How losing punters are using bookmakers' fears of the Gambling Commission to hold them to ransom

As countless letters to the Racing Post have shown, punters are angry about affordability checks. The checks are wrong in principle and are causing carnage in practice. The scale of the damage is even greater than we realised.

In this column last week, we heard from Martin Purbrick, chair of the Asian Racing Federation's Council on Anti-Illegal Betting and Related Financial Crime. Purbrick is an expert on the subject of black-market gambling. He could hardly have made it clearer that he believes the Gambling Commission is much less of an expert.

"The UK seems to be singularly unprepared for the continually increasing impact of online illegal betting, evidenced from the lack of understanding by the gambling regulator of illegal betting markets." That was Purbrick's assessment. 

Words were also not minced on Thursday, when BHA chief regulatory officer Brant Dunshea warned of the integrity dangers posed by punters switching to underground operators. "I think this highlights an incredible threat to racing and sport," said Dunshea. One hopes the Gambling Commission and government took notice.

Purbrick and Dunshea have highlighted why the industry regulator should take the issue more seriously. A perfect case study is a punter called Mike who has already moved to the dark side.

Brant Dunshea highlighted the grave problems associated with punters moving to the black marketCredit: Ifha

"Every online account I had became heavily restricted, so for some time I used only a betting exchange," says Mike. "That was until about six months ago when, out of the blue, I was informed they were imposing a maximum monthly deposit limit of £100. I was advised if I sent in my financial papers they may consider raising the limit. I told them to close my account immediately.

"Affordability checks are hitting the vast majority of online punters I know. There are people who have used the exchanges on a daily basis for over 15 years but have now either given up punting or moved offshore. Like me, not one of these punters is willing to hand over personal financial documents to any bookmaker and nor should they."

Mike adds: "I read that only three per cent of punters will be affected by the enhanced level of 'frictionless checks'. Where do they get three per cent from? The vast majority of punters I talk to have been asked for their financial papers in order to continue betting – and that's before anything has been set into law. How on earth has this been allowed to happen?"

The answer to that question has more layers than might immediately be obvious.

Gambling Commission chief executive Andrew Rhodes told MPs this month it was inaccurate to say bookmakers are "terrified" of the regulator. He also claimed that when bookmakers ask a punter to share personal financial information, it is a "commercial decision". If there was logic in that analysis, it is hard to find. 

Bookmakers are terrified (any number of synonyms would also work) of incurring huge Gambling Commission-imposed fines and similarly fearful of the potential Armageddon outcome that is licence withdrawal.

Eyebrows were raised when Andrew Rhodes claimed bookmakers are not terrified of the Gambling Commission

Some punters believe bookmakers have, on occasions, deployed checks as a way of freeing themselves of a profitable customer. If true, that would be a cynical approach. Bookmakers, however, are equally adamant some punters are exploiting checks with comparable cynicism. They are doing that by demanding their money back. 

Consider this as a hypothetical example. A person loses £1,000 in a single day. That person then contacts the bookmaker and argues that at no point did the organisation ask them to participate in any affordability checks. The punter claims the bookmaker failed to put protective measures in place and, as a result, they threaten to lodge a formal complaint with the Gambling Commission. The bookmaker might have reason to believe the same punter won £5,000 from another layer the same day but, anxious about how the regulator might react, a decision is taken to refund the punter.

Bookmakers that have been rigorous in seeking evidence of a punter's funds have felt able to resist that pressure. However, a number of independent firms have been hit hard and paid back considerable sums of money. In some cases, the aggrieved customer might have had a genuine complaint. In other cases, that would not have been true. 

Indeed, there are now forums – similar to those that exist around matched betting – in which members alert each other when it becomes obvious a particular bookmaker is vulnerable, at which point they swoop. It is a rotten practice that has been made possible only by affordability checks.

Racing Post reader Mike has spoken of his own decision to take his business to the black market

For those honest punters who would never consider such behaviour but believe that neither bookmakers nor the state have the right to tell them how they can or cannot spend their own money, the black market is waiting with arms wide open.

"It feels like online punting for the average UK punter is now in managed decline," says Mike, who reports that even his local high-street bookmaker is carrying out checks.

"When the Gambling Commission says the black market isn't a realistic threat, they are talking utter nonsense. I know lots of punters who now use the black market. 

"I was introduced to one particular Curacao-licensed bookie by a friend. Quite frankly, this company is a breath of fresh air. Big stakes on horses are allowed, there are no affordability checks and the customer service by email is great. I was shocked how good it is.

"What this now means is there will be no levy coming into racing from my betting. That is not what I wanted, but I had no choice."

It is not what anyone should want. The government and Gambling Commission have it within their power to make things better.

• To complete the Gambling Commission's consultation on affordability checks, visit racingpost.com/consultation and follow the instructions.

• The Racing Post also wants to hear from you: What has been your experience of affordability checks since the white paper was published at the end of April, and what do you think of the government's proposals? Have affordability checks affected your betting behaviour?

• It's a chance for your voice to be heard. Email the Racing Post at editor@racingpost.com with the subject 'Affordability checks' to share your experiences, your thoughts about the government's proposals, and your contact details.

Read more on the Gambling Review here:

'Many will have their joy of following racing changed forever' - readers' views on affordability checks 

Bookmakers say affordability checks 'almost certain to be applied in shops' despite Gambling Commission assurances 

'We're going to be hammered by this' - syndicate founder Hughes to halve string with owners hit by affordability checks 

'I've been betting for more than 40 years but people like me are just going to disappear' 

'I sent my tax calculation, savings account and valuation of stocks and shares - and it did me no good whatsoever' 

The Front Runner is our unmissable email newsletter available exclusively to Members' Club Ultimate subscribers. Chris Cook, a four-time Racing Reporter of the Year award winner, provides his take on the day's biggest stories and tips for the upcoming racing every morning from Monday to Friday. Not a Members' Club Ultimate subscriber? Click here to join today and also receive our Ultimate Daily emails plus our full range of fantastic website and newspaper content.