How can the gambling authorities allow a t&c that states they can close accounts without informing the account holders. Do they bother to check these things? Some of these rules are really really scary and the post about Barrow is just crazy.
The regulators have no interest in helping and protecting punters. If you look on the Gambling Commissions website they have a pdf which explains what they do and on the second page it has this:
"We don't resolve customer complaints. Operators who hold a Gambling Commission licence must have
procedures for handling customer complaints and arrangements for
disputes to be referred to an independent third party"
For UK bookmakers that "independent third party" is IBAS and IBAS's funding comes from SIS who are the "one ordinary member". SIS's main business is the provision of pictures and info to the betting industry but if you look at the shareholders of SIS it is like a rollcall of major UK bookmakers. Ladbrokes own 23%, Hills own 19.5% Fred Done owns about 13% in total so it is hard to argue that the "independent third party" is actually independent at all. It is all wholly unsatisfactory but as I mentioned above nobody really seems to do anything about it.
Red, is there a list of requirements that an operator has to fulfil to get a license do you know or is it just a case of fill in a form and pay a fee?
I don't think it is quite as simple as that. Basically from what I can gather they have five main, and fairly broad, criteria (from their site):
1.identity and ownership – the identity of the applicant and or person(s) relevant to the application and or, in the case of an application for an operating licence, who ultimately owns a corporate applicant.
2. finances – financial and other circumstances of the applicant, past and present, and or person(s) relevant to the application. For operating licences this will include the resources likely to be available to carry out the licensed activities.
3. integrity – the honesty and trustworthiness of the applicant and or person(s) relevant to the application.
4. competence – the experience, expertise, qualifications and history of the applicant and or person(s) relevant to the application.
5. criminality – criminal record of the applicant and or person(s) relevant to the application.
You can definitely argue that in situations like this that a firm like Betway are in breach of points 3 and 4 but I get the sense that it isn't something that is ever really brought up. The default seems to be that licensing hearings are held in private which doesnt really promote transparency. I have, in the past, had some dealings with the Gambling Commission and I would have very little confidence that they really understand the industry and have a sense of very much other than the key policies dictated by government so I would think that their focus is really on things like ensuring firms aren't used to launder money, preventing under age gambling (I honestly think they spend 30%+ of their time on this), preventing criminals getting licenses etc etc. These are obviously very noble and important goals but they do nothing to protect and represent the millions of ordinary punters that are betting every day.
Punters need representation that can lobby on their behalf, represent their interests in licensing hearings and just generally work hard to ensure that their interests are served and hold firms to account. If Betway thought that cancelling a bet 3 months after it was placed for the sake of 300 quid might lead to someone opposing their license then they might think before doing it for example and there are lots of other things that punters could do but it involves coming together and being organised and having some people that are willing to put some time into it. Maybe something worth having an offline discussion about?
Author