Gambling Review White Paper update

[tumby]

I thought The Racing Post had been a bit quiet regarding affordability checks but looks like they've gone back on the front foot, with multiple articles.

Link to find your MP along with drafted letter regarding affordability and request for your MP to attend the debate on 26th Feb. Mine won't budge maybe your's will if you wish to enage with them.

https://racingdebate.eaction.org.uk/email

Thank you for highlighting this Michael5482, I have used the Racing Post form to email my MP. It certainly made it easy for me, I don't look at the racing post so would have missed this. Thanks

[jamesedwards]

I was at ICE today, and spent some quality time with a rep from the Gambling Commission, and the Experian UK Head of Gaming. I discussed the impending government safer-gambling white paper from the perspective of a pro-gambler.

Below is a summary of what I learnt:

• There will be a clear and aligned set of specific guidelines that every Operator will need to adhere to.

• Operators will be expected to conduct a review of every new account application as well as churning through existing accounts every X period of time. There will also be a set of loss-based criteria (to be confirmed) that trigger further review. eg £1k in a day, £2k in 7 days, £5k in 3 months etc.

• The review will be facilitated by a third party Data Provider (eg Experian), who will check/compare data provided by the Customer against data on file and report back any anomalies and likely also an affordability score. The affordability score will be based on postcode, credit file, and top-line income/outgoings of bank accounts. If the customer is signed up to Open Banking then they will use this extra layer of granularity to provide a more accurate affordability score. Operators will use the affordability score to set appropriate spend limits.

• Customers will no longer need to provide wage slips and bank statements, unless required by exception. Operators' refusal to include consistent gambling winnings as income "should" be a thing of the past.

• There will be some element of single customer view to follow which aims to make sure the Customer's total gambling spend across all Operators is considered when conducting a review. There are many hurdles to overcome before anything can go live, not least GDPR. Interestingly the GC rep said they were hoping for something this year while the guy from Experian expected it to be several years down the line.

Best practise for pro-gamblers:

• Try and keep gambling withdrawals regular and consistent. eg the same value on the same day every month, as if you were receiving a salary. This will show as your 'income' in an affordability review.

• Keep as good a credit score as possible.

• Consider the affect your top-line income and expenditure may have on your affordability score.

• If you pass gambling withdrawals through your bank account to other investments/savings accounts be aware that these will show as expenditure on an affordability check. Be prepared to offer up proof of investments/savings balances if you are challenged.

• If your finances are in a particularly good state then consider signing up to Open Banking which will allow the affordability score to consider your exact gambling income/expenditure and have visibility of what you do with your withdrawals.

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.

[conduirez]

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.

Thanks for the update James

I thought the government idea was too complicated last year and can understand why it had to be watered down.

I still am totally against the plan as it always the thin edge of the wedge, and I am totally fed up with the nanny state.

If you think these checks on each of us will never be disclosed, here's a reminder of what Credit Reference Agencies were doing less than four years ago.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-54706066

[conduirez]

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.

Thanks for the update James

I thought the government idea was too complicated last year and can understand why it had to be watered down.

I still am totally against the plan as it always is the thin edge of the wedge, and I am totally fed up with the nanny state.

If you think these checks on each of us will never be disclosed, here's a reminder of what Credit Reference Agencies were doing less than four years ago.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-54706066

[firlandsfarm]

OK, maybe not directly related to the white paper but a clear example of how financial checks can be screwed. My QLED TV has developed a fault so I thought it would be a good time to upgrade my Sky+ service to Sky Glass because that comes with an up to date TV and is actually £10 pm cheaper than I'm currently paying and that includes the new TV. No brainer, but ... Sky refused me following a credit check! They claim to get their credit info from Experian and Equifax so I opened accounts with both to check what the problem is (I was unaware of any financial black marks). On accessing the accounts Experian confirmed my credit rating as 999/999 and Equifax confirmed it as 1000/1000 ... 100% perfect in both cases!

I will do battle with Sky later today, apparently I can ask for a manual appraisal.

My connection with this thread is ... can the interface between the credit agencies and their users be trusted?

[Euler]

Thanks for the update

[jamesedwards]

OK, maybe not directly related to the white paper but a clear example of how financial checks can be screwed. My QLED TV has developed a fault so I thought it would be a good time to upgrade my Sky+ service to Sky Glass because that comes with an up to date TV and is actually £10 pm cheaper than I'm currently paying and that includes the new TV. No brainer, but ... Sky refused me following a credit check! They claim to get their credit info from Experian and Equifax so I opened accounts with both to check what the problem is (I was unaware of any financial black marks). On accessing the accounts Experian confirmed my credit rating as 999/999 and Equifax confirmed it as 1000/1000 ... 100% perfect in both cases!

I will do battle with Sky later today, apparently I can ask for a manual appraisal.

My connection with this thread is ... can the interface between the credit agencies and their users be trusted?

Credit file is not just about credit history and score. If your credit score is 999 yet you were declined due to info on your credit file then there's probably an anomaly between ID data on file vs the info Sky inputted on their search. eg Name, DOB, address, cifas, etc. Hopefully Sky will be able to resolve in a manual review.

[firlandsfarm]

Credit file is not just about credit history and score. If your credit score is 999 yet you were declined due to info on your credit file then there's probably an anomaly between ID data on file vs the info Sky inputted on their search. eg Name, DOB, address, cifas, etc. Hopefully Sky will be able to resolve in a manual review.

They did thanks James ... they asked the usual 'security' questions and said all is OK! New TV coming on Tuesday. But what does annoy me is that with every upgrade you lose all your recordings, would have thought Sky would have sorted that by now.

Anyone know how to get a Sky recording onto a removeable hard disk or pen drive etc.?

[MobiusGrey]

Response from my MP if anyone is interested:

Thank you for inviting me to this Westminster Hall debate. Unfortunately, due to diary commitments, I cannot attend. However, I note the concerns you have raised regarding affordability checks in british gambling. I have sent your email, together with a letter of my own, to Lucy Frazer, the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media, and Sport. I will write to you again as soon as a response is received.

Yours sincerely,

Julian


Rt Hon Julian Smith CBE MP

[jamesedwards]

This might be useful info too.

Some screenshots I captured on show at ICE from a smaller company whose name I forget. They supply review systems to gambling operators that create dashboards for individual users based on info held in credit bureaus etc.

The operator would use the dashboard to aid with manual decision making. Approval/loss limits etc. Interesting to see what kind of things they are looking for.

10.jpg

11.jpg

12.jpg

[jamesedwards]

13.jpg

14.jpg

15.jpg

[conduirez]

This might be useful info too.

Some screenshots I captured on show at ICE from a smaller company whose name I forget. They supply review systems to gambling operators that create dashboards for individual users based on info held in credit bureaus etc.

The operator would use the dashboard to aid with manual decision making. Approval/loss limits etc. Interesting to see what kind of things they are looking for.

Do you think this information will be held on everyone, even people who have never gambled in their life? Just in case they ever tried to deposit money with a gambling operator in the future.

[Michael5482]

This might be useful info too.

Some screenshots I captured on show at ICE from a smaller company whose name I forget. They supply review systems to gambling operators that create dashboards for individual users based on info held in credit bureaus etc.

The operator would use the dashboard to aid with manual decision making. Approval/loss limits etc. Interesting to see what kind of things they are looking for.


10.jpg

11.jpg

12.jpg

Crazy and indeed scary on how much data company's hold and can garner on you. Turning into a game of cat and mouse people are looking at copious amounts of data to find an edge and there looking at copious amounts data trying to stop you.

Keep your nut down and they don't have enough information on you to make a decision so they'll restrict you, give them to much and they'll restrict you anyway. On the other hand they'll have no customers left as they ban winners anyway and now they may have to ban losers on mass. The big gambling firms don't seem to be saying a lot however it appears they have their eyes fixed on America to be bothered.

I can't see any news on the new regulator for gamblers either, that will no doubt be on the back burner. It's just a complete mess and frustrating to boot.

[jamesedwards]

This might be useful info too.

Some screenshots I captured on show at ICE from a smaller company whose name I forget. They supply review systems to gambling operators that create dashboards for individual users based on info held in credit bureaus etc.

The operator would use the dashboard to aid with manual decision making. Approval/loss limits etc. Interesting to see what kind of things they are looking for.

Do you think this information will be held on everyone, even people who have never gambled in their life? Just in case they ever tried to deposit money with a gambling operator in the future.

To my knowledge all the data shown is available in your credit file, CATO, or PEP database, except perhaps the bits that break down your expenditure. I think expenditure data will only be available if you have ever signed up to 'open banking' or shared bank statements.

[jamesedwards]

This might be useful info too.

Some screenshots I captured on show at ICE from a smaller company whose name I forget. They supply review systems to gambling operators that create dashboards for individual users based on info held in credit bureaus etc.

The operator would use the dashboard to aid with manual decision making. Approval/loss limits etc. Interesting to see what kind of things they are looking for.


10.jpg

11.jpg

12.jpg

Crazy and indeed scary on how much data company's hold and can garner on you. Turning into a game of cat and mouse people are looking at copious amounts of data to find an edge and there looking at copious amounts data trying to stop you.

Keep your nut down and they don't have enough information on you to make a decision so they'll restrict you, give them to much and they'll restrict you anyway. On the other hand they'll have no customers left as they ban winners anyway and now they may have to ban losers on mass. The big gambling firms don't seem to be saying a lot however it appears they have their eyes fixed on America to be bothered.

I can't see any news on the new regulator for gamblers either, that will no doubt be on the back burner. It's just a complete mess and frustrating to boot.

I should have been clearer. This isn't necessarily an example of how the world will look following impending legislation. It's just to demonstrate the kind of data they already have access to already and the kind of things that likely influence their decisions today when you apply to open an account, or increase a loss limit etc.