The Tricky Issue Of Problem Gambling

31 August 2017
ShareSave


reporter


For David Bradford, his gambling dependency had actually got as bad as it perhaps could.


The 57 year-old remained in jail for scams after taking ₤ 50,000. His habit had actually cost his family their home and left them buried under ₤ 500,000 of debt.


For 888. com, however, there was more to be had out of David Bradford.


While he sat in jail, his child Adam saw that the online betting company was sending adverts to his dad's cellphone, at an expense of ₤ 5 a time.


Adam Bradford says: "After calling them six times and pleading with them, they turned off the text after practically ₤ 100 worth of charges."


Dr Carolyn Downs, senior lecturer at Lancaster University who is a professional on the gaming industry, estimates that there are around 500,000 people in the UK with a "serious" addition.


"And for each of those people with severe problems, you're taking a look at 4 or five other relative being seriously impacted. Who maybe don't understand that their family member is a problem gambler till they lose the home," she informed BBC Radio 4's Today program.


Theft


On Thursday, 888 Holdings, which owns 888. com, was fined a record ₤ 7.8 m by the Gambling Commission for failing to protect thousands of vulnerable clients who had actually tried to "self-exclude" themselves from their websites.


The regulator likewise punished 888 for failing to recognise problem behaviour that led to someone stealing ₤ 55,000 from their employer.


Sarah Harrison, primary executive of the regulator, said: "Messages like this send out a strong signal to business like 888 and every gaming operator that the Gambling Commission will take hard action against companies who do not fulfill the rules."


However, the Gambling Commission would not have actually known about any of these problems had 888 Holdings not advance in the first location.


In the regulator's public statement on the matter, it says that it was 888 Holdings who notified the commission about the technical problem on 28 February 2017.


Asked how it guarantees that betting business are following a code of practice which needs them to put self-exclusion treatments in place as well as recognizing at threat consumers, the regulator, stated: "The commission carries out regular compliance activity in a number of ways.


"In addition, we in some cases act on info from consumers or operators themselves that triggers us to perform an examination, as in this case."


Self-exclusion or deception?


In 888's case, the fault lay with a technical problem.


Customers with acknowledged problems had effectively blocked themselves from gambling on the poker, gambling establishment and sports websites.


But they still had access to the bingo websites.


However, even with this loophole now closed, there stays a larger market problem with self-exclusion, says Dr Downs.


She said: "It was difficult to do with online gambling, even to find a put on a site to in fact go to inform them you desire to self-exclude ... it rather frequently needs an awful lot of clicks with a mouse around the website to find a place."


And simply due to the fact that a person is left out from one means of gambling, it does not offer them any security versus other techniques.


In some instances, self-exclusion is just farcical.


Tony Franklin, a recovering gambling addict and a campaigner, says: "Self-exclusion from wagering shops is paper-based so they are reliant on you providing a photograph of yourself. Then, it might just be circulated to a small number of wagering shops in the area."


It is really easy to go to another town to wager, he says, and it is very tough for individuals operating in bookies to police their customers.


Dr Downs proposed a national register for self-exclusion: "The Gambling Commission could run this," she states: "If you wished to self-exclude you would send your details off on a simple type to the Gambling Commission and they would let everybody know your e-mail address."


But she includes: "I don't think there's any sort of will for that action. Problem gamblers provide the majority of the profit for the gambling market which's truly quite well known."


The Gambling Commission says the industry is dealing with a national "online multi-operator self-exclusion scheme" which it is intends to have in location by 2018.


At the moment, consumers should to each individual site to ask the company not to permit them to gamble. The commission states: "The new scheme will make it possible for consumers to self-exclude from all online accredited betting operators by means of one website."


GAMSTOP, as it is called, will be run by the Remote Gambling Association (RGA), a group whose members are online gaming companies.


Adam Bradford questions the wisdom of this. "It is like asking a policeman to detain himself for a criminal activity."


Clive Hawkswood, president of the RGA, rejects that there is a conflict of interest. "On the contrary it is really much in our interests and our aim is to make it as great as any system worldwide," he says.


The Gambling Commission states: "We consider an industry-led and handled solution is best put to deliver an efficient and efficient plan by building, in specific, on the core experience and knowledge in the market of establishing and supervising big IT solutions, as well as administering current self-exclusion schemes."


Mr Franklin thinks wagering business require to take more powerful action before permitting people to wager, such as carrying out a price look at possible consumers.


This, he thinks, ought to be outsourced to a 3rd party such as credit checking company Experian.


Liberalising problems


At the minute, however, Mr Franklin states people will remain susceptible to an industry whose main objective is to make cash.


Dr Downs states: "I think legislation is definitely the only answer. I think when we liberalised the gaming industry - as was forecasted by a number of people at the time - we liberalised a lot more problem bettors."


For Mr Franklin, he states: "Never again. Not ever will I offer one more pound to these individuals."


888 Holdings declined to comment on specific cases. Its response to the action taken by the Gambling Commission can be accessed here.