Connect with us

Published

on

Self-exclusion systems designed to protect problem gamblers are failing because customers are still able to open accounts after registering, according to campaigners.

They warn that industry efforts to self-regulate are insufficient and want independent oversight of the exclusion schemes, as the government prepares a major overhaul of the country’s betting laws.

Sky News spoke to one problem gambler who says he was able to easily circumvent the process.

At present, people who want to stop gambling can sign up to Gamstop, an industry funded online self-exclusion scheme which prevents members from using gambling websites and apps.

Gamstop is an industry-funded scheme for addicts to exclude themselves from the gambling industry

In 2020, the Gambling Commission made participation in the scheme a licence condition for online operators in the UK.

Participants register their name, address, date of birth and email address and, if they try to gamble, they should automatically be flagged and blocked by online operators. However, that does not always happen.

One problem gambler, Luis (not his real name), registered with Gamstop in 2019 but was able to reopen a dormant account with William Hill in March 2022 and subsequently gambled more than £2,000 in a few days.

The system failed to recognise him because his address had changed despite him having a very uncommon name.

Instead, he was still being bombarded with promotional emails.

Having battled a decade-long gambling addiction, Luis said that at no point did he feel that William Hill or other gambling operators had his best interests at heart.

'Luis' told Sky News he had been able to re-open an account he held with William Hill despite being registered with Gamstop

He said: “I could have my own house. With all the money I’ve lost I could have an easy life.

“I’ve been working and money doesn’t stay in my account for more than two days. So you work and gamble. That’s what you do.”

‘Current system is failing’

Brian Chappell, founder of the consumer group Justice for Punters, had little success or engagement when he took Luis’ case to the Gambling Commission.

He said: “Huge improvements in all of their processes are needed to protect people from gambling harm and prevent this from happening again

“So much needs to be learned from this case, because the current system is failing people like Luis every day and that’s just not acceptable.”

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

‘Gambling destroyed my life’

The government has published its long-awaited gambling white paper, outlining tougher rules for the industry to bring them in to line with the digital age.

Sir Iain Duncan Smith, the vice-chair of a parliamentary body on gambling reform, said of the sector: “They’ve demonstrated to us as a group of companies they are not responsible. Full stop.

“We now have to impose some of those changes on them because what you see now is the scale of the harm is such that they cannot be trusted to do that themselves… they’ve had years to bring this under control”.

Gambler spent £23k in 20 minutes without checks

William Hill maintained that it was not responsible for failing to identify Luis as someone who had self-excluded.

It has not yet responded to official requests for comment.

It comes after the company was forced to pay a record £19.2m fine in March to the Gambling Commission for a number of failings, including neglect of vulnerable customers.

Failures identified by the regulator included allowing a customer to open a new account and spend £23,000 in 20 minutes, all without any checks.

William Hill fined £19.2m by UK gambling regulator for 'widespread' failures

Concerns about the self exclusion scheme were first flagged in 2018.

Tim Miller, then the executive director of the Gambling Commission, expressed his concerns in a letter to the industry trade body, the Remote Gambling Association. He said he was “yet to see proper evidence of the effectiveness” of GamStop.

Read more:
Why are more women turning to gambling?
Recovering addict calls for ban on online gambling advertising

Will Prochaska, strategy director for Gambling with Lives, a charity that supports families bereaved by gambling-related deaths, said: “We see the human cost of people being allowed to gamble after they’ve tried to self-exclude, and often much more than they can afford.

“The gambling industry has been given free rein to cause harm for too long with the only punishment being fines, which are no deterrent.”

He said that the government’s upcoming white paper “needs to include proper affordability checks set at a preventative level that will reduce the deaths, and the Gambling Commission needs to be much tougher, removing firms’ licences when failures put lives at risk”.

A spokesperson for the Gambling Commission responded: “We do not talk about individual cases.

“When consumers complain to us about an operator we consider whether that complaint could involve a breach of rules aimed at making gambling safer. If it does, then we can take action against an operator.

“Self-exclusion is an important harm minimisation tool which users of the schemes often report as helpful to them according to evaluations.

“We would expect all online operators to work closely with GAMSTOP as part of their ongoing licensing commitment to ‘take all reasonable steps to refuse service or to otherwise prevent an individual who has entered a self-exclusion’.”

A Gamstop spokesperson said: “The Gamstop scheme matches hundreds of millions of data points per day and we are reliant on the data provided being correct at the point of entry.

“In addition, it is a licence requirement for every operator to ensure that their customer data is also verified and correct.

“We would recommend that Gamstop should be used in combination with other services, including blocking software, bank blocking, and seeking treatment and support from The National Gambling Helpline on 0808 8020 133.”

Continue Reading

Business

Budget means ‘difficult decisions’ already being taken, retail chiefs warn

Published

on

By

Budget means 'difficult decisions' already being taken, retail chiefs warn

Dozens of retail bosses have signed a letter to the chancellor warning of dire consequences for the economy and jobs if she pushes ahead with budget plans which, they say, will raise their costs by £7bn next year alone.

There were 79 signatories to the British Retail Consortium’s (BRC’s) response to Rachel Reeves’ first budget last month, a draft of which was seen by Sky News last week.

As farmers prepared to launch their own protest in London over inheritance tax measures, the retail lobby group’s letter to Number 11 Downing Street was just as scathing over the fiscal event’s perceived impact.

It warned that higher costs, from measures such as higher employer National Insurance contributions and National Living Wage increases next year, would be passed on to shoppers and hit employment and investment.

The letter, backed by the UK boss of the country’s largest retailer Tesco and counterparts including the chief executives of Sainsbury’s, Next and JD Sports, stated: “Retail is already one of the highest taxed business sectors, along with hospitality, paying 55% of profits in business taxes.

“Despite this, we are highly competitive, with margins of around 3-5%, ensuring great value for customers.

“For any retailer, large or small, it will not be possible to absorb such significant cost increases over such a short timescale.

More from Money

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

PM vows to defend budget decisions

“The effect will be to increase inflation, slow pay growth, cause shop closures, and reduce jobs, especially at the entry level. This will impact high streets and customers right across the country.

“We are already starting to take difficult decisions in our businesses and this will be true across the whole industry and our supply chain.”

The budget raised employers’ National Insurance contributions by 1.2 percentage points to 15% from April 2025, and also lowered the threshold for when firms start paying to £5,000 from £9,100 per year.

It also raised the minimum wage for most adults by 6.7% from April.

The BRC has previously pleaded for the total cost burden, which also includes business rates and a £2bn hit from a packaging levy, to be phased in and its chairman has said the measures fly in the face of the government’s “pro-business rhetoric” of the election campaign.

Official data covering the past few months has raised questions over whether the core message since July of a tough budget ahead has knocked confidence, hitting employment and economic growth in the process.

The government was yet to comment on the letter, which pleaded for an urgent meeting, but a spokesperson for prime minister Sir Keir Starmer has previously stated in response to BRC criticism that the budget “took tough choices but necessary choices to fix the foundations, to fix the fiscal blackhole that the government had inherited and to restore economic stability.”

Continue Reading

Business

What’s the beef with farmers’ inheritance tax?

Published

on

By

What's the beef with farmers' inheritance tax?

Farmers have left the fields for the streets of the capital in protest at changes to inheritance tax that will see death duties payable by some farmers on agricultural and business property.

The Treasury estimates the changes, revealed in the budget, will raise up to £520m a year. Farmers and campaigners say they threaten the future of thousands of multi-generational family farms.

Here, we take a look at the issues involved to explain why farmers are angry.

What is inheritance tax?

Inheritance tax (IHT) is ordinarily payable on estates at 40%. Estates passed to a surviving spouse or civil partner, charity or community sports club are exempt, and there are reliefs on property passed to children, relatives and others.

Estates worth less than £325,000 are not taxed, with a further £175,000 of relief given if a home is left to children or grandchildren, giving a total of £500,000 tax free. Currently around 4% of estates are liable for IHT.

What are the plans for inheritance tax on farmers?

More on Farming

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Farmers ‘betrayed’ over tax change

Since 1984 farmers and agricultural land and business owners have been exempt from IHT, thanks to a series of tax “reliefs” that can be applied to estates.

There are two broad categories, both offering 100% relief. Agricultural Property Relief (APR), covers land and farm buildings, and Business Property Relief (BPR) applies to livestock, machinery such as tractors and combine harvesters, and assets developed to diversify income, such as cottages converted to short-term lets, or farm shops.

From 2026 those 100% reliefs will end, replaced by limited relief for farmers on more generous terms than general IHT.

Estates will receive relief of £1m, with up to £500,000 of additional relief, as with non-farming estates. If a farm is jointly-owned by a couple in a marriage or civil partnership, the relief doubles from £1.5m to £3m.

Any tax owed beyond the level of relief will be charged at 20%, half the standard 40%. If farms are gifted to family members at least seven years before death no IHT is payable.

Why is the government acting?

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

‘Starmer the farmer harmer’

Those generous reliefs have made agriculture an attractive investment for those seeking to shelter wealth from the taxman. Jeremy Clarkson, the UK’s highest profile farmer – and opponent of the government’s plans – said as much when promoting his Amazon series about becoming the proprietor of Diddly Squat Farm in Oxfordshire.

“Land is a better investment than any bank can offer. The government doesn’t get any of my money when I die. And the price of the food that I grow can only go up,” he told the Times.

Mr Clarkson is far from alone. Private and institutional investors, along with so-called “lifestyle” farmers funding purchases from previous careers, like the former Top Gear presenter and his Oxfordshire neighbour, the Blur bassist Alex James, now dominate agricultural land purchases.

Figures from land agents Strutt & Parker show those three categories made up more than half of all agricultural land purchases in England last year, with just 47% bought by traditional farmers.

In the first three quarters of this year the figure is down to 31%, fewer than the 35% of purchases made by private investors. (Strutt & Parker stress that less than 1% of land changes hands every year and the majority remains in the hands of farmers and traditional landowners.)

The most valuable estates also receive the lion’s share of tax relief. Analysis by the Resolution Foundation shows 6% of estates worth more than £2.5m claimed 35% of APR, and 4% of the most valuable accounted for 53% of BPR in 2020.

In the budget the Treasury said “it is not fair or sustainable for a very small number of claimants each year to claim such a significant amount of relief”.

How many farms does the government say will be affected?

The government says around a quarter of farms will be impacted by the changes, based on the annual tally of claims for Agricultural Property Relief and Business Property Relief made in the event of a farm owners’ death.

The latest figures for APR, for 2021-22, show that for estates worth more than £1m and therefore potentially exposed to the new regime, there were 462 claims, 27% of the total.

More than 340 claims were in the £1m-£2.5m band, with 37 claims from estates claiming more than £5m of relief, at an average of £6.35m.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Budget tax measures ‘fair’

For Business Property Relief, which also includes shares held on unlisted markets including the London AIM market, there were 552 claims for more than £1m, or 13% of the total, with 63 claims worth more than £5m in relief, at an average value of £8m.

While ministers insist smaller farms will be protected, the merging of APR and BPR seems certain to increase the value of estates for IHT purposes. New tractors and combine harvesters are six-figure investments, and farmers say rising land values mean the reliefs are less generous than the government maintains.

What do farmers say?

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Farmer’s conditional support for tax shift

Farmers and campaigners say the government’s figures are far too low. The Country Landowners Association estimates 70,000 farms could be affected, a figure reached by multiplying average arable land value by the average farm size that they conceded should be treated with caution.

The National Farmers’ Union points to figures from the Department for Environment, Farming and Rural Affairs, which show 49% of farms in England had a net value of more than £1.5m. On that basis almost 50,000 farm owners may need to consult an accountant.

The NFU’s central point is that the economics of farming mean levying inheritance tax could be ruinous for many. While farmers and agricultural landowners are asset rich, courtesy of their land, property and equipment, they are cash poor.

Average income in every category of cropping farms declined in 2023, with cereals revenue falling by 200% year-on-year, and average earnings across the board of less than £50,000.

For farms with meagre incomes facing hefty IHT bills and no tax planning, land sales may be the only option. That could be terminal for some family dynasties, but it would make IHT the final straw, rather than the root cause in an industry that, for far too many farmers, simply does not pay.

Continue Reading

Business

Post Office Horizon Scandal: Four suspects identified by police

Published

on

By

Post Office Horizon Scandal: Four suspects identified by police

Four suspects have so far been identified by police investigating possible criminal charges in the Post Office scandal, Sky News has learned. 

Sources have said that among the offences being considered are perverting the course of justice and perjury.

Hundreds of sub-postmasters were wrongly prosecuted for stealing from their branches between 1999 and 2015 after faulty Horizon software caused accounting errors.

Money latest: Trump policy ‘could wipe billions from UK economy’

The Metropolitan Police is a so-called core participant in the Post Office public inquiry and has been monitoring and assessing material submitted.

It is expected that the number of suspects being investigated by police could rise in the next six to 12 months.

More than a million documents are believed to be being sifted through and the number of police officers investigating the scandal has also risen from 80 to 100, with work across every single police force.

More from Money

It is not expected, however, that any charges will be brought before 2027/28, and that time frame could be extended.

A Sky News source said the number of suspects was seemingly “just a starting point”.

A meeting took place this weekend between more than 150 sub-postmasters, including Sir Alan Bates, and the Metropolitan Police.

Sir Alan said he had been told by officers that “it was going to take a few years” and that there are “no restrictions on how high investigations will take them”.

He also said the priority for sub-postmasters was financial redress and then, after that, victims will be “looking for people to be held to account”.

Read more from Sky News:
Energy bills forecast to rise again in January
Grangemouth oil refinery owners reject bid

A Metropolitan police spokesperson said: “Yesterday [17 November] we met with Alan Bates and some of the affected sub-postmasters to provide a brief on our progress and next steps.

“Our investigation team, comprising around 100 officers from forces across the UK, is now in place and we will be sharing further details in due course.

“Initially four suspects have been identified and we anticipate this number to grow as the investigation progresses.”

Continue Reading

Trending