|
The questions we asked hardly fell
into the 'rocket science' category
We considered these to be straightforward questions, deserving of
straightforward answers,
but the customer service departments thought otherwise. Almost all the first replies received
simply failed to address the questions in a considered
manner.
Like over eager GSCE students the bookmakers customer services departments fired off stock answers about how secure their Internet systems were and how nobody other than the client had access to the client's account. Others simply replied that they had no intention of going into receivership and so the question was not relevant.
As you can guess we didn't let these first
defensive salvos discourage us and we fixed bayonets
and went into battle. Each bookmaker was asked again in greater
detail and after a while we finally started to get some answers that were nearing the truth.
There are two bookmakers who deserve to be mentioned
first, because they simply chose to ignore our
questions. Stand up and take a bow before your adoring
customers Eurobet and UKBetting. We have
tried to inform these two bookmakers that the ostrich
technique of sticking your head in the sand and hoping
the issue will go away doesn't work, but they ignored
those emails too.
SportingBet and Sporting
Odds have promised a reply soon leaving us with those who
actually replied, three of whom deserve a prize for straightforward honesty. The news for punters may not be good, but
at least the bookies did not try to fudge the issue:
The words now following each
bookmakers name are direct quotes from the bookmakers
representatives. We of course have copies of
the original emails.
Gamebookers:
"Gamebookers considers its users funds a part of our own liability, which are not kept separately from our own cash balance, and therefore not discriminated in any way from our
funds".
Intertops:
"The money paid in by customers are not held in a separate account. Rest
assured however, that Intertops is a reputable company which has been
in existence for over 10 years".
Bet Direct:
"In the unlikely event of Bet Direct going into
receivership, all customers balances would be treated in the same way as other
creditors".
The two Irish bookmakers both gave assurances that our money was safe but did not explain how or why:
Paddy
Power:
"Funds are held in a client account and are safe. If Paddy Power did go into liquidation or bankruptcy you would still get your money
back".
Luvbet:
"You can rest assured your balance is totally
secure".
The vast majority of replies tried to reassure us that funds would be safe because their organizations were so big
they couldn't go into receivership. However, they made no mention of special client accounts and therefore we must assume that if they did go into receivership then our money would not be protected.
Ladbrokes:
"I can confirm that there is no possibility of you losing any funds should Ladbrokes go into liquidation"
BetXpress (Tote):
"The funds are held in a specific BetXpress bank A/c. If Bet Express went into receivership the customer deposits would be secure as HTB as a group would cover liability. The chances of ourselves, Hills and Ladbrokes etc going to receivership is remote. The benefit of being with the big players is the reduced risk of funds being lost".
Victor Chandler:
"We do not have separate client accounts in respect of funds. However, I would point out that Victor Chandlers have been established in the Industry for more than 50
years".
William Hill:
"With William Hill your funds are safe we are one of the largest and best established bookmakers both in the High Street and on the Internet. Account holders' funds are kept in a separate holding account in order to differentiate between clients funds and company funds, and ensure against loss in the unlikely eventuality that William Hill go into liquidation. We hope this answers your
enquiry".
:
"Although we are unable to go into detail about how we run our accounts, please be assured that your money is secure with . We have been an established bookmaker since 1974 and operate 58 betting offices within the
UK".
Three bookmakers chose to answer the question by saying that the money was held in a separate account but failed to confirm whether the funds were actually protected and that the funds were safe if
the company went into receivership.
Betabet:
"Client deposits made with Betabet are held in a secure individual account. All funds held by betabet are available for refund upon request".
Betoddoreven:
"Client funds are held in an account with our financial processors who are Betabet and Allied Irish Bank. I can assure you that we have no intention of going into receivership but if we did client funds would be of the highest priority as the integrity of the company and Chase Racing, the bookmaker behind it would be at stake and we would honour any deposits
held".
"We do not have any creditors or loans associated with the company so even if we decided to close the doors customer deposits would still be sat in the account of the
processor".
Blue :
"The funds are all held together in the one pool. Bluesq is
a subsidiary of the Intercapital Group LTD, who also own
City Index one of the three major financial spread-betting firms. Your money is
safeguarded in a separate
account".
Betabet actually make a point of stipulating on their website that client accounts are held by the Royal Bank of Scotland and money is not held by themselves.
Betfair openly declare that all their clients' money is held in a client account which is designated as such. This means that any money held on account with Betfair is safe should they go into receivership.
It would appear that money held in Internet Bookmakers accounts is not as secure as they would have us believe. That said, it is important to differentiate between Internet only operations and those with a larger name behind them.
The larger bookmakers are probably big enough to close their Internet operations and honour all the money held on account. However, if any of them were to close completely then it would appear that our money would be at risk.
The most vulnerable operations are those that are only based on the Internet and it these sites that punters should be extremely wary of.
Netbetsports were an example of this. They were simply not able to finance their operation, as they did not have a secure financial footing.
When Firststake went into receivership their parent company UK Racing decided to walk away from the problem.
Sportingbet honoured the clients' money but the parent company decided not to honour bets that had already been struck.
A special mention should be made here of Betsmart who were set up by
Chisholm Bookmakers. They closed their site as it was unsuccessful, but to their credit they repaid all their clients money and also honoured all the bets they had struck. They were able to do this because they had an established bookmaking business behind them.
In conclusion, we believe that the British Bookmaking industry should be forced to act responsibly with regard to money held in client accounts. Whether this is through government legislation similar to the FSA's Client Money Regulations or through some voluntary code they should realise and honour their responsibilities.
Any bookmaker that has to use its client's betting funds as part of its cash flow
and operating capital needs to look closely at its
business model and there is no good reason in our
opinion why a bookmaker should not happily hold
customers money in protected client accounts and advertise the fact.
It is quite apparent that at present very few do and this situation gives the punter little protection, a raw
deal, and genuine cause for concern.
Click
here to mail us with your comments. |
