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

Speak out against the ills of this white paper

Despite reading some very well-written protestations from punters in the Racing Post, I fear the Gambling Commission is paying lip service to the millions of us who bet responsibly. 

I have already written to my MP twice and explained my objections to the proposed affordability checks. I will not provide bank statements, pension statements, P60s or whatever else any bookmaker may request to allow me to bet with them. I have already closed an account with a well-known bookmaker who requested this. 

In these days of sophisticated cyber criminals, why would I pass on highly sensitive personal data? For goodness’ sake, I’m only looking to have a few bets, amounting to less than I’d spend at a local ­restaurant, not asking to borrow a six-figure sum to buy a house.

I’m currently still able to bet online with my two preferred bookmakers and one exchange, but what will I do if each of them ask me to provide financial information? Will I choose to go to a black-market bookie? The honest answer is I won’t know until I’m faced with that dilemma. 

I have thought about the prospect of not being able to place bets on horses and the effect it would have on me. 

I’ve been following racing for more than 40 years and have derived enormous pleasure from it. 

It is not just the betting. It’s reading the Post every day, it’s going to the races, it’s meeting up with my friends at the races, it’s having a small share of a horse and watching them develop, visiting the stables, and seeing them run and then hopefully win.

If I was forced to stop betting by the restrictions, would I stop following racing as avidly as I do? Let us look at what I did last month. 

I went to Goodwood (three times) Epsom (twice), Ascot and York. All those courses have benefited from me choosing to spend my ­disposable income with them. 

In the case of York, we decided to stay for two nights so we also supported the local economy with hotel, restaurant and transport costs. 

If I was prevented from betting, would I attend York? If I didn’t and other punters like me decided to stay away, the York economy would be severely impacted.

Looking ahead to next year, I have already booked trips to Ireland for the Dublin Racing Festival in February (four of us) and Cheltenham in March (six of us). 

How severely will the economies of these fantastic racing destinations be impacted if punters stop coming in their thousands? Think of the ­devastating impact on businesses in those areas. We cannot allow these puritans to dictate how we spend our disposable income. 

The government needs to stand up and be counted and take control of the situation. 

There is a general election due in 2024. As responsible gamblers, we need to hold our local MPs accountable and ask them what is their position on the Gambling Bill. They need to ­understand this is a vote-losing issue if they get it wrong. We also need to challenge the opposition to see what their position is.

If the government does not think I’m responsible enough to make my own decisions on how much I spend on gambling then why allow me to make decisions on how much I spend at the pub, restaurant, theatre, following my football team or going on holiday?

The white paper will impact the vulnerable people it is attempting to help. Those with gambling addictions will just be driven towards the black-market bookies, and the controls the licensed ­bookmakers have in place will be lost, while the millions of responsible gamblers will be unnecessarily impacted and have their joy of following racing changed forever.
Tony Wells

• 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.

Get a movement going

I have read with interest the numerous accounts of how these unwanted affordability checks are impacting people’s ability to follow their chosen interest or just have a damn good bet on one or more of their own horses.

The one thing I cannot fathom is why ­bookmakers are having to ask invasive questions of their customers.

This Gambling Bill is still only a white paper, is some way off becoming law on the statute book and, as far as I know, has not even entered the CRAAP (Currency, Relevance, Authority, Accuracy, and Purpose) stage of implementation.

Therefore, in my opinion, the Gambling Commission, in instructing the bookmakers to initiate these violation-of-civil-liberty checks, under threat of significant fines, has somewhat exceeded its level of authority.

As well as putting my input into the consultation, I have written three letters to my MP, encouraging him to contact those other MPs who are against this white paper and to try and get some kind of movement together to take it to the top of government.

Although probably stating the obvious, I would encourage all Racing Post readers, trainers, owners, punters and racetrack management to put pen to paper or flood MPs’ inboxes with objections to this ­abomination of our rights and invasion of the nanny state on our day-to-day lives.
Graeme Walker

Completely unjustified

I worked in the betting shops between 1961 and 1990. Gambling addiction has probably very little to do with horse and greyhound racing. 

Online casino games appear to be the main cause of today’s addiction problems. 

Affordability checks on this type of gambling might be justified, but affordability checks on general betting, ie. horse and dog racing and other sports, is completely unjustified.

The government makes millions from betting duty, machine gaming duty and tax on profits so the government should not be shooting itself in the foot, because this will cause some smaller betting-shop chains to give up and we could see a resurgence of illegal bookies.
Peter Bailey
Bournemouth

I have limited my bets

I read with interest Rupert ­Dickinson’s letter (September 9) as I find myself currently operating in a similar manner regarding betting.

I completely know my limits, what I can and can’t afford, and I bet ­accordingly with good runs and bad.

Being involved in football, I like nothing more than putting a good series of bets on a Saturday morning then coming home later to watch the racing replays without knowing any results and seeing how the bets and races go. Great fun and a passion I have had for years.

I have also kept detailed records of every bet made and know for a cast-iron fact that I am slightly up. It is certainly not enough to treat myself to any sort of luxury item, but regardless, it has been extremely enjoyable.

What a shame that now due to not wishing to be subject to these ­affordability checks, I have limited my stakes and the volume of bets made.
Simon Burgess
Bewdley, Worcestershire

How did we get to this?

The headline in last week’s Racing Post (September 6) for some reason really got me going, ‘Affordability checks won’t happen unless frictionless vows minister’. The headline should have read just the first four words.

Racing’s leaders and bookmakers are so afraid of a government quango that they will concede virtually anything to appease an unelected body.

I despair for the future of the sport.

How many regular punters like me are just waiting for the dreaded call to be asked for their bank statements, ready to politely tell those ­bookmakers to go and stick their accounts?

Just how did we get to this situation?
Doug Ord
Cleadon, Sunderland

This isn’t frictionless

I am a small-stakes punter of between £2 and £10. My bookmaker asked me for proof of income, which I sent to them, including statements of my four pensions and three months of bank statements. 

After I contacted them a number of times to ask what the delay was in them replying, they said they needed more evidence. I told them that I don’t have any more evidence of income and they replied that I now had a yearly loss limit of £500 with them and I could start using my account again on January 1, 2024!

How is this frictionless checking? It is about as far from frictionless as it can get! 

I could quite easily bet with non-Gamstop bookies and probably get better odds, yet how would that help combat problem gambling?
Philip Curtis

Read more on the Gambling Review here

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' 

Subscribe to Racing Post Members' Club Ultimate Monthly and pay just £9.99 per month for your first two months! 

Available to new subscribers purchasing Ultimate Monthly using code SUMMER. First two payments charged at £9.99, renews at full monthly price thereafter. To cancel please contact us at least seven days before subscription is due to renew. Offer expires 30/09/2023.