'The confusion stems from the Gambling Commission's approach' - more readers' views on affordability checks

Commission’s directive needs to be explained

It is ridiculous owner Chris Wright should be asked for sensitive financial information out of the blue by his bookmaker so he can continue to have a £50 each-way bet. 

What is even more bizarre is that in the same edition of the Racing Post (October 4) it is noted gambling minister Stuart Andrew has promised a completely frictionless system, while the Gambling Commission has repeatedly insisted they are also signed up to ­frictionless checks.

The so-called ‘frictionless’ system that Andrew has promised and the Gambling Commission signed up to is still in development (although sceptics suggest it does not and cannot work) and will only become a legal requirement once the commission has completed its consultation and published new guidelines, likely to be early next year.

The confusion that reigns in racing and betting circles currently stems from the Gambling Commission’s approach to affordability checks. 

Bookmakers are still operating under existing commission guidelines which effectively require firms to conduct these checks. In the absence of a ­frictionless system, they have no choice but to ask customers like Wright for sensitive financial information. 

To complete the mess, the commission has said it does not require bookmakers to conduct affordability checks, while simultaneously handing out huge fines to firms for failing to do so. 

Bookmakers seem terrified of the Gambling Commission and are being made to look like they are trying to dodge responsibility for what many perceive to be enabling ‘gambling harm’. It is a grim situation that has resulted in responsible ­individuals being subjected to abhorrent checks on their financial situation with a vast damage to racing.

The gambling industry ­(bookmakers) need to better explain, indeed expose to all concerned, how they are conducting affordability checks and what guidelines are governing their actions. That would give racing a better chance of influencing government and the commission.
Viscount Astor
Member of the All-Party Racing and Bloodstock Group and Betting and Gaming Group

Two points of concern

There has been much debate over the issue regarding ­affordability checks over the past few months, but there are two things that concern me.

I am a long-standing owner, and have owned numerous horses since the 1980s, and have seen levels of prize-money steadily decrease in real terms since the costly decision to change the betting levy from bookmakers’ turnover to profits 20 years ago. 

What concerns me, though, is the apparent apathy among a lot of owners regarding the consequences of these affordability proposals. Many people I have spoken to do not seem to have fully taken on board that these ridiculous financial checks will result in a reduction in betting, which means less levy which will translate into even lower prize-money.

The other thing that concerns me is, when reading comments from members of the Gambling Commission, most appear to have little or no knowledge of day-to-day betting, while I would doubt if any of them have even had 50p each-way on the Grand National.
Glyn Linder
Norwich

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.

Engage properly

I continue to read with interest and no lack of frustration at the comments from the Gambling Commission. 

Unfortunately, despite the fully substantiated displeasure shown by punters, it seems the commission has little interest with proper engagement and will be implementing affordability checks. 

It is outrageous that it intends to restrict how we spend our free time and money on which we have all paid tax. 

We will be subjected to the impacts of this misguided legislation. We have all enjoyed a bet accompanied by the ­associated mental stimulation, social interaction and sporting challenge, and done so perfectly safely over many years. Even a losing bet can provide all those pleasures. 

These checks will not achieve an impact on the problem gambler. Much like all other addicts, they will find ways round the legislation. 

The government state there is an increasing issue with obesity in Britain, so will they look to control access to food? Before you have your takeaway, we just need you to pop on the scales . . . 

Some people suffering with alcohol tend to retreat into private drinking, avoiding licensed premises and the safety net they provide. This legislation will result in the problem gambler doing the same, drawing cash on credit cards, betting on the black market, scratch cards, lottery, etc. The problem just gets deeper. 

The commission needs to properly engage with punters, employ people with an understanding of gambling and listen to substantiated points made. 

Any legislation that adversely impacts people’s enjoyment of a legal pastime is poor legislation. Gambling companies have already brought in control measures, and, providing we set our limits and consent to them, that should be it. 

Education is also key. Maybe make it a requirement that each individual watches an educational video on the opening of an account and then sets their limits, signs and then consents to those limits. All parties are then clear, fines cannot be levied and it will prevent the requirement for the ongoing intrusive checks. 

If needs be, a simple email every 12 months requiring the individual to confirm level of limit should be sufficient. 

I hope the commission will truly engage and bring an end to this misguided idea that one size fits all on such a complex subject.
Keith Robinson
Newmarket

Big damage to owners

In Gambling Commission chief Andrew Rhodes’s letter (September 22) it is clear he is underestimating how much the ongoing health and sustainability of British racing depends on quite a small number of wealthy individuals who fund racehorse ownership through their own wealth on an individual basis or as part of a small group of friends or, as is increasingly the case, through ownership syndicates and racing club models.

These ownership models are not income-generating ­activities in 98 per cent of cases and are expenditure enterprises often at great cost.

Many individuals involved in ownership like to have a bet. This racing ownership and betting community is small in numbers, but it is this community that is having major problems being able to bet online through increasing focus on them from bookmakers seeking to protect themselves from the commission’s regulations.

A very high percentage of people I talk to have had severe restrictions placed on their gambling by online bookmakers already (I have had all my online betting accounts restricted to silly £1 each-way bets or closed completely, numbering 25 in total). 

I do not cheat at gambling, neither am I dishonest. I am a law-abiding, retired, qualified gentleman with a good career behind me. I am seemingly restricted from gambling because I am good at it through very hard work, passion and maybe some measure of talent.

The ownership group I refer to in the main are not gambling dishonestly or illegally and are most often losing money when betting on their own horses. They are not profit-making by any means. 

When Rhodes refers to only three per cent of the whole gambling community requiring affordability checks, he is completely missing the main point. That three per cent figure is out of all punters, including huge numbers of small recreational punters who contribute very little to fund the sport, whereas so many registered owners who are getting caught up in checks are the ones really helping to fund British racing.

If the commission does not fully take into consideration the harm it is doing to owners’ involvement in the sport then it is causing irreparable damage to racing in this country.
Ian Martin Gray
Former owner

Read more on the affordability checks here

'By the time our punters get to the third race on the opening day of the Cheltenham Festival, we'll be asking them for their P60s' 

'The elephant in the room' - are frictionless affordability checks a flight of fantasy? 

How the white paper miscalculated the impact of affordability checks on racing   

Subscribe to Racing Post Members' Club Ultimate Monthly and get 50% off your first three months! 

Available to new subscribers purchasing Members' Club Ultimate Monthly using code WELCOME2023. First three payments will be charged at £19.98, subscription renews at full monthly price thereafter. To cancel please contact us at least seven days before subscription is due to renew.