Gambling Commission 'failing' says wife of Betfair customer who took his own life

The wife of a gambler who took his own life has accused the UK Gambling Commission of failing by not taking action against betting company Betfair. Annie Ashton's husband Luke, 40, from Leicester, killed himself three-and-a-half years ago over gambling debts.

Last year, at the conclusion of the inquest into his death, coroner Ivan Cartwright said Mr Ashton's gambling disorder contributed to his death, and that online firm Betfair could have done more to prevent it.

Mr Ashton, a father-of-two, had been making up to 100 bets a day and owned thousands of pounds. Mrs Ashton, who has become a gambling reform campaigner, said she had hoped the Gambling Commission would take action against Betfair but the commission concluded that that was not necessary due to steps already taken by the company.

READ MORE: Betfair could have done more to prevent death of Leicester dad 'consumed' by gambling disorder

After the inquest, the coroner issued a Prevention of Future Deaths report to Betfair’s parent company, Flutter, the Gambling Commission and the Government. The report raised concerns about the risk of further deaths unless action was taken to address the issues which gave rise to Mr Ashton's death.

The Gambling Commission wrote to Mrs Ashton earlier this month stating that, having considered all the evidence from the inquest and the coroner’s findings, it had decided that no further regulatory action was needed.

Mrs Ashton said she was now considering taking legal action. She said: “The Gambling Commission’s failure to take any action in light of the serious failings identified at Luke’s inquest is an unacceptable failure to carry out its regulatory duties and gives rise to serious concerns about its fitness for purpose as a regulatory body which purportedly serves to protect the public from harm.

“Despite acknowledging the serious concerns about Betfair’s regulatory compliance in Luke’s case, the Gambling Commission has taken well over a year to make a decision following the inquest and has now maintained that no regulatory action will be taken, for reasons which are entirely inadequate and reflect the approach which the commission has taken to its role for far too long."

Dan Webster, Mrs Ashton's solicitor at Leigh Day, said: “The coroner’s conclusion at the inquest was groundbreaking and should have come up as an important wake up call to the Gambling Commission. For the first time, the failings of one of its licensees were ruled by a coroner to have contributed to a customer’s death and to give rise to a risk of future deaths if action was not taken to address the systemic problems identified in Luke’s case.

“The commission’s response has been entirely inadequate. The commission’s handling of this case gives rise to very serious concerns about its fitness for purpose in regulating the industry and protecting customers from harm.”

A spokesman for the Gambling Commission said: "Our sincere condolences go to the family and friends of Luke Ashton at this difficult time. Any death linked to gambling is one too many, and each and every story of gambling harm strengthens our commitment to make Britain’s gambling market safer.

"In line with our statutory duties, as the gambling regulator we will continue to take enforcement action, clamp down on irresponsible products, update our policies in line with best practice, and challenge the industry to make sure operators are interacting with customers and identifying early signs of harm.

"When we became aware of Luke’s death in July 2021 it became apparent that his gambling occurred during a time in which the operator had been in special measures because of social responsibility and anti-money laundering issues.

"As a result of the special measures process the operator divested £635,123 to charities furthering the National Strategy to Reduce Gambling Harms. Taking into account the action we have already taken and that new regulatory requirements are now in place, it was considered that no further action would be taken against the licensee in respect of this matter."