Affordability checks are real in the UK gambling world now. It is one of the conditions of having a UKGC licence.

Sites must check a customer can afford their level of play. They must get proof that their source of funds is legitimate and work out how much that customer can spend per month. Firms are unilaterally enforcing loss limits of a couple of hundred pounds per month onto players.

This is not just for people making large deposits. On routine UKGC inspections casinos have been asked to prove they know a customers funds are legitimate and they can afford what they are depositing for a player who has deposited <£1000 liftime. If they cannot provide this proof they get a slap on the wrist and told next time this happens the slap will be much harsher (a huge fine).

Nobody wants this apart from the Government who are getting sites to do their dirty work for them. It is intrusive for the players and the sites know they alienate customers by doing this and a lot of people wont go through the ordeal of constantly having to satisfy requests to send in sensitive financial documents just to lose money to them.

Some sites sites try and do it nicely in a helpful way but it ends up being crappy having an enforced loss limit of £400 per month or deposits blocked until you give them personal financial history

Some sites (sadly a majority) use it to be arseholes and force it out of customers by allowing play without saying anything then blocking withdrawals until they get the sensitive documents (when they should be blocking deposits).

They also use it to hassle winning players by making the most demanding requests of them including statements from 3rd parties (IE if you send in a bank statement, and it has a transfer from another person on it they will demand that other persons bank statements also) - google "casumo source of wealth"

Ultimately as said above gambling winnings are not allowed to be counted as income or proof of affordability. Savings accounts can count towards this however so use your brain if presented with one of these requests. Your loss limits on your account will not be up to you it will be up to the person making the request.

Personally I agree a postman should not be allowed to lose £400,000 on paddy power before questions are being asked where he got it from but this has gone way too far.

I did read a wall of text from an irate casino manager who left the UK market where he accused the UKGC of a lot of things. One of the accusations that seemed to hold some weight was that the UKGC are a lot tougher with these regulations on the smaller firms than the BIG SIX in the UK. Certainly I have never been SOW'd by William Hill so maybe they had a point.

not true

You had the choice

I dont agree fully with this.

If you walk down a high road in london ever third shop is a betting office.

No regulations on how much a person can gamble.

You can walk in there on a friday evening and put your weeks wages on a 29 second dog race (live and virtual)

This to me is all about TAX and nothing more.

Don't really agree with that either. By forcing online sites to alienate customers by asking for all types of intrusive information less money will be gambled and less money for the treasury. While i don't agree with the methods of the UKGC from a personal standpoint as it causes me inconvenience i don't doubt they are doing this to stop problem gamblers losing their houses and possibly their lives from addiction.

Affordability checks are already happening and the lengths they go to are ridiculous. My betvictor account was recently reactivated but was a euro account not GBP. They told me to make a new account in GBP and it wouldn't be a problem. Before i had wagered a single penny my account was locked and had to show affordability and the origin of funds that will be deposited. After sending in a copious amount of bank statements and proof of gambling profit it ending with a phone call asking for information about transactions on the bank statements and wanting statements for any other financial accounts i held. Just told them to stuff it i have given you people enough and its your choice to approve me on the information i have sent or don't. Within a hour i was approved to lose some money betting on football.

Guess the point is they don't want to do this anymore than we want to give them this information its just the UKGC forcing them with the threats of massive fines. You also don't need to show them everything a reasonable amount of information that proves affordability is enough.

I liked the rest of your post but I don't think this part is accurate. Grosvenor specifically emailed me about this and clearly stated that if I could show them a gambling transaction withdrawal from any online casino/poker site that it would satisfy thier requirements and allow me to continue.

Edit: I am happy to be completely wrong on this but just going off my own personal experience. I will try find the email if anyone wants to see it.

Yeah hes wrong about that i have done a dozen of these things over the last few years and its always stated gambling winnings are acceptable as proof of income/funds. The difference now is they are starting to do them before you have even wagered instead of after reaching a higher threshold of activity.

Not really - what happened was you could choose to "pay the tax" - that meant that you would bet an extra 9p on the £ - so £109 at evens returned £200 (if you just bet £109 at evens your after tax return would be .91 x 218 - £198.38).

Of course all that was really happening was the average losing punter was betting more and losing more.

As others have said it wasn't a tax, rather betting duty. If the government actually wanted to tax winnings as income, it would have to create an entirely new tax schedule that specifically applied to a newly created class of taxpayer and avoided losses being offset against anything other than winnings and somehow avoid the deal killer that everyone who won £10 on the lottery had to complete a tax return.

They won't do that as the revenue would be minuscule in comparison to the development costs (and parliamentary time to change the law) and ongoing admin costs.

Whilst I partially agree with you, it wouldn’t be hard to add a carve out for the National Lottery, but you could kiss goodbye to the likes of the postcode lotteryS

I don't know why the US doesn't re-legalize online poker and implement a system like this where the sites pay them tax on gross profit, as you said it's a lucrative source of revenue they're missing out on and they have far more players than we do. They could maybe work with UKGC in licencing sites for US players.

Excellent post, good to know the exact legal situation in uk.

I just hope they don't get too silly with 'affordability checks'. You would think these would be more to prevent stuff like money laundering rather than to stop "the vulnerable" (aka idiots with no self control) from blowing the rent money. There's plenty of warnings on tv and support groups for problem gamblers, ultimately people have to take responsibility for their own actions and learn from their mistakes, not have their government change the law for the other 99% of people.

Just to be clear...I'm not a subject matter expert on the current gambling regs on affordability checks (I am an expert on some aspects of UK financial law, esp mortgages where affordability checks are a legal absolute).

I'm not sure affordability checks for gambling purposes in the UK are an absolute...I've played on Stars 10 years and they have never asked my squat about my income...not even once, not even an iota. Which suggests some vendor flexibility, which would not be case if the law was clearly defined as it is for regulated loans.

Hence there may be some flex over using gambling winnings somehow, alternatively, it may just be the examples above, the vendors are using previous transactions as evidence for identity or something...idk

edit

OK, I did a little research (#nolife) it appears to me that "affordability checks" in the UK gambling industry are still mainly advisory...as in vendors are strongly advised to do them and leaving themselves open to regulatory action if they don't and gambling harm is an outcome...but how they do them seems pretty random.

Unlike my (previous) industry (mortgages/regulated money) where affordability checks and what is included is completely scripted.

So my earlier post was (just a little ) too assertive on affordability checks for gambling purposes...sorry.

All that said, my reading just now suggests the UK Gambling Commission want moar...

And since I've no spent a while itt...my view...

The current government won't dramatically interfere with UK gambling in all its forms too much and what they may do will mainly be aimed at tightening up on responsible gambling and reducing "gambling harms".

Why do I think that...

Gambling in the UK is deeply embedded in our culture (think horse racing)
It creates around 100 thousand jobs
It creates direct and indirect tax revenues

...but the UK gambling industry is clearly not "too big to fail", in the UK, so once this brexit/covid combo is over, and especially if the other lot get in (who won't see it as a "sacred cow") the big UK gambling picture might start to alter significantly.

PokerStars are notorious since their takeover for freezing accounts after deposit and only then requesting proof of ID. Again try withdrawing from PokerStars and the shutters come down. And it's days or weeks for their email only 'support' to review, process or respond to any request. Personally think they have real issues behind the scenes and are not to be trusted.

Grosvenor Casino are now offering to use Open Banking link with Experian to do their affordability checks. Again no issues making two deposits, but as soon as I put a withdrawal request in, 'Sorry we need to do KYC checks for affordability' Fortunately the withdrawal went through, but future deposits are on hold for a week and counting now. Via Experian they've had sight of a year's worth of transaction on an account with an annual income 100x my total deposit, so will see what limits they eventually determine are appropriate. Alternatively I'll just withdrawal the rest of my monies and go elsewhere!

They were supposed to be reopening their doors today in the real world, but that's being pushed back. It does seem surreal that I can walk in to a bricks and mortar casino with a brick of £50s, sit down at a table and noone blinks an eye, but deposit a couple of buy-ins online and the questioning is on a par with a tax audit!

I asked them the same question over the phone, "will you be doing affordability checks in your bricks and mortar casinos?"

They couldn't answer my question, nor as you say could they explain the logic behind why online accounts need these checks and live doesn't.

This new system is kind of stupid anyway, because as someone ITT already mentioned/alluded to, it will result in them only having winning players that can afford to play (or sensible BRM players), and they will ban losing players because most losing players are typically playing beyond their means, so the "money supply" will dry up.

It is a load of illogical nonsense, all created by the current UK gambling legislation which allows blanket gambling advertising on television, and on football teams' shirts, and allows a very loosely regulated online gaming industry, but at the same time justifies all of this by saying that all that all gaming companies have to do is say "When the fun stops, stop" at the end of any advertising.

The message therefore really is the same as saying "take heroin, but when the fun stops, stop".

The TV advertising that particularly disgusts me is targeting women with pink, fluffy type adverts for bingo and slots, women being a group who as a whole would never go anywhere near gambling, but these ads are cleverly made, conveying a warm, cuddly and safe image of gambling. They are doing a lot of harm to society.

People should be able to gamble whatever they like regardless of the "affordability" of it for them, like they can spend what they like on any other vice, or on anything else at all, e.g. a car, clothes, food even, but people should only gamble because they have deliberately set out to do so, they should not be targeted by predatory gaming companies, which is what is being allowed to happen under current legislation.

These affordability checks are just a red herring and do not tackle the real issues.

Point 1 that i highlighted, i think you're totally wrong there, i think at least 95% of losing players play within their means.

Point 2, not quite the same, bit of an exaggeration, but problem gamblers can self exclude themselves from sites, i think i read they can self blanket exclude from all sites or gambling help groups can do this for them, this is definitely a much better solution than the government interfering for the 99% of people who don't have a problem.

Point 3, I totally agree with, you can't start putting caps on what people can spend on things, not without damaging the economy anyway.

toryscum and ukgc - what could possibly go wrong?

https://www.theguardian.com/society/...s-report-finds

Among wide-ranging recommendations due to be published on Wednesday, the SMF will call for:

A £100-per-month “soft cap” on online losses.
Tax breaks for firms that move onshore.
Limits on how much can be staked online.
A regulatory shake-up, including a new ombudsman.
A kitemarking system for firms that uphold standards.
A clearer sanctions regime for those that don’t.

I wonder if that's £100 altogether or per site? If it's per site then I could easily find 50 casinos to lose £5k at

yeah i read this report too but few things were unclear to me,

is that £100 per month soft cap on deposits or just flat out losses? I have had downswings of a few hundred before but over any given month if i am active each day it is very unlikely i lose over the whole month. I cannot see myself needing to make deposits so this would not affect me, unless it affected me through the grape vine if we are limited on how much we can deposit.

limits on how much can be staked online so I would only be able to stake a total amount each day on poker or a certain amount per game wouldnt this completely kill me?

is this likely to go through and if it does is this not the end of uk online poker pro?

Just the kind of article you would expect from a leftie/socialist newspaper like the guardian, not that there's any other kind of newspaper available in the uk these days.

This is from the SMF website:

The Social Market Foundation is Britain's leading cross-party think-tank, standing proudly in the centre-ground of politics since 1989. We bring together people of all parties and none, to develop evidence-based policies that support a fair society and a strong economy.

Strong economy LOL. yeah because capping what 100% of the population regardless of net worth can spend on something to a ridiculously tiny amount just because 1 or 2% of people are out of control will really help the industry and the economy.

"Centre ground of politics", what a joke, the clue is in the name.

If these idiots get this stupid idea through its the end of online poker in the uk.


SMF, reminds me of an acronym you would often see in stars chat many years ago after someone sucked out.

I would guess that the £100 a month would be a default and you would have to actively set a higher level with some verification. What relevance long term winning vs short term losing would have, is obviously a key point. Unfortunately anti-gambling zealots aren't great at appreciating the problems they create for winners.

The impracticalities of the scheme are fairly obvious with people going between sites and multi-accounting to avoid limits. If they sort that out, I look forward to drinkers, smokers and fashion addicts facing the same restrictions.

This is terrifying. "Limits on how much can be staked online" does not sound good. Surely gaming lobbyists will never allow this and the government can't afford the lack of extra income right now.

The fact that they talk about offshore is a good thing imo. They will need to balance the risk of alienating customers, who use tax paying onshore betting sites, against those who will just go and bet offshore anyway.

it does seem absurd i mean if i opened a pub and said customers could only come in if they read and signed this literature about problem drinkers and then asked for proof of life style choices or finances and had to speak to them about how drinking may affect their personal life, I doubt I would get a single customer.

if they make gambling sites have to do this I think all the casual players will just go well **** this.

I legit fear this would kill online poker in the uk i guess the question is how likely is this to get through? how much political support does this have?

I'm calling bullshit on your location.

Crikey! Calm down. Think of the blood pressure.

I agree with Winni @47.

Its called personal responsibility, why not go the whole hog and ban credit cards because a very small minority massively overspend. Bloody silly or what.

I dont know about you but living in a so called democracy where you get to vote for this or that party every 4 years or so does'nt feel much like democracy to me.
Add to that being afraid to pass your opinion on any fair and proper matters that involve criticising minorities because that is deemed the dreaded word 'racist'.

If I was young I'd be out of the UK in trice.