We expose fatal flaws in the system that’s supposed to protect gambling machine addicts

Fixed Odds Betting Terminals have been dubbed the “crack cocaine of gambling” and have been linked to countless broken lives even murder.

But today an undercover Sunday Post probe can reveal powers meant to help people with a serious addiction to a new wave of gambling machines are seriously flawed.

At present people desperate to quit their addiction to controversial slot machines known as Fixed Odds Betting Terminals (FOBTs) can put themselves on an industry-policed watch list.

The process involves staff at betting shops recording people’s details and logging their passport pictures to help stop them using the high stakes machines. It is a service all bookmakers have to offer to meet a key Gambling Commission edict.

The self-imposed bans are seen as a key step to recovery by Gamblers Anonymous and The Responsible Gambling Trust.

However, against a backdrop of unprecedented demand for the machines which allow addicts to blow up to £100 every 20 seconds the industry has been accused of using the “rogues’ gallery” tactic to simply pay lip service to a burgeoning problem. With addicts among their best customers, it’s clear to see why the outlets feel the need to play Russian roulette with peoples’ lives.

Their attitude has been brought to the fore by an undercover Sunday Post reporter who posed as an FOBT addict, asking to be banned from 30 branches across Scotland and England for his own good.

The ban was only upheld in FOUR branches by genuinely concerned staff who checked their databases, discovering details of the ban,

The exercise candidly lays bare how many bookies are failing to help the people who need support most and raises questions whether enough is being done to help people deal with the highly addictive, sleek, push-button-machines.

Former betting shop manager Adrian Parkinson, who now heads the Campaign for Fairer Gambling, said the fact £1.5 billion was blown on these machines last year shows gambling “has changed”. “These machines were introduced because of their addictive nature…they’ve since brought misery to a whole new age of problem gamblers.

“The betting industry shirks responsibility, saying it’s the gambler’s fault they chose to come back in. That isn’t good enough. You cannot say to a gambler who’s addicted that it’s up to them to stay away. They are hooked on a product within the shop and that’s why they want to go in.

“This investigation shows that the only solution here is to get rid of the fruit machines.”

We self-excluded from a wide range of betting shops across Scotland and the north of England. Betting shops allow gamblers to be block banned from branches. All of them insist on passport photos. In most cases, the bans went “live” instantly.

In some betting shops, however, we were able to gamble the day after self-excluding. In one premises in Paisley, we were able to play on the machines just hours after asking to be banned. In two shops, our man was asked to produce ID. Even after doing so, he was allowed to keep gambling.

And in several premises, we were even encouraged to sign up for loyalty cards. In Gateshead, Tyne and Wear, our reporter pumped pounds into an electronic FOBT roulette machine the day after he’d self-excluded from the same shop and four others in the area filling in a form and providing two passport photos so staff knew exactly who he was.

In Lancaster, our reporter was able to play the spinning slot machines after asking to be banned. Reformed addict Matt Zarb-Cousin, who lost £16,000 playing the machines over a four-year period, believes bookies are just making the right noises, so they can keep the money flooding in.

He said: “For a problem gambler to keep away from these machines is incredibly difficult. It’s nothing more than a PR exercise for the bookmakers.

“If you’re going to have these products which are creating tens of thousands of problem gamblers then you need to have a proactive policy in place that properly excludes these people until they get treatment.”

Mr Parkinson said a gambling problem can affect anyone. “It’s no longer cloth caps, cigarettes and dog racing. Gamblers are now far younger. Most are in good jobs.”

Scottish Labour leader Jim Murphy last week called for a £2 limit on FOBTs.

Official Gambling Commission statistics show that in 2009, 11,424 problem gamblers self-excluded from bookmakers. By 2014, that number had rocketed to 24,471.

And while only 35% of those breached their ban six years ago, a mammoth 80% did in 2014. Equally as worrying, the figures show 580,422 people found in bookies last year could not prove that they were over 18, the legal gambling age.

The Gambling Commission, set up following introduction of the 2005 Gambling Act, is the UK industry regulator. The body advises: “Once you have self-excluded you should be refused service for an agreed period of time. Responsibility for sticking with this lies with you but you can expect the operator to do all they reasonably can to help you.”

What the bookies are saying

Ladbrokes

“As its name suggests, self-exclusion is a tool offered to customers to help them help themselves and clearly works best when the customer is known to staff at their regular place of gambling. We do take it seriously and will look into these incidents by accessing CCTV. With in-store messaging, staff interaction training, set limits on machines and data analytics, the industry is making significant progress in its approach to responsible gambling.”

Betfred

“Responsible gambling is top of our agenda and in our opinion one problem gambler in our shops is one too many. We will immediately launch a full investigation.”

Coral

“This is something we take incredibly seriously, indeed as an industry, we have never been more proactive in tackling the issue. It is disappointing your reporter was able to play one of the machines so soon after signing a self-exclusion form.”

William Hill

“We are obviously disappointed our shop teams were unable to identify your reporter. No system is foolproof, but it is designed with regular customers in mind. We take our responsibilities towards problem gamblers very seriously and along with the rest of the industry we are currently developing and trialling alternative processes.”

Paddy Power

“We take self-exclusion very seriously all our staff are trained at induction and on regular refresher courses and we are constantly looking to improve our procedures. However, any self-exclusion system will have limitations as it depends on both the customers and our staff being able to recognise all of those who have self-excluded. If someone only comes into a shop once or twice and is then determined to breach the agreement it may not be possible to stop them. That is why we are taking part in a number of technology trials.”