Gamblers need protection from bookies, as well as themselves  | thearticle

Gambling legislation tends to be focused on protection for “problem gamblers”, but there is also a need for the protection of normal gamblers from “problem bookies”. According to the website

Gambling with Lives, which is unlikely to underestimate the issue, there are around 340,000 adult gambling addicts in the UK and some 55,000 people aged between 11 and 16 with the same 

problem. Research, the site claims, has shown 4 to 11 per cent of suicides are related to gambling which equates to between 250 and 650 deaths per year. The wide range suggests that there

are issues with definitions and categorising the cases. Even if the numbers are at the lower end of this range, it clearly represents a very serious issue that is causing considerable 

damage. Is the gambling industry responsible for this? A lot depends on how you look at and describe the situation. If you see the gambling industry as causing the issues, and describe it in

those terms, then responsibility falls squarely on them. On the other hand, you could describe the problems in terms of the individual choices of the punters, in which case they are

responsible for their own bad outcomes. A similar ambivalence hangs over the drinks industry. The manufacturers of gin, whisky, rum and so on take pride in what they do to create a fine

product. Alcoholics die in significant numbers every year after consuming that product. In both cases (drinks and gambling), the vast majority of customers enjoy a pleasure in moderation and

only a small minority suffer dire consequences. The distribution of responsibility is somewhat different with the tobacco industry. Nearly all the customers suffer a degree of adverse

health as a consequence of smoking the product, even in moderation. As a semi-professional gambler, I prefer to describe gambling in terms of choices made by customers. The gambling industry

sets up platforms so that customers can easily and effortlessly put their money at risk online, but the punters are responsible for their decision to do so. Perhaps we all have 

self-destructive elements within our personalities, but some express them to a much greater degree than others. The gambling industry does take some measures to protect vulnerable customers.

Typically, customers who lose money on a regular basis might be given warnings about “problem gambling” or offered a way to exclude themselves from being allowed to bet on the website for a

period of time. It does not solve the problem, but offers a degree of protection. Risk is a natural part of human existence and no government can protect all its citizens from any exposure

to it. All in all, the degree of regulation that currently exists certainly addresses the issues with compulsive gamblers, and the measures put in place mitigate the problem. Looking at it

from the other direction, there are a number of issues where there is no legislation in place to defend consumer rights. Here I am considering the consumer to be the customer, currently

unprotected by legislation against various unethical ploys perpetrated by bookies behaving badly. Let me make a list: 1) Different security protocols for depositing and withdrawing. Once a 

bookie has checked you are indeed aged 18 or over, there are rarely any issues when it comes to depositing money. It is a different story when you try to withdraw. Suddenly proof is required

to make sure you are a legitimate customer and not money-laundering. Proof of address, recent bills, or bank statements. Sometimes proof of income is also asked for. It often takes a

significant period of time before these documents are sent and scrutinised, during which the bookies maintain control of the funds. They do not pay interest to the customer for the period in

question.  A simple suggestion to cure this problem – force the bookies to have the same security protocols both for depositing and withdrawing. That way you cannot deposit money until they

have everything they need and there would be no issues withdrawing should you happen to win. Some bookies impose withdrawal limits, stopping customers from extracting their funds as quickly

as they might wish. That is not acceptable. 2) Sometimes there are disputes over the outcome of bets, or indeed when they should be settled. The recent US presidential election was just

such an issue. To be fair, most bookies have acted reasonably with regard to that result by waiting for official ratification. Many Trump supporters still feel it has not been decided, two

weeks after the bets were settled against them. Customer services departments at various bookmakers have spent a great deal of effort placating them. In this specific case the bookies have

my sympathy, but there are cases where they act less honourably. At present, there is not much that the customers can do about it. The need for an ombudsman is self-evident: bookies should

not be allowed to self-regulate when it comes to disputes. 3) Bookies control the odds they offer. They do so, not surprisingly, to their own advantage. If they consider something to be even

money (with two equally probable outcomes) they will typically offer 10/11 or maybe 5/6 on each outcome, giving themselves a 10 or 20 per cent advantage respectively. So you would  have to

bet £11 to win £10 in the case where they offer 10/11. Of course, they are businesses and have to both set up and maintain the online platforms where their customers place bets, including

paying their staff. So this degree of “unfairness” is not unreasonable.  What many people do not know is that bookies also select their customers. They carefully monitor your track record

and restrict successful customers to small bets or ban them altogether. Of course, they continue to allow less capable customers to bet whatever they want. So a new customer, or someone who

has lost money on a regular basis, will be allowed to place a bet, whereas a customer with a good track record will not. In an ideal world you would hope that manipulating the odds in their

favour would be all that bookies would be allowed to do and that any bet-size limits would have to be applied universally, rather than discriminating against selected clients. Another 

possibility would be to introduce a policy whereby there was a minimum bet size guarantee. For example, all customers would be allowed to bet a stake of  £100 if they wanted to. 4) Recently

one betting company closed my account without warning, denying me access to the funds within it. They asked me to send various documents – proof of identity, proof of source of income,

inside leg measurement – claiming they were required to do this because of money laundering regulations. This was an unpleasant surprise and came after I had been their client for 18 years.

I sent all the requested documentation and it was not until a further six weeks later that the account was finally reopened. There is no telephone number you can call; answers by email from

their customer services were slow and disorganised. I was told I had to wait for the appropriate department to look at it and they could not give me any idea when the matter would be

resolved. Nor could they return any funds until then. I was not at all satisfied with this situation. (It involved a considerable portion of my working capital.) So I called the UKGC (the

Gambling Commission), who told me they could do nothing about it. If banks treated customers like this, they would lose their licenses. But bookies can behave this way with no legal

sanction. The only sanction is in the court of public opinion: on review websites many bookies are accused of stealing customer funds. Betting companies are trusted by millions of customers

to look after their money, but there is no legal obligation to meet suitable and appropriate standards. Some, but not all, bookies operate “ring-fenced” customer accounts, such that customer

money is protected if the company goes bust. This should be a mandatory regulation for anyone operating in the UK. Further protection against the exploitation of vulnerable customers is

justified, but there is a need for protection of all customers against bookie abuse. The setting up of an ombudsman to resolve disputes should be a priority, alongside better regulation to

ensure that bookies handle customer  accounts in a reasonable way, including ease of withdrawals. The UKGC needs stronger powers and more funding. After the massive growth in online betting

that has taken place in recent years, the Gambling Commission is no longer fit for purpose. A MESSAGE FROM THEARTICLE _We are the only publication that’s committed to covering every angle.

We have an important contribution to make, one that’s needed now more than ever, and we need your help to continue publishing throughout the pandemic. So please, make a donation._