Betfair Account Restrictions & closed accounts - Getting them removed and accounts reopened

News, chat and debate about the Betfair betting exchange.
Post Reply
zippus
Posts: 181
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2019 3:19 pm

Just to update the situation.

After BF finally contacted me to ask for further information - which I supplied the same day back in mid April - I decided to wait and let their process run. [I have an account with Betdaq, so can continue trading and betting].

Having not received any acknowledgment or other correspondence from BF, I decided to log in and to my very pleasant surprise, my account is now classified as 'inactive' rather than 'closed'. So I guess that means I've passed the anti-money laundering / proof of funds criteria, so that's progress at least. So I'm now waiting in the 'chat' queue to try to make my account active again and it's a two hour wait! No doubt I'll have to be lectured at concerning 'Responsible Gambling' etc but fingers crossed the newly paternalistic BF will finally let me spend my money again!

It looks to me like they have really messed up the affordability checks to placate the GC. If they really must do this, some suggestions to them are:

1) Communicate where they are in the process. Having a change of status from 'closed' to 'inactive' needs communicating at the very least.

2) Hire some more staff. A 2 hour wait is worse than HMRC's helpdesk and that takes some doing!
User avatar
Euler
Posts: 24701
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 1:39 pm
Location: Bet Angel HQ

Rumours this week that this sort of nonsense could be dropped. Let's hope so!
zippus
Posts: 181
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2019 3:19 pm

That's good to know. I really hope they sort this!

After finally speaking to someone on the dedicated team, the information is:

"Thank you for waiting, so I can see that your account is currently suspended for review by our team. As of yet we do not have any updates on this unfortunately.

We would not have a specific time frame on these escalations I'm afraid as it would be biased on a queue system. Our team will email you directly with an update on this once they review your account. Apologies for any inconveniences caused."

Great way to run a business! :lol:
User avatar
Derek27
Posts: 23476
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2017 11:44 am
Location: UK

I once ordered some tobacco that arrived promptly. But if it didn't, the complaint procedure was something like: the manager personally receives all complaints, he will acknowledge receipt of the complaint by email within 24 hours, we intend to resolve the complaint to your satisfaction within 5 days...

Why can't Betfair have a similar complaint procedure? :lol:
Trader Pat
Posts: 4327
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2016 12:50 pm

I've been waiting for a Racing TV Xmas jumper since November!
zippus
Posts: 181
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2019 3:19 pm

Derek27 wrote:
Fri May 07, 2021 2:38 pm
I once ordered some tobacco that arrived promptly. But if it didn't, the complaint procedure was something like: the manager personally receives all complaints, he will acknowledge receipt of the complaint by email within 24 hours, we intend to resolve the complaint to your satisfaction within 5 days...

Why can't Betfair have a similar complaint procedure? :lol:

Totally agree.

Unfortunately, BF is a de facto monopoly and they've become sluggish and are drifting ever closer to a traditional bookie IMHO. If ever there was a time for a 'real' exchange to emerge, as BF used to be, it's now...
User avatar
Naffman
Posts: 5626
Joined: Sun Aug 11, 2013 5:46 am

RP members club article reporting on Betfair's affordability checks - this is just going to drive people either to Asian or crypto exchanges where you're more or less anonymous
User avatar
Derek27
Posts: 23476
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2017 11:44 am
Location: UK

Naffman wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 9:47 am
RP members club article reporting on Betfair's affordability checks - this is just going to drive people either to Asian or crypto exchanges where you're more or less anonymous
Did you forget to add a link?
User avatar
Naffman
Posts: 5626
Joined: Sun Aug 11, 2013 5:46 am

Derek27 wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 11:28 am
Naffman wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 9:47 am
RP members club article reporting on Betfair's affordability checks - this is just going to drive people either to Asian or crypto exchanges where you're more or less anonymous
Did you forget to add a link?
I dont have members club but you can look on the BF forum where someone has copied and pasted, I'm not your slave derek ;)
User avatar
Euler
Posts: 24701
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 1:39 pm
Location: Bet Angel HQ

https://community.betfair.com/horse_rac ... comeHeader

Betfair punters have hit out at "intrusive" affordability checks claiming the exchange has requested information on where winnings have been spent as well as detailed documentation on income before lifting restrictions placed on accounts.

The level of information required from Betfair has turned some users away from betting, primarily on horseracing. One punter said the extent of the information being sought made the experience more invasive than applying for a mortgage.

Betfair are the latest bookmaker reported to be pre-emptively imposing affordability checks on their customers, despite the fact a controversial recent Gambling Commission consultation on the subject – which attracted a record number of responses – has yet to yield any official regulatory changes.

Lee Keys, a professional punter and Betfair user since 2003, said he received an email from the company "out of the blue" a month ago informing him an affordability restriction had been placed after he had made a number of deposits due to "a bad run".

Keys, who says his net winnings on the exchange are £700,000 and that he has previously been through stringent Know Your Customer checks, said: "With betting on Betfair being my living I reluctantly agreed to give them documentation. They asked for proof of funds – home ownership, land ownership, assets etc, bank statements – and I provided a bank statement and a share statement.

"I told them that across the board I earned £115,000 last year and they then asked where the £115,000 profit had gone, which is when I told them that enough was enough.

"What I didn't like is that they wanted more and that, to me, is a bit sinister. Why didn't they want that in the first place? Why would I provide details of my current and share accounts but then they want to see where the money I made went as well? I'm not having any of that."

He added: "If this is what you have to do to have a bet then how many people are going to go through this? I've been asked less intrusive questions when I've gone for a mortgage and it's absolutely ludicrous."

Another casual Betfair Exchange punter who spoke to the Racing Post said he was planning to rein back his betting on horseracing, which accounted for 90 per cent of his bets, after he was restricted to depositing no more than £1,500 a month.

In emails shared with the Racing Post, the user is told by Betfair's due diligence department that the restrictions will remain in place unless "a full explanation as to how you are funding your account (eg salary or other income) along with documentation that illustrates this" and "a copy of a bank statement dated within the last three months (name and address must also be clearly visible)" are provided, which the user has refused to do due to the nature of his full-time job.

Having informed Betfair that the deposits being made were from previous winnings and providing details of the account used on the exchange, the customer was then told he would need to show bank statements going back many months to prove that was the case.

An email from a senior Betfair employee to the user said: "I acknowledge that your account is in a profitable position over a longer term period, but in order to revert to your previous limits, we would need to gain comfort that your recent activity was funded by your previous winnings or that you have access to sufficient income/funds that would support a higher limit."

A spokesman for Betfair said: "There are multiple reasons we would ask customers for additional information. As a responsible gambling operator, Betfair has a range of controls in place to protect our customers and to ensure we meet our legal and regulatory obligations.

"We can't comment on individual cases but as part of the controls and processes we have in place to protect our customers and meet our obligations we may require an extra level of information from customers to ensure their activity is appropriate.

"Where we do request this information, customers can be assured we will deal with this information securely, discretely and in as swift a timeframe as possible."

Customer interaction, which closed in Febuary, included a proposal that a monthly net gambling loss of as little as £100 would mean punters would have to prove their income in order to continue to bet.

This has caused huge concern for British racing's leadership, who fear the sport could lose upwards of £60 million a year from lost levy and media rights income if punters are put off by intrusive questions about their finances.

A report by the Daily Telegraph last week claimed the Gambling Commission would not be allowed to act unilaterally on affordability checks, with the findings of its consultation being considered as part of the government's wider gambling review and the likelihood being that affordability checks would be watered down or shelved altogether.

However, in the meantime many punters have reported that bookmakers have already introduced often intrusive affordability checks.

In March, the Horseracing Bettors Forum said it had been contacted by several punters because of checks requested by the Tote, where a low-level trigger of £750 in total deposits appears to have been introduced.

Colin Hord, chairman of the Horseracing Bettors Forum, said: "We've responded to both consultations on affordability checks the Gambling Commission raised and also the Gambling Act review which we included some statements on affordability checks. Both times we've made the case that these checks need to be proportionate and should not be unnecessarily intrusive into people's financial affairs.

"There's a reasonableness that needs to be maintained. With Betfair we also want to ensure that people's previous betting history is taken into account and we've seen that quite a number of bettors have profitable accounts but run into losing runs and their profitability is not being taken into account when undertaking the affordability checks.

"Our concern is the level of intrusiveness and the level of information that's having to be provided."

He added: "The other thing worth raising is what qualification do the people within these bookmaking companies have to make the assessment that these people are or are not to continue gambling? That works both ways, because you can argue they'd be keen to keep people betting but in other respects they're cautious about who they're letting continue and who not."

Entain has also launched checks across all of its 14 brands as part of an initiative designed to identify customers in the UK at the greatest risk of potential financial problems, and to implement staking limits and tighter affordability checks.
User avatar
Morbius
Posts: 492
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2020 3:38 pm

Is this not cause and effect with regards to the intricacies and nuances of the responsible gambling and money laundering laws???
User avatar
Euler
Posts: 24701
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 1:39 pm
Location: Bet Angel HQ

Similar article

Punters are reporting increasing difficulties with affordability checks, intrusive and stringent in some cases, despite the fact the results of a Gambling Commission consultation on the subject have not yet been made public.

The imposition of checks by various operators has already resulted in closed accounts and widespread frustration that is likely to undermine interest in racing and the financial support it receives from bookmakers.

The Horseracing Bettors Forum said on Thursday it had been contacted by three punters recently because of checks requested by the Tote, where a low-level trigger of £750 in total deposits appears to have been introduced.

The Racing Post has also heard from a punter who reports checks being made by a range of companies, while one betting industry insider has described the potentially calamitous effect on the business for which he works, and by extension for racing.

The news comes after the end of the betting regulator’s affordability review last month. Among the possibilities raised in the consultation was the prospect of the introduction of a threshold on net gambling loss of as little as £100, which would lead to customers having to provide evidence they could afford to lose more.
The consultation received around 13,000 submissions amid deep concern about the intrusion on privacy and the likely impact on sports like racing which derive significant income from betting companies. An owners group recently named the issue as “the number one thing racing has to deal with effectively”.

David Carr
“We understand that the Tote have set a limit to say, once you get to £750 total deposits on your account, you’re going to undergo some sort of affordability check,” said Colin Hord, HBF chairman. It is believed a figure around £300 is applied for those under the age of 25.

The Racing Post has seen an emailed request from the Tote to one of those customers, seeking details of gross annual income, net monthly income and normal monthly outgoings. It also asks whether the customer would consider deposit limits “to manage your spend”.

The email states: “We apply a £750 deposit limit to all customer accounts before needing to ask for additional verification … We are determined to make gambling not only fun but also affordable for all our customers”.

“We haven’t heard from anyone who’s filled that in,” Hord continued. “One person has refused and said they would rather bet on the black market than provide that information. The other person wrote, ‘Private, private, not going to tell you’, and we haven’t heard what happened as a result. The other guy has only just received it and he’s considering how to approach it.”

Susannah Gill, the Tote’s communications director, responded: “Our priority is to provide a safe and enjoyable betting experience for our customers. As part of this, we collect some personal information from individuals to help ensure they are betting safely and affordably throughout their time as customers of the Tote.

“This may make some people uncomfortable but is part of an established regulatory environment for the gambling sector, where it is important we know our customers, to support both our legal and social responsibilities.”

Susannah Gill: “Important we know our customers, to support both our legal and social responsibilities”
Susannah Gill: “Important we know our customers, to support both our legal and social responsibilities”
The owners of Ladbrokes Coral acknowledged that checks are in place, but would be triggered only where risk was identified and not applied to all customers.

A spokesman for Entain said: “As part of our Advanced Responsibility and Care ARC programme, and as announced in November, we have implemented additional checks on customers who may be at risk of potential harm. These checks operate on a personalised risk-based approach rather than blanket restrictions which would be detrimental to the wider betting and gaming ecosystem, including the horseracing industry.”

One punter approached by the Racing Post, who asked to remain anonymous, said he holds accounts with a dozen firms, half of which have sought some kind of affordability check in the past six months, varying wildly in vigour.

“Some pay it lip service – ‘We just need to check you’re happy with the amount you’re spending’ – and you just say, yes, and that’s the end of it.

“At the other end of the scale, with one firm it was almost like a tax investigation. I had one of their guys ringing me for half an hour and he literally grilled me, it was like MI5. ‘We checked, in one specific hour in the past month, you placed 15 bets. Why did you do that? How do you manage to find the time for this, with your work?’.

“It was a strange scenario. I was caught a bit off guard. Thinking about it afterwards, I should have said, ‘Get lost, I’m not having this conversation. If you want to shut my account, just shut it. But I’m doing a perfectly legal activity, so why are you asking me all these questions?’.

“But at the time I thought if I went along with it, I’d get rid of him quicker and be able to carry on doing what I was doing. But then they said, we’re setting a monthly deposit limit.”

‘Where’s the future of their business?’

The punter, a fan of racing, expressed concern about the impact such checks will have on the sport’s share of bookmaker profits. “I do know people who have just said, ‘I’m not going through this rigmarole’. And it is a time-consuming rigmarole. It’s not just the privacy issue. It can take weeks doing this stuff, going back and forth.

“From the bookmaker’s side, if they’re having to shut down losing accounts and restrict everyone to losing £100 a month, where’s the future of their business? At the moment, you get shut down if you win because they don’t want your business and you’re shut down if you lose because the Gambling Commission says the bookies are not entitled to this business.”

That chimed with the thoughts of a betting industry insider, who also asked to remain anonymous. He said the firm that employs him has lost three-quarters of its biggest 100 racing punters since last year’s Cheltenham Festival as a direct consequence of checks aimed at establishing what they can afford to lose, either because they chose to close their accounts or because they were closed for non-response.

The insider added that punters in 2021 are an oppressed minority. “Nobody understands you, everybody thinks you’re curable and everyone thinks there’s something wrong with you and you should be controlled. A punter in 2021 is starting to feel like a lesser member of society.”

He said that Gambling Commission action behind the scenes, including criticism of operators during formal inspections, had helped bring affordability checks into force “even without the whole affordability thing having come anywhere near any kind of statute”.

The commission said it would not speak on the subject until it responds to its consultation.

Hord set out the HBF’s position: “The vast majority who do not bet very large amounts of money and have a proven record of betting on horse racing responsibly should not have to undergo intrusive checks.”
User avatar
napshnap
Posts: 1189
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2017 6:21 am

Euler wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 1:35 pm
Similar article

...

The insider added that punters in 2021 are an oppressed minority. “Nobody understands you, everybody thinks you’re curable and everyone thinks there’s something wrong with you and you should be controlled. A punter in 2021 is starting to feel like a lesser member of society.”
...
Meanwhile, every fool can download Robinhood app and lose his last trousers in financial markets. And he should lose it to the right people.
User avatar
Euler
Posts: 24701
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 1:39 pm
Location: Bet Angel HQ

Speculation on financial markets at the moment is incredibly high and way more dangerous than punting few quid on something.
User avatar
wearthefoxhat
Posts: 3206
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2018 9:55 am

I haven't yet been asked, it doesn't matter, I won't be playing ball.

I've nothing to hide, but I wouldn't bother jumping through the hoops Betfair would expect me to. I'd just cash out and go away until things had settled down, if they ever do. They won't miss me, but I'd feel better overall.

Betfair, despite their best efforts, are still disorganised since they carved out some of their depts to Romania. All it needs is some hacker to infiltrate the source of funds.exe file, (yep probably called that) and then everyones ID and personal info is on offer to the highest bidder.

Having worked in UK casino's, I know the gaming board/commission exist for good reason, but. give them too much "power" or unclear direction, it will end badly.

It's important to remember;

GC.png

Protecting the vulnerable, okay, but as already pointed out, the crypto space has seen many get smashed and the operaters just change the rules mid-stream. (robinhood). That's not covered, although definitely a gambling activity.

They don't cover spread betting either...

The betting shops re-open on May 17th, I predict that a chunk of those will disappear within a year, it was going that way before the covid hit.

Casinos are/were closing too. (open May 17). I only play poker in their card-rooms, the table games are not as popular, although the slot machines are. Wouldn't be surprised if the GC act to restrict the time customers play on those too.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Post Reply

Return to “Betfair exchange”