The Gambling Commission says we're imbalanced - this is our response

On Tuesday, the Gambling Commission published an open letter to Racing Post readers on its website, accompanied by an introduction accusing this publication of running "imbalanced stories" about its affordability checks consultation, "frequently failing to seek a right of reply from the commission", refusing to run its letter and showing a "blatant lack of balance" in our coverage.

The only uncontentious part of the statement was that we had indeed declined to print the letter.

As I explained in a social media post in response, we welcome input from the Gambling Commission and, despite its claim to the contrary, regularly approach it for comment on the issues raised in our coverage and by Racing Post readers. When a response is forthcoming, we publish it.

When the commission approached us about writing a letter to readers, we replied we would be happy to consider it. However, we also informed the commission that if the letter presented its views on contentious subjects as fact we would likely decline to publish it. In that event, we suggested that an interview would be a more appropriate format in which to explore the commission's proposals and views.

The letter, by Gambling Commission chief executive Andrew Rhodes, was problematic. It repeated disputed claims made in the white paper and consultation document and did not engage meaningfully with the many concerns raised by our readers and contributors. In fact, the letter dismissed those concerns as effectively groundless, the product of "misunderstandings".

In light of this week's events and the comments about our reporting, we have today chosen to publish the Gambling Commission's letter in full, so readers can determine for themselves its merits. But we cannot leave Rhodes’s commentary unchallenged.

The foremost issue is the Gambling Commission chief executive chooses to gloss over the elephant in the room: affordability checks are not a theoretical proposal, they are real, already happening and affecting thousands upon thousands of racing bettors.

In the Racing Post's Big Punting Survey conducted this year, to which more than 9,000 British racing bettors responded, 16.6 per cent – one in six – reported they had already been subject to affordability checks. Since then, many hundreds of readers have contacted us to share further stories of being impacted by checks, often relaying how they have been driven away from their hobby as a result. There is no balance among our readers: just a pervasive deep fury about the situation.

So when Rhodes states that "just three per cent of accounts would undergo financial risk assessments", he disregards the fact that among our readers more than five times that proportion have already been hit by checks, as well as the anger that is captured daily in your letters and stories. Rhodes tells us this is a debate about future policy; our readers know that the current consultation is merely about the shape of the next in a series of attacks on their freedom to bet.

Furthermore, telling Racing Post readers not to worry because only three per cent of accounts will undergo checks under the new proposals is to wilfully miss the point. The three per cent estimate was reached by looking at all accounts active at any point over an entire year and thus included irregular or once-a-year punters. The figure's applicability to regular bettors, such as many Racing Post readers, is essentially zero.

Stuart Andrew: gambling minister has given assurances affordability checks will be 'completely frictionless'

Rhodes also states that "at most just a tenth" of that three per cent would be forced to hand over payslips and bank statements, thereby addressing concerns about the disconnect between the gambling minister Stuart Andrew's promise of "completely frictionless" checks and the Gambling Commission's proposals (although checks obviously cannot be "completely frictionless" if anyone has to hand over documents).

The many issues with the commission's proposals for 'frictionless' checks have been covered at length in these pages, and include how a credit reference check would work for those not reliant on a regular income, such as many retirees, and how the checks could secure the current account turnover information required without leaving a mark on credit files. These concerns go to the core of whether the checks truly will be 'frictionless'.

Rhodes assures us the concerns are misplaced, but not why. They are simply labelled "misunderstandings". On such an important and contentious point, why not detail the mechanics and draw on independent experts to explain how they will meet the government's promises?

These concerns and others have been raised repeatedly in the Racing Post since the day of the consultation's publication, almost two months ago now, so Rhodes and the Gambling Commission have had ample opportunity to provide that clarification if they wished – or were able – to do so.

Last month we published a front-page story relaying concerns voiced by Betting and Gaming Council chief executive Michael Dugher over just how 'frictionless' checks will prove to be. Before running that story, we approached the Gambling Commission for comment. At the time, we chose to report simply that the commission had declined to comment, but it now seems appropriate to relay verbatim its spokesperson's response: "This is what we have to say: everything we have to say about frictionless checks is set out in the consultation."

So, given the chance to add clarity about frictionless checks, the commission declined, declaring it had nothing to say. Given the chance to comment on a story adding to already widespread concerns about perhaps its most controversial proposal, it declined, declaring it had nothing to say. Those are facts, not misunderstandings.

If Andrew Rhodes wishes to address Racing Post readers directly, he has a standing offer to sit down with me for an in-depth interview. His letter is below, but if he means to engage substantively with your concerns, I urge him to accept the invitation.

Andrew Rhodes's open letter to Racing Post readers

Gambling Commission chief executive Andrew Rhodes

Dear Racing Post readers,

I write to you about our ongoing consultation about proposed financial risk checks.

We understand that there may be some concerns about the government and the Gambling Commission proposals from consumers who are concerned about potential privacy issues.

However, as a regulator we must help clear up misunderstandings about these proposed checks so that all Racing Post readers can engage with our consultation in an informed way.

First, readers could easily assume – based on the volume and nature of the coverage – that under the proposals a good proportion of gambling consumers would have to be handing over payslips or bank statements when they want to place a bet.

This is not true.

It’s estimated that just three per cent of accounts would undergo financial risk assessments. And by our estimates at most just a tenth of that three per cent would not have a frictionless check via credit reference agency or open banking data. So our estimate is that at most just 0.3 per cent of account holders would ever be asked to directly provide the additional financial information that operators are already requiring of some customers.

This means 99.7 per cent of customers would not be asked to directly provide any information.

The financial risk checks consultation is Racing Post readers’ chance to engage in the development of policy, and we would invite your views on how the 0.3 per cent of account holders could have their financial risk assessed if they are not asked to directly provide the additional financial information.

The vast majority of financial risk assessments – around 90 per cent – would be carried out through credit reference agencies and open-source banking via a regulated third-party provider under the proposals. These checks will not give gambling companies access to customers’ full bank account data, and any information operators receive must only ever be used for assessing risks of harm, rather than practices like identifying and restricting winners.

Second, little of the commentary specifies that these proposals relate to online gambling only. They would not apply to betting in bookmakers or at the racetrack. High street bookmakers may decide to carry out checks based on social responsibility or anti-money laundering risks but these changes being consulted on apply only to online gambling.

And third, although there is often the assumption that credit checks impact a credit rating and could damage credit scores, these soft credit checks will not. Credit scores will be unaffected and data on a customer’s gambling behaviour will not be shared with the financial sector under these proposals.

There are also other misunderstandings which are set out on our website and information which may be helpful for those interested in the consultation proposals.

The Health Survey for England 2018 suggests that the percentage of people who have bet online with a bookmaker in the past year and are experiencing problem gambling is 3.7 per cent. 5.2 per cent are at moderate risk of gambling harm.

The government's white paper proposed that one way we will tackle this is by implementing financial risk checks. This would introduce a frictionless system which is not currently available and make sure the smallest possible number of customers are unnecessarily inconvenienced by checks at all.

In summary, most customers would not undergo checks under these proposals. The government and the Gambling Commission have also been clear that we would not mandate operators to implement checks at levels such as those proposed in the consultation until we were sure that they can be delivered frictionlessly for the vast majority of customers who would be checked. We would be looking to trial this following the consultation should we decide to proceed.

There remain another four weeks of the consultation and we welcome all responses to ensure we strike the right balance between protecting the freedom of the individual to gamble and protecting those most vulnerable from gambling-related harm.

Andrew Rhodes
Gambling Commission CEO

• 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 affordability checks:

'If I can't get a bet on, I would think seriously about whether I'd own horses' 

The Big Punting Survey: one in six have already been hit with affordability checks 

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

'There'll be a significant drop-off of customers' - top gambling lawyer warns impact of affordability checks is underestimated 

Sign up to receive On The Nose, our essential daily newsletter, from the Racing Post. Your unmissable morning feed, direct to your email inbox every morning.