Finding A Solution To Betting Checks

Gambling Commission bad, bookmakers good?

Maybe the Gambling Commission realises the level of irresponsible behaviour being exhibited by the bookmakers. Okay, I’ve given a big clue about my views already.

I’ll consider the Gambling Commission and the contents of the White Paper shortly, but the bookies approach should be of concern.

Imagine being owed money and somebody refused to pay you out, but they were allowed to fabricate reasons as to why that was. Welcome to the world of bookmaking.

Ever since the Know Your Customer (KYC) was introduced some bookmakers have been playing fast and loose with the requirements.

How do I know?

Well, at the start they emphasised how they were there to protect their customers. It’s hard to see how holding on to my money ever protected me but it’s been the regular obstructions that confirmed they’ve never had my best interests at heart.

My bets have been monitored by betting companies for a while, most bets require confirmation and a reference number, and I pay by debit card. They know my profit and loss situation and my staking patterns so imagine my surprise when they told me they needed to see a bank account before they could pay me my winnings.

If that was all they required, then life wouldn’t have been too complicated but the regular stalling tactics, excuses for not paying and insinuation that I wasn’t prepared to provide information that helped convince me of nefarious behaviour.

These ‘here to help’ bookmakers don’t respond to any questions. My asking what happened to my winnings if I didn’t provide information or didn’t provide information they deemed acceptable, or if I had the affrontery to die was met with their conclusion that I wasn’t prepared to provide any details.

I have been asked for a bank statement, followed by three months’ worth of bank statements, followed by a request for another three months’ worth, each request delayed by two months by them before responding, despite follow up by me.

I provided one bookmaker with three months of statements, a long-term savings account that would cover my betting several times over, details of a share portfolio, pension and property rental income. At the end of that they needed to see my payslips and a P60 even though I’d already explained I was retired.

Remember this is just to pay me out. If they think I can’t afford it, then payment should be made and a plausible explanation as to why they think I’m in over my head. Clearly there is no plausible explanation so the next concern could be my source of funds.  The documents I provided show assets that have been built up over many years. Pensions can’t easily be funded without explanation but it’s still not good enough for them and when I ask for a phone call back it’s not forthcoming.

Those are some of my challenges and I can see I’m not alone on this. Numerous letters to the Racing Post complain about KYC checks and this is a serious issue for punters.

The letters have much in common.

Mainly from racing fans, the thrust of the argument is that the Gambling Commission are forcing this upon bookmakers who in turn are forcing this upon punters. Quite commonly letters are from people who have been betting for years and don’t appear to be losing much money.

It would be interesting to hear from disgruntled folk who have had financial checks enforced on them when trying to place bets on roulette wheels.

And here’s the rub. Most of the punters writing in are surplus to the bookmakers’ requirements. They aren’t interested in entertaining a serious proportion of the betting public who don’t lose enough money.

When I was finally paid by a particular bookmaker, yes, the one where I made a deal with Satan (is that too obscure?) they told me I was no longer allowed to place bets with them. I knew this was going to happen, the shop staff knew it was going to happen. After nine months and me providing repeated documentation. One day they couldn’t pay me, I filed a complaint and then they could. I didn’t provide any new information that suddenly enabled this to happen. but I guess you draw your own conclusions.

Was it because of the Gambling Commission that I wasn’t allowed to bet with them? No, it was down to the betting company.

Bookmakers don’t want business where the outcome isn’t guaranteed. Take the rugby world cup as an example. Prices shift even before a tournament starts and there is room for opinion whereas with a roulette wheel the odds are fixed. On any one spin the outcome isn’t known but the wheel is ultimately guaranteed to profit. Days of a contest with the bookmaker are gone as it’s now about easier and richer pickings for them. As a minor plug, I run trickbets.com and trickybets on YouTube where people can gain a better understanding of what I am talking about.

Time to turn my attention to the Gambling Commission.

I recently filled in my comments on the government gambling White Paper and it did nothing to lighten the mood. Bookmakers and punters alike should be concerned.

I do have some sympathy with the bookies here.

The odds need to be in their favour, they need to be taking a margin otherwise they can’t exist.

Vulnerable people need to be protected but the proposed solutions threaten to ravage an industry and drive business underground. There needs to be better balance.

Checks of some description must be carried out. Too many checks and the whole process grinds to a halt. Currently, when I visit a bookmaker, I have no idea what requirements they will ask of me. Different shops from the same chain vary wildly with absolutely no consistency.

What are the current thresholds that the bookmakers operate to? Do they even know? Are they being given clear guidelines? There are numerous bookmakers, so somewhere somebody must be adopting a half decent approach to this issue. Find the ones you see as behaving most responsibly and use that as a framework.

The bookmakers shouldn’t be doing endless checks to ensure people can afford to bet yet they now employ a further taskforce for this job and that incurs additional costs.

Find the more conscientious bookmakers, use them as a blueprint and create a centralised database paid for by all the companies currently spending money on this exact task.

This central database can be accessed for a yes or no decision as to whether a punter can place a bet or the level they can trade at and removes bookmaker involvement. No other access should be available to them. They won’t be privy to personal data and the rules will be clearer for punters and bookmakers alike, otherwise it’s like putting the fox in charge of the chickens.

A universal set of betting rules could be useful too.

As a punter I provided reams and reams of information to individual bookmakers. It’s incredibly tedious, repetitive, and stressful at the same time. Paranoia creeps in. I’m assured my data is safe, but the pendulum can swing too far. If companies are overloaded with data requests, how can they be sure of security? Why should they know everything about me? My experience also suggests the whole process can be haphazard.

If I can provide information to just one source there is less chance of data breaches and unwarranted sanctions. I will also be advised properly and know how and why my data is being scrutinised.

The bookmakers can be more confident they are abiding by requirements laid out by the Gambling Commission. The information can be stored independently, so a customer providing bank statements showing where their money goes, what their interests are and whether they have spare cash, can be confident that information is stored for appropriate purposes and not available as a further marketing tool.

This is still quite intrusive. All people are trying to do is have a bet. I suggest the threshold needs raising to a level where you don’t catch too many people in the net and your name doesn’t go on to the database until that threshold is reached.

Based on what I’ve seen in the White Paper all sorts of fantastic checks and balances will be called for. If you lose £150 in a 30-day period, the checks could start. That could be £5 a day. Some people can’t afford that, but I don’t see how you prevent them from losing £100 and then moving on to another bookmaker. That’s always going to be a problem but also points to a cashless society, like it or not. How are bookmakers going to monitor £10 cash inserted into a machine?

You can’t plug all the gaps. Without some the process the options are to let the bookmakers do what they want or ban betting completely. Neither of those extremes will work.

I have no desire to provide my information to anyone, but I’ve already had to do so on several occasions. One central source with a mortgage type affordability check could be the best of a bad job.

This way there’s more certainty for the punter, the bookmakers know the rules by which they must abide, contribute to something they already pay for, and the Gambling Commission holds a semblance of control.