Memorandum submitted by David Overton
Firstly my background, my business was started
my grandfather after the first world war, his licence was signed
by Winston Churchill. He died in 1949 and the business was continued
by my father and his brother. In 1978 my father transferred into
the Tattersalls rings and I took over the business in 1987 and
eventually I became the number one bookmaker in my section which
was completely separated from the main ring, just as the rails
bookmakers were.
I expect that you have had submissions from
a number of bookmakers.
Our associations have asked us to write to our
MPs with regard to the tenure of bookmakers positions from September
2012.
I find it staggering that these people have
the cheek to ask me and people like me to contact our MPs on this
issue.
I was the number one bookmaker in my section
prior to the NJPC. In no time at all my guaranteed right to go
to work was withdrawn on at least 100 days a year The self same
bookmakers who reduced the number of bookmaker's pitches on a
daily basis are by and large the same people who are now expecting
me to support them in case the same thing should happen to them.
Don't do to others what you would not want done
to yourself!
A variety of methods were used to determine
the NJPC lists in the Southern area, for example:
| David Ovetton away |
Positions based on inherited and or personal starting dates
|
| Harry Murrall away | Positions based on highest position achieved, either inherited or personal (the continuity of starting dates was not available)
|
| Young Maynard away | Positions were neither based on starting dates or highest position achieved.
|
| Victoria Blower rails | Positions based on Southern BPA pitch numbers.
|
For each away bookie it was the worst case scenario, for
the rails bookie, with a 1993 start date he won the jackpot.
On the same subject it is clear that all positions were meant
to be based upon staring dates which despite the statements from
the NJPC were in fact freely available.
William Hills and Ladbrokes were major losers. Had their
positions been based on the company start dates rather than the
"method" used then both would have been far better off.
Hills in particular.
Before any new admin is put in place the anomalies created
by the NJPC should be put right.
The NJPC has been misleading MPs, judges, solicitors and
the Parliamentary Ombudsman.
Myself, another southern area bookmaker and a Welsh area
bookmaker all appealed independently to the Ombudsman. Each of
us complained regarding our individual treatment by the NJPC.
Since each of us was treated differently when replying to
the Ombudsman the NJPC must have given a totally different explanation
for each of us.
Later the NJPC wrote to Iain Duncan Smith and implied that
it had used only one method for the South and Welsh areas.
My grandfather used to say that liars need good memories.
As for the NJPC and it's finances, when it was overcharging
bookmakers through the auction system it accumulated a lot of
spare cash, the vast majority of this from Tatts bookmakers, It
then came up with an ingenious scheme, it spent £1.4 million
on rails joints so each rails bookmaker had a joint on each race
course and did not have to have the inconvenience of transporting
their equipment from track to track like the rest of us.
This meant that a rails bookmaker with 15 track positions
had in effect 15 joints.
To recoup its investment the NJPC charged £15 + VAT
daily rental per joint. This has now been reduced to £10
+ VAT and the proposal now is to reduce it to £5. Its income
from the rental so far is about £585,000, I do not know if
this figure includes the VAT.
This means that the NJPC is losing about £800,000 plus
interest on this scheme. Obviously the value of this "investment"
has been greatly devalued by reducing the income. Rounding up
the income to £100,000 per annum this produced about £2000
a week towards the running of the NJPC. Without this income the
proposal now is to double the daily charge to bookmakers to finance
the future company.
The chairman and two independent members of the NJPC are
appointed by the Levy Board. If this is an example of how to run
a business it's no wonder that the Levy Board keeps having a shortfall
of cash.
October 2007
| 
