'It's made me frustrated and angry - I've been taking it to bed and not sleeping properly'

The first four finishers in Cheltenham's opening race on Trials day had just left a paddock in which Jonjo O'Neill Jr, dressed in the striped silks of JP McManus, spoke positively about the courageous Comfort Zone, initially to Sir Anthony McCoy and then to the waiting media. It was all interesting, important stuff, but towards the foot of the steppings, one of those surveying the scene, a man with a deep well of love for the sport, was waiting and hoping his own voice might be heard.

He called out as a few of us made our way up the central staircase on which photographers capture the moment when jubilant jockeys, owners, trainers and grooms enter that most hallowed of winner's enclosures. 

The racegoer with the story had been reading about affordability checks in the Racing Post and wanted to say he, too, had been one of those affected. He wanted to say what had happened, why it mattered and how it made him feel. 

As soon as he started talking, his words filled with emotion, those feelings became abundantly clear.

Mick Smith's story was told in precis form there and then. Now he has time to tell it in full, taking his mind back to New Year's Day, when it all began.

"I've had an account with bet365 for a number of years and enjoyed the services they provide," says Smith, a 61-year-old full-time driving instructor based in Ibstock, near Leicester. He had around £1,200 in the account. It was his money, but bet365 wanted to know about the money he had elsewhere. They explained in an email that they needed to establish the source of his gambling funds and whether the sums he was spending on betting were "affordable and sustainable". They explained documentation would be required and that the necessary conversation would be of "a personal nature". 

Smith knew what it all meant. He also knew how he wanted to react.

Mick Smith, pictured with granddaughter Elsie, during a visit to Cheltenham

"I'm not giving any personal details to you or any other betting company," he responded on January 3, adding for good measure: "It is personal for a reason." 

On January 4, Smith made clear his wish for the account to be closed and all funds within it returned to him. This prompted a bet365 employee to write: "We truly appreciate how this process is making you feel. This is, however, a direction the industry as a whole is going, we need to understand more and more in regards to our customers and their funding. Effectively the same way it would be to open a bank account.

"This means that at times we need to ask you for your assistance to be able to confirm your identity and show that you have sufficient funds to support your gambling activity."

Perfectly fairly, Smith pointed out banks do not keep customers' money when accounts are terminated. Thereafter, the exchanges continued, with a different member of "the bet365 team" telling Smith on January 25 that a management review had resulted in the decision to close his account, a move Smith had himself asked for 21 days earlier. Moreover, Smith was advised: "With regards to your account balance, this will remain in your account until our management team have completed a further review. In order to assist with this review, please reply to this email attaching the documentation that we have previously requested."

Smith once again asked for his money to be returned. On February 1, three days after our Cheltenham meeting, another bet365 representative presented company policy in a different way and said documentation was only essential in instances where the customer wished to retain the account. He added that an unsuccessful attempt had been made to transfer funds on January 27.

It has been a saga – and it has taken its toll.

"This ruined my afternoon at Cheltenham," says Smith.

"What has been going on has made me frustrated and angry. I've been taking it to bed and it has prevented me from sleeping properly because I don't like conflict or confrontation. I never have.

"It wouldn't matter if it was £5, £500 or £5,000 that I was owed. It's not just about the money, it's also the aggravation this has all caused. I felt like I was being slaughtered for something that wasn't my fault. I felt their refusal to give me back my money was like some sort of punishment."

For Smith, and for so many others, the misery all started from his belief that no bookmaker has a right to see bank statements, payslips or tax returns.

"It's information that is personal to me," he says. "I would only want to share that sort of information with someone I trusted. I used to hand out people's wages and could see the lads in groups, talking about how much they had been paid. I could never do that. What I earn is personal to me. It's not something I disclose to anybody, not even family.

"Bet365 repeatedly asked me for the information – and I mean repeatedly. I started to get angry because it was obvious I wasn't getting through to them. I doubt anyone in bet365's management is going to show me the sort of personal information they wanted me to hand over."

Mick Smith and daughter Katie share a deep love of racing

Smith is also insistent there was no need for him to share the material, a position strengthened by the minister responsible for gambling, Paul Scully, stating unequivocally last month that neither government nor the Gambling Commission has the right to tell individuals how much they should be allowed to spend on betting. In a single sentence, the justification for affordability checks – instigated by bookmakers fearful of being fined by the Gambling Commission – was exploded, yet against a backdrop of silence from the regulator, bookmakers continue to demand personal information from customers like Smith. Not surprisingly, punters feel affronted.

"I'm 61 years old and started to love racing over 50 years ago because of grandparents who lived across the road," says Smith. "They had a bet every Saturday and then watched the racing on Grandstand and World of Sport. I did little jobs for them in the morning and, in return, they would give me 20 pence that I would use to have five pence on four horses. 

"I sometimes went racing with them and then started taking my daughter Katie when she was a young girl. When we were getting towards her 21st birthday, I asked if she wanted a party. Her answer to me was: 'Dad, I don't do birthdays. I do Cheltenham Festivals.' She has had a Cheltenham membership ever since until now, and the only reason she stopped it is she has two young children and doesn't have the time."

Smith loves racing but also betting on racing. He is good at it as well, once winning £3,000 having staked a £2,000 6-4 bet about Master Minded winning the 2009 Champion Chase the day after he captured the race for the first time in 2008.

Mick Smith backed Master Minded for the 2009 Champion Chase the day after the horse's success in the 2008 raceCredit: Edward Whitaker

Asked what he would turn over in a normal year, he pauses and then produces a small laugh.

"It would be close to £100,000, and in most years I make a profit," he says.

"At the beginning of 2021, I wanted a new kitchen and figured it would cost about £6,000. I told a mate I was going to try to make a profit of £3,000 during the Flat season to pay for half of it. That gave me a focus. In the end, the kitchen cost me £9,000 and I only had to put around £600 of non-betting money towards it."

Smith adds: "I have had two bank accounts for years. One is for paying all my bills, the other I use for my betting money. I know all the time how much I'm gambling and I keep records. 

"I understand bookmakers now have to do affordability checks, but they are targeting the wrong people."

Judged on the number of emails received by the Racing Post, there are many of those people.

One is Danny, a betting shop punter from Cornwall who asked for his surname not to be used, partly to protect his identity but also because he is friendly with the staff in the shop where he was told late last year his bets would no longer be accepted. A subsequent email exchange led to him submitting affordability check documentation. Although a winning punter, he was instructed not to use any of the bookmaker's shops.

"The crux of it for me is bookmakers are deciding what you can and can't afford – plus the email I received made out I have a gambling problem, which I don't," says Danny. 

There are, of course, people who do, but another anonymous contributor to this article is one who does not. 

The volume of his betting expenditure meant affordability checks were an inevitability, to such an extent he volunteered the financial information himself, fearful of hitting the affordability threshold in March and being stopped from punting during the Cheltenham Festival. Although an acceptable outcome was eventually reached, the process took longer than he believed it should, while, disturbingly, at one point in the process his records were confused with those of a different customer. 

A fear of hitting an affordability checks block caused one punter to take early actionCredit: Edward Whitaker

"Mistakes do happen, but when you are supplying your bank details, that sort of mistake makes you nervous," he says. "The necessity to prove his economic wellbeing makes him angry.

"Nobody could accuse me of being out of control in terms of losses or betting on lots of different things," he says.

"I do bet quite a lot on racing but it's in a very focused and consistent pattern. Apart from the fact my stakes have got a bit bigger over the years, the pattern hasn't changed. There was nothing in my account history or wider credit record that would have suggested distress, but I still felt as though I had defaulted on my credit card bill six weeks running. I felt as though I was being treated like an addict.

"I told one bookmaker I've had more grief in my head about this topic than any losing run I've ever gone through. It's intrusive, impersonal and doesn't seem to apply the law of common sense. It certainly doesn't apply the law of a person being innocent until proven guilty."

The reader, also a racehorse owner, adds: "That sense of intrusion is the main thing for me. It's a free world and I should be allowed to do what I want to do within reason. When I wrote a cheque to buy a yearling, nobody stopped to ask me if I was sure that was a good idea. What they are doing with affordability checks is akin to telling everyone in the pub they have to leave and then informing them they need to wait two weeks before being told if they can come back to the pub for a drink. It's ridiculous.

"If somebody's betting is quite clearly hobby-related and consistent with everything they have done in the past, it seems to me unreasonable to start off by treating that person like a criminal. I also don't think that's what the Gambling Commission wants."

Equally perplexed was Richard Gurney, a racing devotee and owner with numerous claims to fame, having been blessed by the late Desmond Tutu as a child and then, as an adult, assembled a collection of racing personalities to sing a song he wrote entitled 'Cheltenham' to the tune of Petula Clark's hit single Downtown. The revamped 2010 version reached number 12 in the Irish charts and made it into the UK's top 150, in the process contributing to Gurney-led efforts that over a number of years raised more than £1 million for charity.

Richard Gurney (right), pictured after sending out Valley Henry to win at Tweseldown in 2007

"I've been gambling on horses all my life," says Gurney, a former permit holder and trainer of more than 50 point-to-point winners. 

"I have had phenomenal years, when I wouldn't have needed to work that year because I won so much, and dreadful years, when I've had to work twice as hard. The reason I do it is because racing is more fun for me if I've had a bet. I also think that in return for all the money I've put into racing as an owner, I occasionally get a slight edge if I know my horse has been working really well at home and is running in a race where all the conditions are in his favour."

Gurney used to do his betting with Betfair. That changed in October when he discovered his account had been frozen. It was then closed at Gurney's behest when he refused to submit bank statements and tax returns. 

"I don't see why, at the age of 55, I should accept some guy on the phone suggesting I might have a gambling problem when I know I'm totally in control," says Gurney. 

"It made me feel that there was something wrong with me. I know I'm becoming a bit of a dinosaur but I think we have enough of a nanny state already without me giving Betfair what would amount to all my personal financial information, details of what I earned and when I earned it, plus all the other transactions. I'm afraid that's just a step too far. It's the sort of information that has nothing to do with them.

"As someone who, I suspect, was in the top ten per cent bracket of Betfair customers, I was also surprised I didn't get a call from anyone with any real authority explaining why this was happening or expressing any real desire to keep me. All I had was the guy who said to me, in effect, 'produce your documents or you're gone'."

Affordability checks are causing misery to punters and racing fansCredit: Alan Crowhurst

Gurney does not regret his decision but he already misses using the betting exchange

"Betfair was a big part of my life and I feel like I've left an institution for which I felt fondness," he says, emphasising he is not simply sorry for himself but also anxious for the sport.

He explains: "The thing that worries me more than anything is bookmakers in general could use all this as an excuse to reduce their support to racing, arguing they have been battered as a result of customers leaving. The instant I put the phone down following the conversation with the guy from Betfair, I thought: 'Oh my God. If they are doing this with everybody, a big problem is coming racing's way.' 

"Another reason I say that is I've always felt one upside of betting is that on those occasions when you lose your shirt at the races, you can go home knowing your bets have supported the sport."

That is not the case when betting with black market bookmakers. Smith knows that and feels guilty he may reluctantly consider the unlicensed avenue, having also been asked to forward documents by Betfred, who suggested that records relating to income, savings or even a divorce settlement would be deemed acceptable.

"I love horses, as you could see from all the photos we have around the house, but I enjoy betting as well," says Smith.

"I have been very stressed over what has been happening. It has made me emotional. In future, I'll probably only bet when I go to the races, although I might do what others have done and look to places where they don't want personal information. I know that's not right, but you feel like you're being forced to do it if you want to carry on betting."

For Smith and the sport he adores, that is a reason to feel real sadness.

*The Racing Post contacted Bet365 and Betfair in relation to the cases of Smith and Gurney. Bet365 and Betfair declined to comment.

Read more on affordability checks:

'Terrifying and ridiculous' - jumps icon Nicky Henderson condemns affordability checks 

Owner who raised £1m with Cheltenham song barred from betting on racing 

Highclere boss: British racing could be 'ripped to pieces' by intrusive affordability checks 

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.