'The industry should be looking at how people bet, not necessarily how much'

The Horseracing Bettors Forum has received a number of complaints in line with the case of a man who experienced deposit restrictions for betting accounts despite supplying detailed proof that he was in an extremely comfortable financial position.

On Monday, the Racing Post highlighted the plight of the man, whose annual income was £70,000 and who provided evidence of £300,000 in savings, yet was restricted by one firm to a deposit limit of £200 per month.

The continuing revelations of the inconsistent approach taken in recent months by a number of firms will only raise concerns that any statutory affordability checks contained in the government's white paper on gambling, which could be published as early as this week, will cause significant issues for punters from across the social spectrum.

Colin Hord, the chair of the HBF, said that while stories similar to that reported in Lee Mottershead's Monday column had not come flooding in, there was a pattern of concern from those people who had got in touch as some betting companies had introduced their own checks.

"We've had a number of people who have got in touch about affordability checks and mainly over a lack of consistency where people have shared their information between various bookmakers," said Hord.

"They have found there's a lack of consistency in terms of how they’re approached with deposit limits and what they’re being offered. It's not a surprise really that this has come about."

Colin Hord: 'More background checks should be undertaken before customers and punters are asked for vast amounts of private information'Credit: David Carr

Campaigners for gambling reform have been lobbying the government to introduce compulsory checks which could be triggered at the level of depositing as little as £100 per month.

Proponents of the measures say they are seeking to protect those vulnerable to addiction issues but the reported case illustrates that restrictions could be imposed with scant regard for a player's ability to sustain any losses.

Hord is also concerned that betting companies seeking to demonstrate their safer gambling credentials may also be attempting to use deposit limits as another way of restricting the accounts of successful punters.

Hord said: "I think the other thing that we see is that the more serious players – we don’t know but the indication [from the column] is that this chap is a more serious player – and maybe the people that are making a profit from their betting, seem to be the ones that are facing these deposit limits. We're certainly seeing that. It's another way of being restricted, effectively."

Hord underlined the HBF position that affordability checks are too blunt an instrument and that the gambling review should concentrate on a more measured approach.

"We've had meetings recently with the DCMS and also the Gambling Commission, and have indicated that much more should be done before we get to affordability checks," said Hord.

"The industry should be looking at how people bet, not necessarily how much. More background checks should be undertaken before customers and punters are asked for vast amounts of private information."

Read this next:

Revealed: the tactics black market bookies use to coax punters to offshore sites

The Front Runner is our latest 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