Correspondence between Aaron and TAB’s Safer Betting team show when the exclusions came into force, he attempted to circumvent controls using proxy betting and online gambling.
“I know that I’ve done the wrong thing, but when someone is addicted to something, it’s not in our control,” he told the Herald.
A self-exclusion is a legally binding agreement that allows individuals experiencing gambling-related difficulties to ban themselves from designated gambling venues. Photo / Brett Phibbs
‘You have to stop me’
Aaron’s family of four packed up their lives in early 2024, spending three months in Blenheim before carrying on to Invercargill.
“I had stopped gambling in Auckland for a while, but when I moved to Invercargill, I started playing again.”
Citing estimated losses of $30,000 across Invercargill venues between July and September last year, he contacted TAB’s Safer Betting team to complain about his self-exclusion not being enforced.
After supplying receipts of his original application, TAB informed him the exclusion only applied to the Auckland region.
As Aaron never alerted them to his relocation, TAB hadn’t updated its records.
Its privacy policy requires individuals’ details to be current.
Aaron subsequently applied for a permanent nationwide ban – which took effect on September 26 – but TAB confirmed it wouldn’t refund Aaron’s wagers over the run-up period as his exclusion was never applicable to South Island retail venues.
He then tried to open a Betcha account in October, although this was declined after an account review identified his existing exclusion.
Adding to his ordeal, Aaron claimed he lost $6000 in gambling stints this year, including about $1300 during a trip to Riverton.
When he complained to TAB’s Safer Betting team in June, TAB told Aaron that information supplied from the venue’s CCTV showed him approach the terminal before a companion placed bets. TAB alleged the arrangement was an attempt to circumvent his exclusion.
“We have reiterated the importance of vigilance to all venues in your region,“ TAB said at the time.
Aaron claims to have lost an estimated $36,000 since returning to gambling last year. Photo / File
“It must also be highlighted that you knowingly entered venues and placed bets (directly or by proxy) despite being self-excluded, which is in direct violation of your exclusion as well as TAB’s Racing and Sports betting rules.”
Acknowledging he’d actively tried to get around controls at times, Aaron said he had grown afraid of his gambling addiction.
He said most of his savings had been lost on failed bets and the money to support his family had gone.
“I’ve requested again and again for them to put my image everywhere so they can stop me, or get police involved,” Aaron said.
“They say, like, ‘We can’t do anything, it’s your responsibility not to go there’.
“They’re just blaming me … I told them, ‘I’m a vulnerable person, I’m addicted to this. You have to stop me’.”
In correspondence seen by the Herald, TAB’s Safer Betting team stressed the “mutual commitment” of a self-exclusion, noting that while measures exist to spot and intervene appropriately, individuals must also hold up their end of the bargain.
“Entain takes responsible gambling seriously,” the company said.
“We are committed to supporting customers who choose to engage with our products and work hard to ensure appropriate tools and support are available to those who need them.
“We have a wide range of safer betting tools available to our customers both through our digital channels and in our retail stores.
“These include the self-exclusion tool, which is tailored to best support the needs of each customer.”
What is a self-exclusion?
A self-exclusion is a legally binding agreement between an individual and a gambling operator.
It became available under the Gambling Act 2003 as a tool for individuals experiencing difficulties to ban themselves from designated areas in venues or gambling outlets.
Providers are legally required to facilitate and uphold responsible gambling practices, but TAB is only responsible for enforcing a self-exclusion in its outlets.
For licensees, the onus is on staff to implement TAB’s rules in their private venues.
Problem Gambling Foundation spokeswoman Andree Foude told the Herald they encounter situations like Aaron’s “far too often” – noting that while self-exclusion isn’t a magic bullet, it’s “an important part of someone’s recovery journey” and “needs to be treated as such”.
Foude said a self-exclusion was often essential to a gambling addict’s recovery, given the games are designed to manipulate the brain’s reward system and encourage blind participation.
“When someone recognises that gambling is seriously impacting their life and they make a decision to stop gambling, they need to be able to stop – right then when that decision is made.
Foude said Aaron’s case highlighted an “urgent need” for stronger harm minimisation and consumer protection regulations to ensure vulnerable customers were protected by responsible gambling policies.
“Currently, there are no statutory consequences if the TAB fails to honour a self-exclusion – no offence, no penalty, no defined complaints process.”
In Class 4 pokie venues, including pokies in TABs, and casinos, letting an excluded person gamble is an offence with a fine up to $5000 under the Gambling Act.
“What we need is a national self-exclusion system that captures all forms of gambling, so the person experiencing harm who wants to stop, has a seamless way to do so and there are consequences for operators who fail to uphold the exclusions.”
*Aaron’s name has been changed.
Sign up to The Daily H, a free newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.