Gamblers need protection from bookies, as well as themselves 

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.

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. 

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. 

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.

By proceeding, you agree to our Terms & Conditions and our Privacy Policy.

If an account exists for this email address, you will shortly receive an email from us. You will then need to:

Please note, this link will only be valid for 24 hours. If you do not receive our email, please check your Junk Mail folder and add [email protected] to your safe list.