Bookmakers Hide Behind Know Your Customer Requirements

Bookmakers go through countless checks to verify their customers can afford to bet with them and that the source of funds is reputable.

Is this the fault of a Gambling Commission doing untold damage to the industry?

There’s evidence that they are placing onerous requirements on the bookmakers to check the source of funds and the guidelines they’ve provided have been flimsy, but there’s another story here.

I read a regular supply of complaints from punters who have been required to produce copious amounts of evidence that they can afford to bet with bookmakers even when that evidence demonstrates clearly that they have the funds.

What is being ignored is what the bookmakers are up to. Nearly all the stories I read and am told about have a common theme. Bookmakers keep asking for evidence of funds, but which group of punters are we hearing this from? Mainly the punters who are responsible, bet within their means and, dare I say it, don’t lose enough money for their accounts to be viable for the bookmakers.

Story after story surfaces when it’s come time for the pay out. Suddenly that KYC becomes so crucial when before it wasn’t such an issue. There’s the punter who had £6k on a 1/6 shot. William Hill took the bet, yet when he went to get paid, they couldn’t do that because they needed to see source of funds. Yes, they’d take a six grand bet but wouldn’t return him his money with a £1000 profit.

There was a report in the Racing Post about a client who provided all his details and was then restricted on an affordability basis. Reading to the end it transpired that this customer estimated he was making money from the bookmaker. That could be the real reason why he was restricted.

On a personal level I have waited nine months, and am still waiting, to be paid thousands of pounds by William Hill (again). I have provided savings accounts, banks statements and even explained via email (‘cos you can’t talk to them) that certain larger bets were placed to hedge against my potential winnings.

Not once have they provided proper support or interest in resolving my case. The customer service mantra of ‘we’re here to help’ doesn’t apply to me. They can make up their own threshold of when my betting has hit a particular limit, they can ask for reams of irrelevant information, not answer any of my questions and not bother replying to my emails.

Why could that be? Maybe it’s got something to do with the fact they owe me lots of money and they don’t like paying out.

Here is why I object to their strategy.

They are in the business of making money. My bets don’t do anything to help their bottom line. I get that.

However, to counter me, they just make ridiculous requests. When I mentioned I had a share portfolio and made pension contributions they immediately replied asking to see details of my share portfolio and pensions, having already garnered my bank account and savings details.

Instead of blatantly attempting to prevent customers from being paid out why not simply honour the contract, acknowledge that you don’t like having to pay out and invoke your rules which are slanted so far in your favour.

I receive emails from William Hill throwing rules at me, in particular Rule 8d which says ‘we reserve the right to require you to provide us with proof of your income or your wealth’. This I have done, but there’s never an explanation of why this isn’t adequate.

Why not just pay out before heading off to rule 4f under refusal of entry to LBO’s – banning orders – ‘where we believe that an individual’s betting activity is adversely affecting our ability to manage our liabilities effectively’. How prosaic!

Here’s the conundrum. Bookmakers don’t want punters who aren’t going to boost their profits. They must be removed, and the introduction of KYC provided the perfect opportunity to hide behind it while culling profitable accounts. Follow the logic through further. How will bookmakers keep their profits up? By preying on the most vulnerable punters, the ones who lose the most, the ones who don’t know what they’re doing, the ones who get lost in the occasion. KYC enables that. Bookmakers now hold more and more information about their customers than ever before. Imagine I’m a losing punter but can demonstrate funds of £1 million. Thank you very much for letting us know.

Here is my theory. The Gambling Commission has waited an age for the Government to produce something meaningful. Meanwhile they see bookmakers feasting on the carcasses of losing punters and nothing being done to stop them, so they decide to go it alone. Trouble is the market is so massive now that they can’t control what’s happening and betting companies take liberties whilst all the time complaining about the nasty Gambling Commission.

William Hill not paying me is a deliberate ploy on their part. If I’m wrong, then they must rank as one of the worst companies in the world, so which is it? Maybe both.