Suggestions for reforms to UK gambling regulation

[disgruntled_punter]

The title above is fairly self-explanatory.

It is clear that online gambling regulation needs looked at having not been subject to major legislation since Gambling Act 2005 almost 20 years ago.

I will go first.

Unless you have an address for service of legal documents in the UK AND your contracts are subject to English law you don't get a licence.

This way no more bookmakers in places like Malta playing fun and games as they know post-Brexit it will take an eternity to sue them with many hurdles to jump through.

 

[Mark_Lottomart]

Dear Mr D Punter,

I’ve seen a few of your posts and I’ve wanted to respond, but I can’t see the benefit when you’ve clearly got a predetermined opinion on how gambling operations work and how they (we) mistreat you. Your forum username is obviously a reflection of your current mindset.

Perhaps, as a suggestion and please don’t take this wrong way, if you asked reasonable questions and tried to understand the industry and the obstacles and difficulties from an operator point of view (yes, we have struggles too and get disgruntled with some player responses etc) then we can engage in a reasonable debate?

Best wishes!
Mark

 

[disgruntled_punter]

Respectfully, I wouldn't expect an operator rep to be keen on more regulation and especially not on anything which results in operators being easier to sue.

In addition, I understand the industry fully and see no benefit in pretending that gambling operators are full of the joys of spring and walking fountains of benevolence. They aren't.

The fact is that the current regulatory regime is broken, players are treated with contempt and KYC is being weaponised. You only have to look at the threads on here on a daily basis. This place is almost becoming a support group for those traumatised by KYC.

How about if you don't pay a withdrawal within 72 hours the player gets 10% daily interest. Don't pay the interest your licence gets ripped up. That would soon stop the "why did you mate Dave send you 30 quid 3 months ago?" nonsense KYC questions we are starting to see more and more of.

Something needs to change. The LCCP 17.1.1 reforms of 7 May 2019 haven't worked. Players are still subject to withdrawals being conditional upon documents.

It's really this simple. If you don't want to pay, don't let them play. When you take a deposit you are committed to paying any withdrawal arising from the deposit otherwise don't accept the deposit in the first place.

It's high time players stopped indulging operators and simply stood up to them using any legal means available.

 

[jasonuk]

I wouldn't lump all operators in the same boat - some of them appear to be equally frustrated with the situation because the ridiculous overhead costs them money and reputation (in excessive background checks, in additional CS, in PR headaches from customers having bad experiences, or concerned the UKGC will switch direction again and start accusing them of regulatory failings despite following the guidelines).

Admittedly many will use it to take the piss - which is why we need a regulator that is on the ball. Unfortunately we've got the UKGC - who are not only asleep at the wheel, but completely asleep (as demonstrated when they admitted in a recent panel they didn't have a handle on unregulated crypto gambling - and that it might take them another three years for an industry that has already been an epidemic* for 3-4 years).

At this point, some of the headline operators (e.g. those that operate on the high street) seem to be happier to flout the regulations and take a periodic fine, rather than fix their processes because I expect they make more money that way. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realise that a new account depositing £10000 in a week might need investigating... and yet we still hear cases about it with some regularity.

In terms of withdrawals, I would put aside larger withdrawals (£2000+) because those are beholden to two sets of regulations - the UKGC ones (LCCP mentioned above) and AML. If the withdrawal is the triggering condition, then it predictably causes a pain point - exaggerated when those reasonable requests (proof of ID, proof of address) become unreasonable (bank records, blood type, why they sent £20 to a friend six months ago).

The problem comes with the rest of them - we've seen countless examples where a CDD (customer due diligence) request is triggered suspiciously close to a withdrawal - such that as far as the player is concerned they believe - rightly or wrongly - the non-qualifying withdrawal triggered it (for example, the Kwiff BBF). The recent WH debacle is another blatant example - the wagers easily triggered CDD, but they deferred it to collection anticipating it would cause significant inconvenience to the customer.

Operators are always going to push the boundaries, it's on the regulator to push back and keep the checks and balances - unfortunately time and again the UKGC demonstrate they are not fit for purpose.

[* For clarity, I'm talking purely in the regulation landscape here - understandably the actual situation is a mixture of good and evil]

 

[KasinoKing]

It's really this simple. If you don't want to pay, don't let them play. When you take a deposit you are committed to paying any withdrawal arising from the deposit otherwise don't accept the deposit in the first place.

I 100% agree with this!

But I also 100% know why casinos do not want to ask for SOW before a player's first deposit - because their initial depositor numbers would go down the toilet faster than Dunover's last movement!

So my suggestion for a reform to UKGC rules would be that casinos MUST pay out any win resulting from the first deposit only, with or without SOW.
But that SOW must be collected before the player is allowed to make a second deposit (regardless of whether they won with the first one, or not).

This would benefit the casinos in not putting off potential new players and would still meet the requirements of the UKGC's draconian SOW requirements.

KK

 

[satchnz]

I 100% agree with this!

But I also 100% know why casinos do not want to ask for SOW before a player's first deposit - because their initial depositor numbers would go down the toilet faster than Dunover's last movement!

So my suggestion for a reform to UKGC rules would be that casinos MUST pay out any win resulting from the first deposit only, with or without SOW.
But that SOW must be collected before the player is allowed to make a second deposit (regardless of whether they won with the first one, or not).

This would benefit the casinos in not putting off potential new players and would still meet the requirements of the UKGC's draconian SOW requirements.

KK

The overriding issues are still are online casinos qualified to determine your financial status, and do they have appropriate security and privacy measures in place to ensure your private financial information is handled correctly?