Journalist Wanted - Gambling Commission Complaint

bobajob_1966

michael1983l wrote: »

£200 transactions within minutes of each other to fund a machine that has a maximum £500 payout in any one win. Patterns of spending most of the day in the shop until debit cards start getting declined and the next card is whipped out to play with.


What in your opinion MAY start to be a cause for concern then? I asked the same question to the bookmakers, this was their repsonse



Hmmm, basically that means the shop doesn't have to do anything and can never have liability held against them in regards to Section 2 of the regs as it is all about the shop operators own opinion.

Kinda wrong don't you think?

I wholly agree with their interpretation - you cannot limit the amount that everyone can bet just because one person cannot afford it/ is betting due to being unwell. However, if you walked into the shop and said 'I can only afford to spend £200 today' and they continued to take your money beyond this, there may be a case against the bookmaker.

Bookies are not psychic, they do not have the means to establish whether you can afford to bet.

michael1983l

What do you think to the extra I added after you quoted as in the same people who are charged with identifying problem gamblers and refusing to serve them are the same people who get paid more by bonus for a higher turnover of betting in their store? Is that not a contradiction in itself.

Also to the point you raised further on, a gambling addict is never going to go in a shop and tell them they only have £200 to spend that day. That is like asking an alcoholic to go into the off license and request them to not sell them enough alcohol to get drunk that day.

And why is it you refuse to discuss why they were not looking to stop me betting as they are charged to do so in the regulations or have I already answered that question in the first paragraph?

bobajob_1966

michael1983l wrote: »

What do you think to the extra I added after you quoted as in the same people who are charged with identifying problem gamblers and refusing to serve them are the same people who get paid more by bonus for a higher turnover of betting in their store? Is that not a contradiction in itself.

Also to the point you raised further on, a gambling addict is never going to go in a shop and tell them they only have £200 to spend that day. That is like asking an alcoholic to go into the off license and request them to not sell them enough alcohol to get drunk that day.

I only know two people that work in bookies and they are paid on an hourly rate, they do not have a performance related bonus. Even if some are paid in this way, it is not an immediate contradiction, no. I used to be paid to minimise callouts - that did not automatically mean that I wanted my clients to be without their services.

By your own admission an addict is not going to admit that they have a problem, so how do you expect the bookies to recognise that they do?

wealdroam

Well I am going to quote it once more...

Licensees must put into effect policies and procedures for customer interaction where they have concerns that a customer’s behaviour may indicate problem gambling. The policies must include:

• the circumstances in which consideration should be given to refusing service to customers and/or barring them from the operator’s gambling premises
• training for all staff on their respective responsibilities, in particular so that they know who is designated to deal with problem gambling issues.

Now let's look at that in detail:

In the first sentence it says "where they have concerns that a customer’s behaviour may indicate problem gambling".

So they have to have concerns.

If the establishment has no concerns about the level of gambling, and decide that there is no indication of problem gambling then they do not have to invoke any of their procedure, do they?

Is it possible that they decided that your pattern/level of gambling was not a cause for concern?

As long as there is that subjective observation the guidelines, then of course it is open to interpretation.

OP, you did state earlier that gambling 'should not be legal at all'...

michael1983l wrote: »

Thats why it should not be legal at all, there is no way to protect the vulnerable who need protecting most so in which case it should just be outlawed as it is in many countries accross the world.

If, in your opinion, a safe level cannot be defined, how on earth do you expect any gambling establishment to decide it has concerns that a customer’s behaviour may indicate problem gambling?

System

arcon5 wrote: »

What if an obese person walks into a restaurant and orders a very large meal high in calories -- should the staff intervene? Afterall, surely the adverse affects on somebodies health outway a persons financial situation.........

You do love your ridiculous examples. How's the macro coming along?

mjm3346

Licensees must put into effect policies and procedures for customer interaction where they have concerns that a customer’s behaviour may indicate problem gambling

And why is it you refuse to discuss why they were not looking to stop me betting as they are charged to do so in the regulations or have I already answered that question in the first paragraph?

How are they are charged to stop you betting if they don't have concerns that your behaviour indicates a problem?

Simply spending small (£200 is next to nothing to some), or even large sums of money and frequently does not have to indicate a problem.
Something like pestering other customers for spare change, asking for credit, hitting the machines etc is much more likely to get you considered a problem punter and banned.

michael1983l

So we are all agreeing that it is very difficult to highlight a person that has a genuine problem. then in that case by default if there is no way to properly regulate the industry then surely the industry should not exist at all?

bobajob_1966

michael1983l wrote: »

So we are all agreeing that it is very difficult to highlight a person that has a genuine problem. then in that case by default if there is no way to properly regulate the industry then surely the industry should not exist at all?

The industry can do all it can to regulate gambling, but the ultimate responsbility lies with the individual (and where suitable, their carers).

If every activity that was not capable of complete regulation was banned, we would be left with nothing - no shops, no bars, no cinemas ... no banks, no fast food outlets ...

mountainofdebt

michael1983l wrote: »

Hello,

I will make this very brief as I do not want to go into too much detail in the public domain. I hope to gain the support of a journalist willing to publish my story on a national level if possible.

Basically I have had an aillness over the last 9 months that has just been diagnosed bipolar disorder. To cut a long story short this has been part of the reason of which fuelled an extreme gambling binge. Now my story isn't about getting my money back but about getting a system in place that protects people like me from completly destroying their lives.

I have been in correspondance with 2 well known high street bookmakers and they both claim that my level of gambling was normal and are not willing to pursue a complaint.

Ok let me highlight 2 days worth of card transactions at each bookmaker

Bookmaker 1

19 May £200
19 May £200
19 May £300
19 May £100
19 May £200
19 May £200
19 May £250
20 May £300
20 May £300

Bookmaker 2

18 May £150
18 May £200
18 May £250
19 May £200
19 May £200
19 May £200
19 May £200
19 May £300

Some of these transactions were made within minutes of each other but between the first and the last transaction in each day was no more than a few hours.

The operators have a Social Responsibility within their license set out by the gambling commission to stop this from happening, however the gambling commissions regulations are toothless as they fail to identify what an acceptable level of gambling is before somebody stops and asks you what you are doing. One operators response was that his staff are not trained to identify these problems... !!!!!!.

The card transactions were the tip of the iceberg but I would guess that between the two stores I have clocked up £30k of debt within 9 months due to this addiction in line with my illness making it worse.

What I need is some national coverage to highlight how people with addiction are being failed by the operators and the regulators and the fact of what obscene amounts the operators deem to be normal levels of gambling.

Please please someone out there who can help get in contact, I have kept all correspondance and bank statements to support my claims.

PLEASE PLEASE HELP ME TO CHANGE THIS SO THAT OTHERS DO NOT GET THE CHANCE TO DESTROY THEIR FAMILIES LIFE LIKE I HAVE.

The system already exists.

Its basically where the gambler bars themselves from the gambling establishment - can be for a minimum of 6 months up to a maximum of 5 years.

The staff at each gambling establishment should be trained in recognise the signs of a problem gambler and inform the manager who would take the appropriate action

bobajob_1966

mountainofdebt wrote: »

The system already exists.

Its basically where the gambler bars themselves from the gambling establishment - can be for a minimum of 6 months up to a maximum of 5 years.

The staff at each gambling establishment should be trained in recognise the signs of a problem gambler and inform the manager who would take the appropriate action

You might want to read the rest of the thread - this has all been discussed, several times over!