Losing you would not be difficult cider, you state stuff as fact when it is far from such just as you now state that I agree, I may or may not but I would not make such an opinion on a thread where it was not required!!

Perhaps someone else will be able to translate your posts for me then. As it is beyond me today.

Just to keep it on track, I think I can partly agree with both of you.

I think Cagliari means that cider is making a wider political point, not just about ACs, credit checks.

Though I also agree ACs are a political issue, as cider says, but maybe we need to keep discussion to the main focus here of ACs and related credit checks for gambling.

It is part of the wider picture, stu. As I've posted previously, the erosion of personal responsibility. I've commented on the specifics of using credit reports as part of ACs, the likelihood it's just the start, and the macro reasons ie ideology that are driving them. It's all relevant, however I'm not demanding that people agree with me. It won't prevent me posting my thoughts :)

It's just that starting to debate far wider issues moves us away from the specifics of ACs and credit checks linked to gambling is all.

I really do think it's important to observe that these are established psychological techniques. If you take the grand national for example, very few people in the sport would have agreed to turn the race as it was this year. But if they chip away, year by year, people are much more malleable.

To take the analogy further, the original BB drop could have been discussed specifically, and it would be pretty easy to get them to agree it should be safer for horses and jockeys. Less so, the completely hollowed out race as it is now. Yes I am 'guilty' of looking at the wider picture as well as the specifics at hand, rightly or wrongly. Which is obviously why, for example, I was always hugely against lockdowns. As I recognised the manipulation at play, and the end goal.

But, as you said cider, there's very little we can do to stop the concept of ACs, so it becomes moot discussing these wider theories.

More interesting is whether they might morph into forms such as soft credit checking instead.

This is true, but if I have irritated CagliariG, we can take the positives out of it.

I enjoy vocalising my thoughts via the written word. And not bothered if people don't agree. I suspect that is self evident by now

I feel like we should hold the line personally. And not agree the, for example, soft checks are the least worst option. We should not deviate from the fact that the government has no business influencing what I choose to spend my own money on. And if we end up going down that dark path, they should be consistent and apply it to all discretionary spending.

If it ever gets us anywhere to oppose these 'lighter touch' forms of credit checking, then yes, I'd agree.

I'm not convinced however that will ever be true (not in our lives anyway). Sometimes in negotiations about things like this, I think you have to consider the 'compromises' in solutions.

The first types of ACs that were described were utterly appalling in comparison to a soft credit search - that's a comparison I'm interested in considering as we move formwards.

Totally agree their gambling protection claims are rubbish, for those issues above, yes.

Those car lottery things are becoming ubiquitous as well. I saw one this week with two pretty girls selling tickets for two new cars and a £m+ property. They are shameless really. Like who is betting on this shyte. Not BBC Guardian types, I would hypothesise.

yep, win a car, win a house, do a quiz question and win 10k, etc etc...all filth.

...and Bingo 'social' sites...pass the sick bucket!

Aug 2, 2026 -- 4:39PM, stu wrote:

yep, win a car, win a house, do a quiz question and win 10k, etc etc...all filth.

I subscribe to a yt channel called Salvage Rebuilds UK. Really good lads, hard workers, great channel. Every now and again they repair desirable vehicles and raffle them instead of selling them. They did an M4 Comp. I followed it through as I like the channel. £10 a ticket, limited to 10K tickets. Purchase of tickets was unlimited, I'm fairly sure they sold out. They recently done a camper van where there was no limit to the number of tickets sold.

Yes, Select committees have very little power. They can make things awkward for government, CS and quangos, but not change laws or policy. On many occasions it's another virtue signalling opportunity for the likes of bitter cricketers and martin lewis. Many people may have seen the liaison committee in Boris Johnson's time, that's the chair of each individual select committee. I suppose the only one with moderate power will be dishing out Farage's punishment.

If you're ever bored, look up Mike Ashley's appearance in front of the Business, Innovation, and Skills select committee :) People being schooled, and it wasn't MA...

If it's your money then how you spend it should be nobody's business. I don't see how a good credit rating automatically means you should be clear to bet. Using 'credit' for gambling is not a good idea. If you are on benefits of any kind to help keep you afloat then you should be banned from all gambling sites. I'm sure that would be fairly possible to implement. Cash is a different proposition, that's why benefits shouldn't be paid in cash.

This whole thing is so out of control just isn't blind leading the blind it is stupid racing is the only loser apart from Joe Public and losses from taxes etc where are our political leaders does Nandy not get the gig this seems to be done on the sly randomly soft checks or not it is a check what happened to uman rites and consent.

Flutter left the LSE they knew but does anybody else nothing left soon.

What does the Flutter listing have to do with this?