The Gambling Commission consultation on matters including affordability closes on the 18^th October. The GCF is urging all of our followers to respond to this and we have advice on what we are responding with below. 

Firstly there are a number of aspects of gambling legislation that the GC are consulting on and once through the ID details, a few questions of your betting play and a ream of background information, you should arrive at question 10, the Consultations contents page where the area of our main interest and concern is  

Remote gambling; financial vulnerability and financial risk 

It should be noted that we refer to the Bettor Help app proposal in many responses, more detail can be found on there here

Again more background information is provided by the GC which is tilted in the direction of agreeing with the proposals as you would expect. We then get to question 67 which is where this part of the consultation starts: 

67. To what extent do you agree with the proposal that gambling operators be required to conduct light touch financial vulnerability checks based on public data when a certain net loss threshold is reached? 

As the proposal stands, we have to disagree as we question what the check is in aid of. If a customer has a bankruptcy order or CCJ, will that mean they are unable to bet beyond £125 in a month or £500 in a year which is less than a couple of pints of milk. This feels disproportionate and if the customers are subjected to enhanced checks such as the requirement to present financial information, several industry sources have indicated that over 80% of people refuse to provide this and the likelihood is they customer will access the unregulated and unprotected black market. 

68. If you are a gambling consumer and are responding to this consultation as an individual, do you consider it likely that, if a financial vulnerability check were introduced, you would meet one of the thresholds for a check? 

This is a personal response question 

69. To what extent do you agree with the proposal that gambling operators be required to conduct enhanced financial risk assessments where there are very unusual patterns of loss? The purpose of such an assessment would be to act on the indicator of harm of unusual patterns of loss and assess gambling in the context of a customer’s financial circumstances. 

We disagree as again, it is estimated that 80% of people will refuse to comply to such checks and will in all likelihood access gambling in the unregulated sector. If the customer is hitting harm markers then they should be directed to an app which asks requires a survey to be completed on whether the customer is showing signs of addiction and signposts of clinical help and support. 

70. If you are a gambling consumer and are responding to this consultation as an individual, do you consider it likely that, if a financial risk assessment were introduced, you would meet one of the thresholds for an assessment? 

This is a personal response question 

71. To what extent do you agree with the proposed threshold of a financial vulnerability check based on public data (eg bankruptcy) if a customer has a net loss of £125 in a rolling 30 day period? 

We refer to a previous answer that when these markets are hit, what happens next? We repeat again that it is estimated that 80% of people will refuse to comply to such checks and will in all likelihood access gambling in the unregulated sector. If the customer is hitting harm markers then they should be directed to an app which asks requires a survey to be completed on whether the customer is showing signs of addiction and signposts of clinical help and support 

72. To what extent do you agree with the proposed threshold of a financial vulnerability check based on public data (eg bankruptcy) if a customer has a net loss of £500 in a rolling 365 days? 

We refer to a previous answer that when these markets are hit, what happens next? We repeat again that it is estimated that 80% of people will refuse to comply to such checks and will in all likelihood access gambling in the unregulated sector. If the customer is hitting harm markers then they should be directed to an app which asks requires a survey to be completed on whether the customer is showing signs of addiction and signposts of clinical help and support. It is also worth noting that £500 is less than £2 a day so represents less than a daily pint of milk and loaf of bread. 

73. To what extent do you agree with the proposed threshold for a financial risk assessment related to binge activity of more than £1,000 in a relevant period of a rolling 24 hours? 

Again, the context is more the issue than the amount as that is relative to income, wealth, outgoings and circumstance. Rather than a blunt instrument of a figure, the question should is the binge behaviour hitting harm markers, in which case the customer should be contacted and directed towards a survey on whether their actions of signs of addiction.  

74. To what extent do you agree with the proposed threshold for an enhanced financial risk assessment related to significant losses over time of more than £2,000 in a rolling 90 day period?. 

As per the previous response, the context is more the issue than the amount as that is relative to income, wealth, outgoings and circumstance. Rather than a blunt instrument of a figure, the question should be is the binge behaviour hitting harm markers, in which case the customer should be contacted and directed towards a survey on whether their actions of signs of addiction.  

75. To what extent do you agree with the proposal that thresholds for the enhanced financial risk assessment are lower for those aged under 25 to £500 in a rolling 24 hour period and £1,000 in rolling 90 day period? 

Again the context is the issue than the amount as that is relative to income, wealth, outgoings and circumstance. We also have great concerns that those classed as adults who can get married, fight in the army, consume alcohol etc are being treated in a different way for only one single activity. 

76. To what extent do you agree with the proposed definition of net loss for financial risk assessments which is that net loss is the loss of deposited funds with a particular operator ie excluding bonus funds and restaked winnings? In particular, please flag any potential risks and technical difficulties with implementation of this proposed approach. 

I strongly disagree as the proposals have clearly been written by those who have no concept of variance which can occur over a period of weeks and months. This is demonstrated by the stock market which grows over time but ebbs and flows over days, weeks, months and years. The proposal treats who gamble as some sort of infant who have can’t manage their finances from one week to the next. If a gambler is demonstrating a sustained lifetime profit over a period of years, the idea that this isn’t taken into amount if they run into a period of variance over a week or indeed 3 months is utter madness and would not extend into any other area of investment such at property, the stock market etc. 

77. To what extent do you agree with the proposed approach to enable a recent overall net position to be taken into account when a threshold is met? In particular, please flag any potential risks and technical difficulties with implementation of this proposed approach. 

I again disagree for the reasons stated in answer 76, I would also point out that gamblers use various platforms such as exchanges, fixed odds bookmakers, the tote and cash and you cannot get a rounded idea of the profit or loss being shown by a gambler simply by one operator. 

78. To what extent do you agree with the proposed approach that would set a timeframe whereby recent overall net position could be taken into account for 7 days in relation the binge threshold and 90 days for the losses over time threshold?. 

I again disagree for the reasons stated in answer 76, account restrictions due to this will simply drive gamblers to the black market. 

79. To what extent do you agree with the proposed approach that would mean that a bet would only be counted as a loss when it is settled as a loser? 

To do otherwise would limit exposure in a way which would restrict gamblers even further and send them to the black market. 

80. To what extent do you agree that a financial vulnerability check would include publicly available data relating to an active county court judgement (CCJ), high court judgment (HCJ), administration order (AO) or decree, or equivalent? 

This is again a crass and blunt instrument, CCJ’s are issued for all kinds of minor reasons and remain noted for several years. Using this as a point of restriction will inhibit hundreds of thousands of people from using the regulated market and push them into the black market. 

81. To what extent do you consider that aggregated data should be included in a financial vulnerability check in relation to postcode? 

More so then question 80 is this a crass and blunt instrument creating a discriminatory postcode lottery. The reaction to comments made by Tim Miller to the DCMS Select Committee demonstrated a contempt towards the proposal.  

82. To what extent do you consider that aggregated data should be included in a financial vulnerability check in relation to a customer’s stated employment status and job title, and cross-referencing to open source data about the average income for that occupation? 

Another blunt tool, as noted in the DCMS select committee, what is to stop someone saying astronaut. The average income for the occupation could have a huge range, a footballer for instance could be earned anything from £100 a week to a million pounds a week. It fails to take into account wealth and what is disposal income, £50k a year as a single person in the north of the Country is very different to £50k a year with a large family and dependents in London. 

83. To what extent do you agree with the proposed requirements for data that must be included in an enhanced financial risk assessment for credit performance data and income and expenditure data, including current account turnover data? 

A bank statement is a snapshot in time and does not take into account other wealth, this is likely to discriminate against the retired who often have no borrowings and drawdown from capital. This is a significant intrusion into a person’s personal circumstances which 80% of gamblers are not complying with presently. There is great concern about how this information will be used and assurances over it not being used for commercial purposes. There was a recent case with Skybet where IBAS ruled in favour after examination of bank statements showed alleged third party funding. Again the more likely route rather than complying with this will be the black market.   

84. Please give your reasons for your answer. In particular, are there any other types of information that you think it would be valuable to gather at these thresholds to understand potential financial risk? 

Individual financial circumstances have great complexity and breadth meaning without having complete access, it is almost impossible to assess a person’s financial position. Again it is the markers of addictive behaviour which are more valuable than a person’s financial position. 

85. In limited circumstances, it may be necessary to obtain information directly from the customer to understand financial risk. In these circumstances, we have proposed that the information must enable assessment of income and expenditure. Should the Commission set out further minimum requirements to ensure the data provided is meaningful but minimised? If so what should these requirements be?  

We fully expect that the vast majority will refuse to comply as the bookmaking industry are currently finding, as per question 84, we consider an individual’s personal financial position to be extremely complex and almost impossible to assess. 

86. To what extent do you agree with a 12 month time-frame for the validity of the financial vulnerability check? 

Individual financial circumstances can vary on a weekly or monthly basis. Like most of the proposals, it’s an arbitrary figure lacking in evidence.

87. To what extent do you agree with a 6 month time-frame for the validity of the financial risk assessment?