Here's My Gambling Review

A recap of what the Gambling Commission is here for.

To keep crime out of gambling, to ensure that gambling is conducted fairly and openly, and to protect children and vulnerable people.

What they have done is to invite the fox into the chicken coop except, in this case, the fox is free to roam around before deciding what to take.

Bookmakers have been told they need to make checks when a customer’s betting hits a certain threshold. That sounds sensible until you realise the criteria or even guidelines placed on the bookmakers.

Who makes the decisions on what that threshold is? Who decides what information is required? Who decides how long the process can take for each client? Who keeps the money if they decide you can’t afford your betting or haven’t provided satisfactory information? Yes, the bookmakers.

I made a profit on my betting this year, yet that’s not enough to satisfy William Hill that I can afford it nor is it an acceptable demonstration of where the money’s coming from, even though they monitor my business and I’ve been trading with them for years.

My savings bank statement and a decent amount of winning money held by them wasn’t enough. A request came back for three months’ worth of bank statements.

This is totally inappropriate on so many levels. From my perspective it’s because they are using KYC (Know Your Customer) to block me from collecting money or placing bets. To those who say bookmakers aren’t a charity, I absolutely agree, but we entered into a contract, the bets won, and they should settle up.

They have rules in place to protect them from those nuisance punters if I understand this wonderfully worded sentence correctly. Under banning orders, they are allowed to refuse entry to a shop

‘Where we believe that an individual’s betting activity is adversely affecting our ability to manage our liabilities effectively’.

I digress. Back to the three months’ worth of bank statements. This is a bookmaker being told they need to act responsibly yet being allowed to choose what information they ask for.

Why do I liken it to the fox in the coop? Because it exposes vulnerable people even more. It might work at weeding out some dubious players as there’s no doubt some money from customers can’t legitimately be accounted for but where does that money go now? My guess is it completely disappears off the radar.

Many people won’t be prepared to or be able to provide three months’ worth of bank statements but it’s also concerning for those who do. The nature of the business means that a losing client is worth far more than a winning one, so think about what they are asking us to provide. Proof of funds. If I’m a losing customer who has provided evidence of funds, I’m now a losing customer with lots of money and can be marketed accordingly. I am providing them with virtually all my lifestyle details. The reason the Gambling Commission asked operators to carry out these checks? I’d say because they didn’t trust them to look after their clients properly.

Allowing bookmakers to demand all your transactions over a sustained period doesn’t strike me as fulfilling the Gambling Commission’s remit. I’m about to provide my three months’ statements and William Hill has done nothing to answer any of my queries.

Perhaps I should be kinder to the Gambling Commission and cut them some slack. Protection is the intention but, as so often, consequences can turn out somewhat differently.

Meanwhile, the bookmakers can be outraged. The Gambling Commission placed stringent requirements without putting flesh on the bones but if William Hill, for example, would be transparent with me about why the information I provide isn’t adequate, provided profit and loss figures when requested or even released evidence of the number of cases they are involved with, I could start to understand or have some sympathy with their situation.

The gambling review will be complete any year now. Most pressing for me is that the responsibility for filing customer information is removed from the bookmakers completely. Allow them access to a database which tells them the staking level a customer has opted for or can afford. Smaller stakes clients can be kept out of the loop as there’s no need to chop away until there’s nothing left.

An Ombudsman with teeth would help. There are limited routes I can take to persuade William Hill to release my winnings and a legal battle with their specialist solicitors holds little appeal. The Gambling Commission won’t deal with customer complaints and experiences with IBAS, the independent arbitrator funded by licensed operators, have been incredibly dismissive.

There has also been a tendency for bookmakers to bend their own rules, something I will report on in due course, but all the more reason to have a truly independent Ombudsman, just don’t hold your breath.