Letters: the Gambling Commission's illogical position must be exposed

As a regular punter and follower of the turf I am appalled by the intrusive checks by some bookmakers into my financial affairs.

I have categorically refused to divulge my HMRC returns, banking documents and pension income to bookmakers, resulting in me closing one account and reducing my racing interest as a result.

I feel the hypocrisy and illogical outpourings of the Gambling Commission need to be exposed for the stupidity of what they are proposing with the following examples to support my position.

This week I renewed my £475 annual York members’ badge. Did anybody ask me if I could afford it? 

Last October I went to Paris for Arc weekend. Was I stopped from getting on Eurostar because I dared to go to an overseas horserace meeting and bet on the PMU? Later in the year Irish Guineas weekend beckons at the Curragh. Will I be allowed to board the aircraft or will my euros be counted by the border authorities?

What does the Gambling Commission know about racing? It is a question for our MPs to ask to bring the commission to account and expose the weakness of its arguments.

Affordability checks will see racing and those employed in the industry suffer and punters denied the thrills of the sport we enjoy.
Mike Ridgway
Ilkley

What about the lottery?

The point that seems not to have been addressed is whether the National Lottery will be subject to the same affordability checks. This would surely be a major blow to online betting (particularly for syndicates) if they were limited to £100 per month and, of course, to a government who would have to plug the gaps that reduced lottery funding would leave.

And what about the adverts that encourage “investment” in stocks and shares? Surely this and other forms of stock market gambling would attract the same treatment. Or is there one law for the rich and another for the rest?
Paul Allen
Kenilworth, Warwickshire

Where does intrusion end?

I have been a follower of racing for 50 years and used to regularly have a bet, some into the thousands.

What I cannot understand is how these checks and any future regulation can be classed as anything other than a breach of an individual’s human rights. How can any ­government in a democracy think that it is right to tell people what and how much they can spend their money on. It may start with gambling, but where will it end?

In the UK, human rights are protected by the Human Rights Act 1998. The Act gives effect to the human rights set out in the European Convention on Human Rights.

I would love to see someone take their case to the European courts if necessary. I’m sure there would be no shortage of funds made available to help bring a case.
Mike Stephens

Service part of the problem

I have a small account with one firm with whom I am currently £1,000 in credit. 

Last October I sought to take my money and close my account. Since that time, regardless of the identification I have produced, they have failed to heed my request to close my account and give me my money.

In order to properly identify me so that my account can be closed I have so far produced copies of the following: debit card; driving licence; a letter from the Department of Work and Pensions advising me of my winter fuel allowance; a bank statement dated within the last 30 days; a recent prescription from my doctor which shows my name, address, date of birth, national insurance and NHS numbers.

All of these were sent in an effort to “identify me satisfactorily”.

I am not seeking to continue to bet with the firm any more. I am a pensioner, aged 81, as all my identification proves. Affordability checks are a major issue, but so is the appalling service that some firms provide.
Christina Newhouse

Still unable to access funds

One firm has been withholding payment to me for nine months. In that time they have requested a bank statement, which took more than two months to review, followed by a request for three months of bank statements plus details of savings accounts which took two months more to review. 

They then again requested three months of bank statements with no explanation as to why they should require to see these again. 

I explained that it seemed pointless sending them information because they would simply request ever more. That didn’t stop them asking for my share portfolio and details on my pension for no good reason.

They are currently holding on to my winnings which is the most curious state of affairs. They have said they plan to pay me, but when I ask about it everything goes quiet again. 

I have produced more than enough evidence of affordability and source of funds, but when I asked them what happens to my money if they, being the judge and jury here, decide not to pay me out, I get no response.

I am aware the Gambling Commission can be making life very difficult for bookmakers, but there comes a point when these firms need to act in a responsible manner themselves. 

I’m sure the Gambling Commission has witnessed some very lax ­protection to punters from bookmakers in the past and this particular firm has made no attempt to assist me at any stage of this affair.

Many of these intrusive checks appear to be carried out on customers who have some idea of what they are doing and so it’s reasonable to ask exactly why a bookmaker would do this.
Richard Farrow

We’re not problem gamblers

I encouraged a longtime friend of mine to join one firm for all their value-for-money bets. 

He’s your typical everyday type of gambler who bets smallish stakes on racing, football and occasionally golf. He’s a retired decent pensioner typical of thousands of so-called gamblers who join these online firms. This he did and over a three-month period he hit three to four reasonable transactions amounting to about £4,000 which he transferred back into his bank account fairly quickly. 

After a couple of losing weeks amounting to £100-plus, his account was suspended, his special offers were withheld and he was limited to £10 per week stakes on no more than a yankee. 

The typical lifetime bettors like him and me are not problem gamblers. We walk past the fruit machines and resist buying £10 scratch cards every time we go in the local convenience store. This, in my eyes, is where the big problems are for people on low incomes.
Francis Moore

Customers in betting shops have also been affected by affordability checksCredit: Edward Whitaker

Treated like a criminal

I had an account with one online firm. They asked me ridiculous, intrusive affordability information which I declined to supply. My account was duly closed.

A week later I entered a shop of the same firm, placed a bet using my debit card, won a little amount and returned to collect. On entering the shop I was addressed by my name! Obviously, they had linked my card to my online account and would not pay me out. 

I contacted Ibas [Independent Betting Adjudication Service] and they helped me collect my winnings after ­pressuring the bookmaker. After this the firm sent me an email stating I was banned from all shops to bet.

I was astounded they could implement this so when I was away from my home town on holiday I thought I would walk into one of their shops to place a bet. On entering, a cashier came up to me and told me my photo had been distributed to all shops and I was not allowed to enter any of their outlets in the UK? I asked for the reason, as I’m not a criminal trying to defraud them, and the cashier told me he had no information about why I was banned!

So it seems I’m not allowed in any of their shops for not backing down and giving them intrusive affordability information. Furthermore, they have distributed my picture as though I am a criminal.
Simon Edwards
Torquay, Devon

Going in wrong direction

The Gambling Commission’s Sarah Gardner (January 13) suggested that  “no regulator should knowingly allow bad practices of the type we are talking about here – practices that can cause harm – to carry on in the regulated market”. Quite.

Therefore, the fact the Gambling Commission is endorsing intrusive ­affordabilty checks by betting operators is wrong.

Data protection is an increasingly important issue in the free world and my guess is that within a generation universal data protection rights will have equal status to human rights, as fundamentally these issues are ­intertwined. 

Billions of dollars have been invested in Web3 and the blockchain technology that underpins it. Why? So that we can control and own our data in the near future.

The Gambling Commission is ­travelling in the wrong direction. It has a knowledge deficit regarding skills-based betting and quite simply it is not fit for purpose in our sector of the market.

Gardner even had the temerity to suggest that there is no evidence of a shift to unregulated operators when of course there is.I think racing collectively has to be far more assertive regarding the failings of the GC to protect our interests, particularly as we have such a strong factual and evidence-based counter narrative.
Jon Adlerstein
Devon

Read more . . .

'It's as grim as anything I can remember' - racecourse chief's gloomy warning over affordability checks 

John Gosden fears affordability checks and black market could 'spell disaster' for racing 

'Illogical and disproportionate intrusion' - owners slam 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.