THERE has been plenty of criticism of the Gambling Commission both here and from those disparate organisations who attempt to form a front to protect the interest of bettors in Britain, such as the Horserace Bettors Forum and Justice For Punters, so it’s encouraging to read recent statements from Sarah Harrison, chief executive of that august organ, about plans for the GC to be more proactive in communicating with the betting public.

To such ends, a document entitled “A Two-Way Conversation – Our Plan For Communicating With Consumers” has been published, and the language contained within is certainly encouraging, beginning with the following bold statement:

“We emphasise to gambling companies the importance of putting consumers at the heart of business culture and practice.

“That’s all very well, but when encouraging others to do that, we should also be prepared to look at ourselves to see what we could do better. We want gambling companies to do much more to put consumers at the heart of the businesses – we’re doing this via the regulations that we set and the way in which we go about enforcing them.

“But we know we also have to do more ourselves to tap into consumer concerns, understand consumer interests and communicate better with consumers – that’s consumers who enjoy gambling, as well as those for whom it may become a real problem.”

A lot of what the Gambling Commission do is related to problem gambling, and forming partnerships with organisations like Gamcare and Citizens Advice to ensure that consumers are educated and protected from exploitation, but Harrison is keen to emphasise that her remit also includes those who actively enjoy gambling and have concerns beyond the exercise of self-control.

As well as keeping crime out of gambling, and protecting the vulnerable, the third leg of the Commission’s business is ensuring that gambling operators ensure that the activities they promote are fair and transparent.

CONFUSING TERMS

Recent discussion about the extent of account restrictions on horseracing raises questions about just how level the playing field is for punters, and Harrison herself has underlined claims made here and elsewhere that many firms are using terms and conditions, not as a means of explaining their services and encouraging an attitude of mutual trust between themselves and consumers, but “more to bamboozle” due to their length and complexity.

As I pointed out here a few months ago, the fact that the vast majority of customers faced with a pop-up containing a bookmakers’ T&Cs will simply click “accept” means that unscrupulous firms can include all sorts of scandalous clauses therein and that practice has largely gone unchallenged. It’s to be applauded that the Gambling Commission now have such sharp practice in their sights, although the impression is that it will be up to consumers themselves to bang on the door of authority if they want swift action.

Harrison, who made the above comment on a recent Radio 5 Live programme investigating account closures and restrictions, went on to state her belief that the pendulum had “swung too far in favour of the operator” in terms of the relationship between punters and bookmakers, and explained that the regulator was working in conjuction with the Competition And Markets Authority to investigate specific concerns, including T&Cs as well as the consistency of policy in voiding bets.

FAKE POSITIVE REVIEWS

Another area of concern is the (unsurprising) revelation that the CMA have found that some firms have been paying marketing agencies to provide fake positive reviews online.

No names are mentioned, but a trawl through review sites reveals a swathe of unbelievable positive endorsements for betting companies which simply have to be read to be believed, or rather disbelieved.

The other noteworthy aspect of the 5 Live Investigates programme was the pathetic attempts of a number of betting companies to discredit the findings of punter-focused surveys on restrictions and closures, with claims that accounts are only restricted in cases of insider dealing and fraud.

It’s true that a survey of punters on such an issue will get a stronger response from the disaffected, but there is a massive gap between the percentage of punters who claim to have had their betting restricted, and statements from some online betting operators suggesting that less than 2% of accounts betting on horseracing are restricted in any way.

The fact that the HBF, a body set up by the BHA last year, has attempted to start a dialogue with major betting operators without receiving acknowledgement in some quarters tells a damning story. Let’s hope that the Gambling Commission has the backbone to carry the fight to them in the coming months.

If you want to get in touch with the Gambling Commission about your experiences as a betting consumer, then why not do so by e-mailing them at: consumers@gamblingcommission.gov.uk