Don’t Rely on the Gambling Commission

[robert99]

Living in UK you get used to Government funding paid to countless unelected bureaucracies to regulate things to give citizens a fair deal. Be aware that lobby groups get gullible politicians to draft regulations so that when push comes to shove it turns out nothing can actually be done to remedy bad practice and you can be completely unprotected. The politicians then pass the buck back to the regulator whose hands they have tied.

The Gambling Commission has now admitted it cannot regulate companies registered with GC who do not pay out. Don’t think you have any protection for a payout even if you can get a bet on in the first place. Honouring a bet and paying up is now a legal duty covered by the Gambling Act which ironically the Gambling Commission was actually set up to oversee.

"Gambling Commission: “People using betting operators need to understand that they do so at their own risk” as there is little the commission can do."

"Don’t bet on these regulators
Gambling Commission, Issue 1361

WHENEVER the government is urged to do something about problem gambling, it insists that the industry regulator, the Gambling Commission, has the answer. When it comes to the most basic issue of a bookie refusing to pay hundreds of thousands of pounds owed to punters, however, the commission is entirely useless.
Eye reader Richard Stone ran up winnings of just under £5,000 with online sports betting company Canbet last summer. When he tried to withdraw the first £2,000 of his winnings from Canbet into his own account in September 2013, nothing happened. Online gambling forums were already filling with complaints about Canbet; so sensing a bigger problem, Stone tried complaining to the Gambling Commission last October.

The commission told Mr Stone to use Canbet’s own complaints procedure. Despite sending several emails, he didn’t receive a penny. By 31 December Canbet had stopped taking bets altogether, admitting it didn’t have the cash to pay what it already owed. Last month angry Australian punters took legal action against the firm over £160,000 of unpaid winnings.

Mounting complaints
Canbet is an Australian firm based in Melbourne. But thanks to its international web presence it chose to be regulated by the UK’s Gambling Commission. This was handy because UK regulators, faced with mounting complaints, did almost nothing.

In a letter to David Ward, Mr Stone’s MP in Bradford East, Gambling Commission chief executive Jenny Williams says that even though it was “aware of Canbet’s problems in November last year… On this occasion we have not yet considered it necessary to commence formal regulatory action”.

Williams admits that “a large number of people have been affected by Canbet’s failure to pay amounts due” and adds: “This is a matter of great concern to us.” However, according to Williams, taking action is almost as bad as doing nothing. “There are difficult choices to be made. If we stop a business from trading or cast serious doubt on its future, it is highly likely that the business will not be able to pay its customers.” She admitted that this may look as if “we are not protecting those players properly”.

‘At their own risk’
Instead of taking enforcement action, the commission contacted Canbet and received “some assurances about Canbet’s financial circumstance”. It allowed Canbet to keep trading, although these “assurances” have been hollow. Jenny Williams closed her letter by arguing that “People using betting operators need to understand that they do so at their own risk” as there is little the commission can do.

If the regulator can’t deal with a bookie who doesn’t pay up, what hope is there it can deal with the wider social issues raised by gambling?"

http://www.private-eye.co.uk/sections.p … issue=1361

[Purwell]

So, if there is little they can do in a case like this, woudn’t it be better for them to be disbanded? After all we are living in the "Age of Austerity" and none of us should have any spare cash for gambling anyway!

I've stumbled on the side of twelve misty mountains
I've walked and I crawled on six crooked highways

[wit]

the Gambling Commission freely admit they are as much use as a chocolate fireguard, and they seem to hold few ambitions to be otherwise.

from their own website:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

This case is not the first to demonstrate the significant gap that exists between the level of protection that customers assume they might receive for their gambling deposits and the actual level of protection afforded.

Before this case began, we were formally consulting on whether we should be trying to prevent this sort of thing happening by introducing trust or indemnity arrangements or how we might help close the gap in perception, for example by requiring operators to put more information about whether and how they protect deposits into the public domain as a condition of holding a licence.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

http://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/gh … ponse.aspx

trust arrangements are fine in theory, but not really much use as operated in the industry.

when cash gets short and separation becomes most important, in practice that is when "overnight loans" get made out of the trust account to bolster the operating account – the cash goes out and it gets replaced by an IOU.

the perpetrators typically maintain that its not theft because they have no intention permanently to deprive, they are just trying to "tide things over for a day or two" in the belief the corner will be turned.

its like the old joke about repaying your debt to a deceased by putting your cheque into his coffin.

but the GC seem to see this as an exciting new way forward.

truly you wouldn’t employ these people (and similar government / regulatory multitudes) with your own money, so why stand for being forced to employ them via a tax being levied on you ?

separately, as to what’s been going on at Canbet:

http://www.sportsbookreview.com/canbet/

[Author]

Posts