Punters slam 'intrusive and invasive' affordability checks and threaten to walk away amid requests for P60s and payslips

Click here to add us to your Google preferred sources or find out more here

Punters have spoken out against the threat of "intrusive and invasive" affordability checks, with one suggesting they might force him to give up backing horses.

The Racing Post sought out views on the controversial checks from those in the ring and in betting shops, with the Gambling Commission poised to decide whether or not to press ahead with them after a pilot of what the regulator officially terms financial risk assessments.

The aim is for frictionless checks, but the pilot has shown inconsistent results from credit reference agencies, which bookmakers say means many more punters will still be asked for financial documents in order to keep betting.

There are serious worries that bringing them in will cause many to switch to the black market, depriving racing of a potentially huge amount of its income. More than 400 figures from across the sport sent an open letter to culture secretary Lisa Nandy, asking her to pause their introduction.

The government and Gambling Commission declined to directly answer a number of questions put to them by the Racing Post this week, including whether checks will receive parliamentary scrutiny before they are implemented.

Among those worried by affordability checks is Graham Murray, who says he has "been a punter longer than most of these politicians have been alive".

He is a frequent racegoer and, speaking from a betting shop in Epsom, said: "I hate people digging into my affairs. I don't think it's necessary. No-one forces me to have a bet. I'm reasonably comfortably off, but if what they're trying to do comes in, rather than have that happen to me, I'll pack it in.

"I'm dead against it; it's impinging on people. I wouldn't be happy giving them some of my details anyway. I'm very uncomfortable with it. It wouldn't stop me from going racing, but I just wouldn't bet anymore. I just think it's a liberty. 

"Also, you just don't know, someone could drop a clanger and suddenly all your details are there for anybody to see. Companies get hacked all the time."

He pointed out that no such checks are made on a customer's ability to afford, say, alcohol and said: "I detest people saying, 'Well, we want to make sure, we're going to look after you, we don't want you to fall.' I've been backing horses for most of these people's lives to big sums. But I'm not a habitual punter, I'm quite disciplined."

Redcar: punters gave their views on affordability checksCredit: Pool

Keith Nicholson, who was betting on the racecourse at Redcar, revealed that the threat of affordability checks was changing his punting habits.

He said: "I had an account with Betfred and when they asked to see my latest P60 I thought, 'It's got nothing to do with you.' So I didn't have anything to do with them. 

"I have a couple of other accounts and I've restricted what I put on because I don't want to lose access to online bookmakers.

"There's a betting shop not far from me which I never used to go to, but I've been in once or twice now because of worries about affordability checks.

"They say at a loss of £100 in a month they need to see payslips, but if you buy the Racing Post every day that's more than that and the newsagent doesn't say, 'I'd like to see the deeds to your house.' 

"It's my money and I don't want anyone telling me what I can and can't do. We know there are problem gamblers, but we're all suffering because of it."

Fellow Redcar punter Tony Ford had a similar view and said: "I've been affected by affordability checks. The level of information that's asked for is intrusive and invasive.

"The one time I succumbed to giving anyone any was bet365. I gave them three current payslips with a significant amount of income on them and that wasn't good enough. They wanted tax returns – at which point I said, 'Get lost.'"

Ford believes the checks are being used to disguise a reluctance to take some bets, and said: "I go back to when you want to have £200 on something and you're offered 15p.

"They claim they never close any accounts and what they do now is hide behind affordability checks, asking for more and more information, anything not to take money from people who have a chance of winning."

Other punters' views

Paul Birlie, in the ring at Redcar
I think affordability checks are very intrusive. Your finances and how you choose to spend your money are your own business. You wouldn't ask a drinker in a pub whether they can afford a pint. I'm an ex-accountant and I control what I bet, according to what I can afford to lose. I'm the best judge of that, especially with my background.

Martin Colquhoun, at Redcar
I'd thought it was only for those who stick a huge amount on a horse, but it could be those having only £50 or £60 on. I didn't realise it was at that low a level. If it forces people on to the black market, it will mean there's less money coming back into racing; it will disappear, basically. It's not cheap to train a horse and you don't want that to happen.

Peter Chan, in a betting shop in Epsom
I've always been a gambler and I bet what I can afford to lose. I think what the government is doing is terrible. We're supposed to live in a democracy. What you do with your money is your business, it's none of the government's business. It's like a death knell for the industry.

Read more . . .

'Sleepwalking into a disaster' - government and Gambling Commission decline to answer Racing Post questions on affordability 

Call for 'clear answers' on whether affordability checks work as Gambling Commission defends controversial measure 

Hong Kong Jockey Club chief warns 'ill-measured' British affordability checks are causing pain for other racing jurisdictions   

Sign up to receive On The Nose, our essential daily newsletter, from the Racing Post. Your unmissable morning feed, direct to your email inbox every morning.