UK Gambling Commission Chief admits "confusion" over affordability checks

[The Buzz]

During a guest speaker spot on a webinar arranged by law firm CMS, U.K. Gambling Commission Executive Director Tim Miller acknowledged the confusion surrounding the topic of affordability checks in the UK gambling industry.

From Racing Post:

The issue of affordability checks was probably the most controversial aspect of the debate over gambling which took place during the long wait for the white paper to be published. Customers complained they were already being asked for personal financial information such as payslips and bank statements by operators who it was claimed felt pressure from the regulator to do so.

However, the Gambling Commission said it had not mandated such checks, despite its 2020 Compliance and Enforcement Report having explicitly set out that customers wanting to spend more than the national average should be asked to provide information such as "three months' payslips, P60s, tax returns or bank statements".

The white paper was the subject of a webinar organised last week by law firm CMS at which Gambling Commission executive director Tim Miller was one of the speakers. When asked about that specific statement, Miller said the report "wasn't intended to be a blanket rule" and that the rules instead came from the regulator's licence conditions and codes of practice (LCCP).

He added: "I think Andrew [Rhodes, Gambling Commission chief executive] has said clearly we have never put in place a blanket approach in terms of thresholds and things like that.

"Individual cases have sometimes then been interpreted as being of application across the board but certainly I don't think that was ever the intention of the compliance and enforcement report. I do accept that there has been confusion for some time around some of this and my hope is the white paper and the consultations that follow will help bring some greater clarity there."

He added: "What will be really helpful when operators and others in the industry respond to the consultation is use that as an opportunity to help us give you what you need, what is going to be most helpful. I certainly accept that as regulators we don't always get it right and a consultation is an opportunity to learn what works."

Read the entire article here: https://www.racingpost.com/news/feat...s-a2L3u9C2Qtwl

[Former Member 14]

So SoW isn't mandatory in the UK, even though gaming entities are stating it is, and are holding people to ransom, over it!

[Mattbar]

So SoW isn't mandatory in the UK, even though gaming entities are stating it is, and are holding people to ransom, over it!

Well it isn't new or surprising to see gambling companies use loose regulations or guidelines to screw players they don't want to pay out. The more regulations there are the more they will be subverted.

[Former Member 14]

Well it isn't new or surprising to see gambling companies use loose regulations or guidelines to screw players they don't want to pay out.

Yes but it shouldn't be like this, should it? The industry on a whole SHOULD frown upon this unethical behavior BUT it doesn't.

It is its own worst enemy!

[Mattbar]

It is its own worst enemy!

Absolutely agree. They need to focus on how these companies behave rather than micromanaging with constant rule changes and vague guidelines that get abused

[Ukraine Casino]

It's important for regulators to be open to feedback, and to be willing to change their approach if they're not getting it right.