Gambling Review White Paper update

[jamesedwards]

A year on from the above post, I met with the same chap today to discuss how things are moving forward.

Key updates:

• Everything is taking more time than initially expected due to complexities of process. But things are coming to a head and we should learn a lot more in the next few weeks.

• Trials are expected to be announced very shortly, for review in 3 months, followed by full go live in September.

• Checks will apply to new account applicants and existing accounts which trigger loss thresholds.

• The exact thresholds are still in review but will probably remain similar to what was initially proposed.

• The weighting of checks seems to be moving away from affordability (estimated income/expenditure, occupation, home ownership, postcode etc), and more towards individual vulnerability and signs of financial distress (CCJs, defaults, missed payments, high credit utilisation, high-interest short term credit etc).

• The process should mostly be seamless with no customer touchpoint required unless vulnerabilities are flagged.

• Single Customer View remains very complicated and sounds likely to be mothballed.

It remains to be seen exactly how long-term profitable customers will fit into this process. In the meantime it's worth keeping an eye on your credit file and getting it looking as good as possible. Although the focus seems to be moving away from affordability it may well still be part of any manual Operator review process triggered by heavy losses. Therefore it can't hurt to keep income and outgoings as consistent as possible in case we still end up having to share our bank statements.

Details of the trial have just been announced by the GC.
https://www.racingpost.com/news/gamblin ... J14s24p2G/

Reading between the lines, I think anyone losing £125 in 30 days or £500 in a year will mandatorily have their credit file checked for signs of financial distress. This is the "frictionless" bit. But anyone losing £1000 in 24 hours or £2000 in 90 days will have to go through a "more detailed check of finances" which probably will be similar to today's standard practise, ie source of wealth, statements etc.

It seems that Operators will not be expected to act on data they receive during the trial period.

The trial will last 4 - 6 months and there will be a big review at the end, probably where all the Operators will claim the thresholds are far too low.

[Michael5482]

A year on from the above post, I met with the same chap today to discuss how things are moving forward.

Key updates:

• Everything is taking more time than initially expected due to complexities of process. But things are coming to a head and we should learn a lot more in the next few weeks.

• Trials are expected to be announced very shortly, for review in 3 months, followed by full go live in September.

• Checks will apply to new account applicants and existing accounts which trigger loss thresholds.

• The exact thresholds are still in review but will probably remain similar to what was initially proposed.

• The weighting of checks seems to be moving away from affordability (estimated income/expenditure, occupation, home ownership, postcode etc), and more towards individual vulnerability and signs of financial distress (CCJs, defaults, missed payments, high credit utilisation, high-interest short term credit etc).

• The process should mostly be seamless with no customer touchpoint required unless vulnerabilities are flagged.

• Single Customer View remains very complicated and sounds likely to be mothballed.

It remains to be seen exactly how long-term profitable customers will fit into this process. In the meantime it's worth keeping an eye on your credit file and getting it looking as good as possible. Although the focus seems to be moving away from affordability it may well still be part of any manual Operator review process triggered by heavy losses. Therefore it can't hurt to keep income and outgoings as consistent as possible in case we still end up having to share our bank statements.

Details of the trial have just been announced by the GC.
https://www.racingpost.com/news/gamblin ... J14s24p2G/

Reading between the lines, I think anyone losing £125 in 30 days or £500 in a year will mandatorily have their credit file checked for signs of financial distress. This is the "frictionless" bit. But anyone losing £1000 in 24 hours or £2000 in 90 days will have to go through a "more detailed check of finances" which probably will be similar to today's standard practise, ie source of wealth, statements etc.

It seems that Operators will not be expected to act on data they receive during the trial period.

The trial will last 4 - 6 months and there will be a big review at the end, probably where all the Operators will claim the thresholds are far too low.

Let's hope it's a complete and utter failure like just about everything the Government touches, however it looks like they've washed their hands of it now and passed it on to the GC to sort out so they have someone to blame when it goes tits up but lets be honest the Government started all this they are responsible for the white paper and the GC.

One area I am on agreement with is the limiting stakes on slots but still doesn't go far enough I'd like to see slots/spins style games banned full stop along with lottery scratch cards.

[Euler]

I don't understand why they don't just set deposit limits. You can do AML at that point and that doesn't limit peoples ability to enjoy something on their terms.

[Dublin_Flyer]

Let's hope it's a complete and utter failure like just about everything the Government touches.

One area I am on agreement with is the limiting stakes on slots but still doesn't go far enough I'd like to see slots/spins style games banned full stop along with lottery scratch cards.

I can't see lottery scratch cards being banned because of their community funding/charity (thus tax free winnings) status. Even limiting purchases to 10 cards or £50 total, if someone has their heart and mind set on scratching 3 big cash bags then they'll probably blow £250 on a 100m stretch of any busy city between supermarkets and newsagents selling them, or double that if they stop for a coffee and visit each place again. At £500 now, and then the petrol station they passed on the way in and out of the city, that's £600 and none of the sellers have broken any law!

Linda the housewife can lose £600 between dropping the kids to school and collecting them every day, £3000 a week with no affordability checks, and nobody is in the wrong. (Legally, not ethically or morally)

Long story short, if people are gonna gamble, you can't stop them. Ban traditional gambling ads all you want, there's still gonna be ads for Pink Bingo, Girls Bingo, Glitter Fluffy Unicorn Bingo at every single ad break in Love Island or whatever shite women watch these days, but that's ok because it's not gambling in the traditional sense....

[Safeway]

You can stop people gambling. The government can pass a law.
It will shortly be illegal for disposable vapes to be sold in the UK to anybody not just kids - law. Look at the minimum age requirement changes to purchase tobacco too- law. You could go on and on. Anything can happen.
In the last couple of decades our old world has been completely turned upside down and in most ways it’s not any better for it. It’s a miserable, digital, ‘tick box’ place where the computer has been given licence to say ‘no’ most of the time.

But relax - these things are all there to protect you. The Government cares about you and knows you do not have enough about you to regulate your own behaviour. You should be grateful to live in such a caring society

[weemac]

You can stop people gambling. The government can pass a law.
It will shortly be illegal for disposable vapes to be sold in the UK to anybody not just kids - law. Look at the minimum age requirement changes to purchase tobacco too- law. You could go on and on. Anything can happen.
In the last couple of decades our old world has been completely turned upside down and in most ways it’s not any better for it. It’s a miserable, digital, ‘tick box’ place where the computer has been given licence to say ‘no’ most of the time.

But relax - these things are all there to protect you. The Government cares about you and knows you do not have enough about you to regulate your own behaviour. You should be grateful to live in such a caring society

I was in M&S at 9:45am buying something nice for Sunday lunch. "Cheeky bottle of wine will go nicely with it", I thought.

Nope. Law says I can't buy alcohol until 10am.

A tiny minority can't control themselves, so the entire population has to pay the price.

[Hepburn]

Oh my goodness this is hilarious!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJ3cUJFcPHM

[Michael5482]

Let's hope it's a complete and utter failure like just about everything the Government touches.

One area I am on agreement with is the limiting stakes on slots but still doesn't go far enough I'd like to see slots/spins style games banned full stop along with lottery scratch cards.

I can't see lottery scratch cards being banned because of their community funding/charity (thus tax free winnings) status. Even limiting purchases to 10 cards or £50 total, if someone has their heart and mind set on scratching 3 big cash bags then they'll probably blow £250 on a 100m stretch of any busy city between supermarkets and newsagents selling them, or double that if they stop for a coffee and visit each place again. At £500 now, and then the petrol station they passed on the way in and out of the city, that's £600 and none of the sellers have broken any law!

Linda the housewife can lose £600 between dropping the kids to school and collecting them every day, £3000 a week with no affordability checks, and nobody is in the wrong. (Legally, not ethically or morally)

Long story short, if people are gonna gamble, you can't stop them. Ban traditional gambling ads all you want, there's still gonna be ads for Pink Bingo, Girls Bingo, Glitter Fluffy Unicorn Bingo at every single ad break in Love Island or whatever shite women watch these days, but that's ok because it's not gambling in the traditional sense....

No they wouldn't be banned but I'd ban them if I was in charge. The issue I have with scratch cards is they launch one on Monday morning at 8am by 9am it's possible for a large amount of prize money they are offering to have been won, but they continue to sell for weeks on on end despite the prizes there advertising are no longer available to win and haven't been for a while.

There an absolute con IMO, no different to them selling lottery tickets for last Saturdays draw today knowing the tickets can't possibly win.

[jamesedwards]

Oh my goodness this is hilarious!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJ3cUJFcPHM

Capture 5.PNG

[Euler]

I'm a great believer of using humour to throw things into sharp relief.

[Kai]

Humour is reason gone mad

[decomez6]

I'm a great believer of using humour to throw things into sharp relief.

FREEDOM Bet Angel.gif

click gif of FREEEDOM

[Euler]

Both sides of the debate in Parlianment, but there are some good points being made.

[Michael5482]

Both sides of the debate in Parlianment, but there are some good points being made.

Thanks Peter I forgot about that, I've just started watching it from the beginning.

[Euler]

I think the horse racing aspect and the difference between skill or non skill games has come across really well.