Bookmakers and affordability checks

del roy

'It's absolutely ludicrous' - punters fume over Betfair affordability checks

Betfair: not the first bookmaker reported to be pre-emptively imposing affordability checks

Patrick McCann

Another casual Betfair Exchange punter who spoke to the Racing Post said he was planning to rein back his betting on horseracing, which accounted for 90 per cent of his bets, after he was restricted to depositing no more than £1,500 a month.
In emails shared with the Racing Post, the user is told by Betfair's due diligence department that the restrictions will remain in place unless "a full explanation as to how you are funding your account (eg salary or other income) along with documentation that illustrates this" and "a copy of a bank statement dated within the last three months (name and address must also be clearly visible)" are provided, which the user has refused to do due to the nature of his full-time job.
Having informed Betfair that the deposits being made were from previous winnings and providing details of the account used on the exchange, the customer was then told he would need to show bank statements going back many months to prove that was the case.

An email from a senior Betfair employee to the user said: "I acknowledge that your account is in a profitable position over a longer term period, but in order to revert to your previous limits, we would need to gain comfort that your recent activity was funded by your previous winnings or that you have access to sufficient income/funds that would support a higher limit."
A spokesman for Betfair said: "There are multiple reasons we would ask customers for additional information. As a responsible gambling operator, Betfair has a range of controls in place to protect our customers and to ensure we meet our legal and regulatory obligations.

"We can't comment on individual cases but as part of the controls and processes we have in place to protect our customers and meet our obligations we may require an extra level of information from customers to ensure their activity is appropriate.
"Where we do request this information, customers can be assured we will deal with this information securely, discretely and in as swift a timeframe as possible."

Accounts closed and punters frustrated as affordability checks arrive by stealth
Customer interaction, which closed in Febuary, included a proposal that a monthly net gambling loss of as little as £100 would mean punters would have to prove their income in order to continue to bet.

This has caused huge concern for British racing's leadership, who fear the sport could lose upwards of £60 million a year from lost levy and media rights income if punters are put off by intrusive questions about their finances.

A report by the Daily Telegraph last week claimed the Gambling Commission would not be allowed to act unilaterally on affordability checks, with the findings of its consultation being considered as part of the government's wider gambling review and the likelihood being that affordability checks would be watered down or shelved altogether.

However, in the meantime many punters have reported that bookmakers have already introduced often intrusive affordability checks.
In March, the Horseracing Bettors Forum said it had been contacted by several punters because of checks requested by the Tote, where a low-level trigger of £750 in total deposits appears to have been introduced.
Colin Hord, chairman of the Horseracing Bettors Forum, said: "We've responded to both consultations on affordability checks the Gambling Commission raised and also the Gambling Act review which we included some statements on affordability checks. Both times we've made the case that these checks need to be proportionate and should not be unnecessarily intrusive into people's financial affairs.

"There's a reasonableness that needs to be maintained. With Betfair we also want to ensure that people's previous betting history is taken into account and we've seen that quite a number of bettors have profitable accounts but run into losing runs and their profitability is not being taken into account when undertaking the affordability checks.

"Our concern is the level of intrusiveness and the level of information that's having to be provided."
He added: "The other thing worth raising is what qualification do the people within these bookmaking companies have to make the assessment that these people are or are not to continue gambling? That works both ways, because you can argue they'd be keen to keep people betting but in other respects they're cautious about who they're letting continue and who not."
Entain has also launched checks across all of its 14 brands as part of an initiative designed to identify customers in the UK at the greatest risk of potential financial problems, and to implement staking limits and tighter affordability checks.

Punters have criticised affordability checks placed on them by the Betfair Exchange


1 of 1

By Peter Scargill UPDATED 7:21PM, MAY 10 2021


Betfair punters have hit out at "intrusive" affordability checks claiming the exchange has requested information on where winnings have been spent as well as detailed documentation on income before lifting restrictions placed on accounts.
The level of information required from Betfair has turned some users away from betting, primarily on horseracing. One punter said the extent of the information being sought made the experience more invasive than applying for a mortgage.
Betfair are the latest bookmaker reported to be pre-emptively imposing affordability checks on their customers, despite the fact a controversial recent Gambling Commission consultation on the subject – which attracted a record number of responses – has yet to yield any official regulatory changes.
Lee Keys, a professional punter and Betfair user since 2003, said he received an email from the company "out of the blue" a month ago informing him an affordability restriction had been placed after he had made a number of deposits due to "a bad run".
Keys, who says his net winnings on the exchange are £700,000 and that he has previously been through stringent Know Your Customer checks, said: "With betting on Betfair being my living I reluctantly agreed to give them documentation. They asked for proof of funds – home ownership, land ownership, assets etc, bank statements – and I provided a bank statement and a share statement.
"I told them that across the board I earned £115,000 last year and they then asked where the £115,000 profit had gone, which is when I told them that enough was enough.
"What I didn't like is that they wanted more and that, to me, is a bit sinister. Why didn't they want that in the first place? Why would I provide details of my current and share accounts but then they want to see where the money I made went as well? I'm not having any of that."
He added: "If this is what you have to do to have a bet then how many people are going to go through this? I've been asked less intrusive questions when I've gone for a mortgage and it's absolutely ludicrous."



Read more on affordability:
Good news on affordability checks – but racing won't be left unscathed
Entain launches affordability checks it claims will 'greatly benefit' racing
Conor Grant: Gambling Review is the perfect opportunity to make positive change
New report calls on government to ignore 'paternalistic' gambling proposals
Reviews and affordability the elephants in the room as operators unveil results
Problem gambling rates in decline as significant affordability response revealed

Mysterypunter

I was betting in tenners and scores with William Hill and I got shut down, bookmakers suit themselves, it's not about money laundering or anything like that, they like taking mug money on greyhounds and virtual racing, but the market is ****ed nowadays, none of them will lay a bet, and they are just a cartel

largepants

Mysterypunter wrote: »

I was betting in tenners and scores with William Hill and I got shut down, bookmakers suit themselves, it's not about money laundering or anything like that, they like taking mug money on greyhounds and virtual racing, but the market is ****ed nowadays, none of them will lay a bet, and they are just a cartel

Did a give a reason for shutting you down?


I'm a small gambler and would be betting up to e20 at the very most. My PP account over the past few 4/5 years is in profit (only by about 500/600) and I'm expecting them to tell me to take my custom elsewhere. Should I expect that or do they expect my 'luck' to change?

dmakc

largepants wrote: »

Did a give a reason for shutting you down?


I'm a small gambler and would be betting up to e20 at the very most. My PP account over the past few 4/5 years is in profit (only by about 500/600) and I'm expecting them to tell me to take my custom elsewhere. Should I expect that or do they expect my 'luck' to change?

They will be very patient in waiting for your luck to change

Hulk Hands

largepants wrote: »

Did a give a reason for shutting you down?


I'm a small gambler and would be betting up to e20 at the very most. My PP account over the past few 4/5 years is in profit (only by about 500/600) and I'm expecting them to tell me to take my custom elsewhere. Should I expect that or do they expect my 'luck' to change?

I'd say you could be betting there another 20 years and nobody will notice your account. People seem to think that anyone in profit will get restricted. In reality only a very small percentage get restricted, and they're generally fairly obvious to bookmakers as they certain types of bets, the price generally moves on their bets, and it's usually in size.

If you ever hear of someone bragging about having a single account restricted then you can be safe assuming it happened by accident. They got caught up in some big price move by accident and were restricted through association. It happens through laziness on risk desks. There's a very small percent of smart punters, who will have all their accounts (and those of friends and family etc) restricted in quick enough time. A genuine smart punter will be smart on all accounts and they'll generally won't last long at all. 90%+ of restricted accounts are the few smart punters opening accounts in other people's names. Round and round it goes

Mysterypunter

largepants wrote: »

Did a give a reason for shutting you down?


I'm a small gambler and would be betting up to e20 at the very most. My PP account over the past few 4/5 years is in profit (only by about 500/600) and I'm expecting them to tell me to take my custom elsewhere. Should I expect that or do they expect my 'luck' to change?

Sorry for the late reply, they said I needed to provide additional identification, but when I was shovelling on the coal with 888 sport, I didn't need any identification, same with hills, but to a lesser extent, so I may or may not provide it. It was never mentioned when the account was open, I'm in a small amount of profit, but I thought that's why it's called gambling? It's ups and downs, and it's a leisure pursuit

VelaSupernova

Going to see more and more of this. Serious lobbying for stake limitations and affordability ratios from gambling detractors. Their influences are being noticed.

ComplyOrDie

I haven't been asked to provide proof yet but I'm heavily restricted from the bigger players. For those who want more details you can easily ask for any notes they keep on you
Just ask for a subject access request, they have to provide any info they have on you. Example attached are notes from my old 365 account
I was consistently taking money off them for 5 years before being closed. I'd be a 10-100 quid punter. So I don't buy the argument that they'll close you for winning a few quid, I got a very good run and was allowed to rack up a hearty profit before they restricted me. As far as I'm concerned it's those jumping on wrong price's and trying to rob money that don't last long. If you play a consistent long game they'll let you play

nuckeythompson

Opened a William Hill account yesterday deposit 20 into it.
Placed 2 losing 5.00 bets on Ascot and get my account restricted for all sports betting meaning I can only use casino which I don't use.
Only chance for a punter is going into a shop