Harris Hagan Harris Hagan
  • Home
  • About
  • People
  • Work
    • Gambling
      • Online gaming
      • Land-based gaming
      • Licensing
      • Compliance
      • Enforcement
      • Training
    • Commercial & Corporate
    • Liquor & Entertainment
  • Recognition
  • Blog
  • Contact
Harris Hagan

Gambling Commission

Home / Gambling Commission
03Oct

Changes to the way Licensing works at the Commission

3rd October 2022 Chris Biggs Harris Hagan, Responsible Gambling 249

On 27 June 2022, the Gambling Commission announced that it was changing the way that licensing applications are processed and determined to “make the best use of resources”. In doing so, the Gambling Commission stated it hoped “to be able to solve queries more efficiently and effectively”, which we would welcome given the longstanding and frustrating delays on applications, particularly changes of corporate control.

What are the changes?

As many of our readers will be aware, previously operating licensees were appointed dedicated account managers who were the first point of call for any enquiries or applications. This model has been gradually phased out and, in its place, Licensing has restructured into four sub-groups:

  1. The Operating Licence New Group

Responsible for processing applications for new operating licences.

  1. The Change of Corporate Control Group

Responsible for processing applications relating to changes of ownership and control for existing licensees.

  1. The Operating Licence Vary Group

Responsible for processing applications relating to changes to existing operating licences.

  1. The Personal Licence Group

Responsible for processing all applications relating to personal licences.

Licensing process

Where an online service exists for applications, such as those listed on the Gambling Commission’s website, this process has not changed.

Where applications cannot be submitted online, they must be submitted via email to [email protected].

Shortly after submission, the allocated caseworker should email the application contact and provide an estimated timeline for the process.  

If applicants wish to query their application, and do not have caseworker, they must contact [email protected].

General enquiries should be submitted via an online form and the Gambling Commission “aim to respond…within 20 days” – it is not clear whether that is calendar or working days.

Recent experience

Despite its encouraging intention, given the significant licensing backlog, the reality is that so far we have experienced no noticeable improvement, particularly on change of corporate control applications.  Also, and more worryingly, we continue to identify inconsistencies in the approach across Licensing, which is something we are able to do because of the breadth of our experience preparing and submitting all types of licensing applications to the Gambling Commission.  

We act for a wide variety of B2C and B2B businesses, including start-ups, throughout the world extensively preparing, submitting and managing non-remote and remote operating licence applications to the Gambling Commission.  We have unmatched licensing experience and provide every client with a bespoke service tailored to their needs and business. We provide our clients with extensive resources, reference guides and templates to help navigate the application process, streamline and accelerate their preparation of the application and ensure clients understand, at an early stage, the Gambling Commission’s requirements. 

Please get in touch with us if you require assistance with any licensing applications.

Read more
26Sep

The Gambling Commission’s Checklist for Licensees on Good Practice Complaints Handling

26th September 2022 Adam Russell Harris Hagan, Responsible Gambling, Uncategorised 279

Following a review of licensee complaints policies which contained “a number of areas for improvement”, the Gambling Commission published advice and good practice tips for operators on 21 July 2022. This blog serves to summarily remind licensees of existing rules and guidance enclosed in the Gambling Commission’s update.

Player complaints: relevant themes

Research from the Gambling Commission found that 8% of players have made a complaint in the past, with an additional 4% reporting their wish to complain but failure to do so. These statistics are supplemented by qualitative data which suggests that some players refrain from pursuing complaints procedures because it is often considered a “tedious process”, with some licensees appearing “purposefully difficult to reach”.

However, it is important that players can locate policies and “raise their complaints without any barriers” to “improve outcomes” for both them and operators.

Although mentioned in the detailed leaks in July 2022, it remains to be seen whether a gambling ombudsman scheme will be introduced, as part of the Gambling Act Review, to adjudicate gambling complaints.

Checklist for good practice complaints handling

In light of this, the Gambling Commission issued the following checklist for good practice complaints handling:

  • ensure your complaints process is clear and short;
  • include clickable and appropriately functioning links, including a link to the complaints procedure on your homepage;
  • avoid jargon/legalese and use plain English instead;
  • inform players what information is required to investigate their complaint;
  • include details of the 8-week time limit for either resolving the complaint or issuing a final response;
  • clearly indicate whether a final decision or ‘deadlock’ has been reached;
  • utilise technology (such as webforms and decision trees) to help guide consumers through the complaints process, but always provide alternative contact methods;
  • ensure that your complaints procedure is accessible for all, including vulnerable people, with adjustments readily made where required;
  • maintain a virtual paper trail;
  • utilise consumer support tools, such as Resolver; and
  • provide clear signposting to ADR providers.

The overarching theme is that licensees should design their complaints procedures in a transparent, clear and accessible manner.

Next steps

We strongly encourage licensees to review their complaints procedures against the Gambling Commission’s checklist on good practice for complaints handling, making them as simple as possible, and ensuring policies are implemented.

Please get in touch with us if you require assistance in developing appropriate internal policies and/or updating your complaints procedure in line with the Gambling Commission’s checklist.

Read more
21Sep

New remote customer interaction requirements take effect…in part

21st September 2022 David Whyte Anti-Money Laundering, Marketing, Responsible Gambling 243

On 12 September 2022, the Gambling Commission’s new Social Responsibility Code Provision (“SRCP”) 3.4.3, partly came into effect. For now, however, the Customer interaction guidance – for remote gambling licensees (Formal guidance under SR Code 3.4.3 (the “Guidance”) will not take effect.

Background

In its update of 2 September 2022, the Gambling Commission states that the delay in the implementation of parts of SRCP 3.4.3, and the Guidance, takes into account a request from the industry for “an extension to the timeframe for implementing these new measures”. Further, it “considers it would be beneficial to use the time now available to conduct further consultation on matters to be addressed in the guidance associated with SR Code 3.4.3 by way of a consultation on the guidance document itself”: something which, as we pointed out in July, it should have done in the first place.

The Gambling Commission describes the Guidance as a “living document which is intended to be amended over time”: we have previously set out our concerns about the Gambling Commission’s introduction or amendment, without consultation, of guidance that has the effect of a licence condition. The Gambling Commission states it is “particularly interested to hear about good practice in implementing the requirements, based on the lessons learned by operators during the period between April and September and to hear about any implications arising out of recent research, evidence and casework”. A cynic may suggest that its focus on good practice implementation is indicative that, following the consultation, any revised guidance issued is likely to be very similar to the Guidance, irrespective of any consultation responses submitted: a cycle that has become commonplace in recent times.

The Gambling Commission states that the consultation is “set to be launched during late September and will last six weeks” (rather than the usual 12). Its provisional intention is to “publish the guidance on requirements in December 2022 with it taking effect approximately 2 months after publication”. Whether it meets that deadline remains to be seen.

We strongly encourage all licensees to respond to the Consultation when it is launched.

The Guidance – delay and confusion

The Gambling Commission’s decision, at this late stage, to delay implementation of parts of SRCP 3.4.3 and consult on the Guidance is surprising, as is the fact that pending its consultation it will not require that remote licensees take into account any guidance whatsoever. It seems to us that the latter of these issues has largely been influenced by two factors. Firstly, the fact that the previous Customer interaction: formal guidance for remote gambling operators (the “Previous Guidance”) was issued under the old SRCP 3.4.1, which is also now no longer in effect. Secondly, the Gambling Commission is unable to amend the new SRCP 3.4.3 and require that licensees adhere to the Previous Guidance without further consultation.

This last-minute change creates a lacuna that will last until at least February 2023, which will confuse some remote licensees and infuriate others. Remote licensees are left in the unenviable position of being without any customer interaction guidance whatsoever at a time when, by its recent admission, the Gambling Commission’s “focus on customer interaction has been there for some time now and will certainly be continuing over the coming months”. There must surely also be a risk that consumers could be negatively impacted due to this lack of clarity.

The Guidance – fairness and reasonableness

It has been a requirement that remote licensees “take into account the Commission’s guidance on customer interaction” since 31 October 2019. As any licensee who has been subject to a compliance assessment or regulatory action will attest, in practice the Gambling Commission interprets “take into account” as “strictly adhere to”. This is clear not only from the actions of the Gambling Commission, but also from the affirmative language, such as “must” and “required”, that is contained in guidance it has issued in relation to customer interaction. The Previous Guidance has therefore, at least to some extent, had the effect of a licence condition.

Various regulatory sanctions have been imposed, or regulatory settlements agreed that can be linked, at least in part, to remote licensees’ failure to take into account the Previous Guidance. Those licensees may, rightly, feel aggrieved that a combination of convenient timing and poor regulatory governance, means that they were exposed to such sanctions when, contrastingly, their peers, who may be subjected to compliance assessments or regulatory action now, are no longer obliged to adhere to similar standards. Whether those licensees choose to challenge this unfairness remains to be seen and may depend on the Gambling Commission’s action during this hiatus.

Non-remote licensees remain subject to the requirement, by virtue of SRCP 3.4.1, to “take into account the Commission’s guidance on customer interaction”. This guidance, Customer interaction: formal guidance for premises-based operators (the “Non-remote Guidance”), sets out very similar requirements to the Previous Guidance. This difference in required standards is likely to aggravate non-remote operators, particularly if the Gambling Commission continues to take action against them based on a failure to take into account the Non-remote Guidance.  They will also likely be concerned that their already diminishing pool of customers will continue to migrate to the remote sector, which, at least in the short term, is held to a lower standard or can justify non-compliance more easily.

We question whether the Gambling Commission has given adequate thought to the possible impact of this last-minute U-turn and the consequential risk of challenge:

  • What will the position be for those licensees currently subject to regulatory action for failing to adhere to the Previous Guidance, or for those subjected to a compliance assessment in a period that straddles the change? What standards will they be held to?
  • Will the Gambling Commission now expect licensees to adhere only to the literal wording of SRCP 3.4.3, ignoring not only the delayed Guidance but also the Previous Guidance?
  • What are the current affordability requirements? Those requirements, in particular the requirement to consider ONS data and national average salaries when assessing affordability, were set out in the Previous Guidance and repeated in the Guidance. On what basis does the Gambling Commission propose to hold remote licensees who fail to meet those standards to account during this period?

The Gambling Commission has almost certainly opened a can of worms through this seemingly haphazard change. Licensees, consumers, stakeholders, and Government are all likely to have varying concerns. Whilst it is pleasing to see that the Gambling Commission has identified the risks linked to bringing all the requirements under SRCP 3.4.3 and the Guidance into effect without consultation, these issues could have been avoided if the Gambling Commission had given earlier credence to comments made by licensees, or industry stakeholders and advisors. The lateness of this change is embarrassing and the consequential complexities that now follow should be carefully navigated or the Gambling Commission may be exposed to challenge.

Next steps and SRCP 3.4.3

It is the Gambling Commission’s intention, subject to consultation, to introduce the remaining requirements of SR Code 3.4.3 and the associated guidance on 12 February 2023.

In the meantime, we encourage remote licensees to ensure that their policies, processes, and procedures comply with the existing requirements.

To assist licensees, we set out below SCRP 3.4.3 with deletions for those requirements not brought into effect on 12 September 2022.

Customer interaction 

All remote licences, except any remote lottery licence the holder of which does not provide facilities for participation in instant win or high frequency lotteries1, remote gaming machine technical, gambling software, host, ancillary remote bingo, ancillary remote casino, ancillary remote betting, remote betting intermediary (trading rooms only) and remote general betting limited licences.

  1. Licensees must implement effective customer interaction systems and processes in a way which minimises the risk of customers experiencing harms associated with gambling. These systems and processes must embed the three elements of customer interaction – identify, act and evaluate – and which reflect that customer interaction is an ongoing process as explained in the Commission’s guidance (see paragraph 2).
  2. Licensees must take into account the Commission’s guidance on customer interaction for remote operators as published and revised from time to time (‘the Guidance’). 
  3. Licensees must consider the factors that might make a customer more vulnerable to experiencing gambling harms and implement systems and processes to take appropriate and timely action where indicators of vulnerability are identified. Licensees must take account of the Commission’s approach to vulnerability as set out in the Commission’s Guidance.
  4. Licensees must have in place effective systems and processes to monitor customer activity to identify harm or potential harm associated with gambling, from the point when an account is opened. 
  5. Licensees must use a range of indicators relevant to their customer and the nature of the gambling facilities provided in order to identify harm or potential harm associated with gambling. These must include: 
    • customer spend
    • patterns of spend
    • time spent gambling
    • gambling behaviour indicators 
    • customer-led contact 
    • use of gambling management tools
    • account indicators.
  6. In accordance with SR Code Provision 1.1.2, licensees are responsible for ensuring compliance with the requirements. In particular, if the licensee contracts with third party business-to-business providers to offer any aspect of the licensee’s business related to the licensed activities, the licensee is responsible for ensuring that systems and processes are in place to monitor the activity on the account for each of the indicators in paragraph 5 (a-g) and in a timely way as set out in paragraphs 7 and 8.
  7. A licensee’s systems and processes for customer interaction must flag indicators of risk of harm in a timely manner for manual intervention, and feed into automated processes as required by paragraph 11. 
  8. Licensees must take appropriate action in a timely manner when they have identified the risk of harm. 
  9. Licensees must tailor the type of action they take based on the number and level of indicators of harm exhibited. This must include, but not be limited to, systems and processes which deliver:
    • tailored action at lower levels of indicators of harm which seeks to minimise future harm
    • increasing action where earlier stages have not had the impact required
    • strong or stronger action as the immediate next step in cases where that is appropriate, rather than increasing action gradually
    • reducing or preventing marketing or the take-up of new bonus offers where appropriate
    • ending the business relationship where necessary. 
  10. Licensees must prevent marketing and the take up of new bonus offers where strong indicators of harm, as defined within the licensee’s processes, have been identified.
  11. Licensees must ensure that strong indicators of harm, as defined within the licensee’s processes, are acted on in a timely manner by implementing automated processes. Where such automated processes are applied, the licensee must manually review their operation in each individual customer’s case and the licensee must allow the customer the opportunity to contest any automated decision which affects them.
  12. Licensees must implement processes to understand the impact of individual interactions and actions on a customer’s behaviour, the continued risk of harm and therefore whether and, if so, what further action is needed.  
  13. Licensees must take all reasonable steps to evaluate the effectiveness of their overall approach, for example by trialling and measuring impact, and be able to demonstrate to the Commission the outcomes of their evaluation.
  14. Licensees must take account of problem gambling rates for the relevant gambling activity as published by the Commission, in order to check whether the number of customer interactions is, at a minimum, in line with this level. For the avoidance of doubt, this provision is not intended to mandate the outcome of those customer interactions.
Read more
18Jul

Customer interaction guidance for remote gambling licensees (formal guidance under SR Code 3.4.3)

18th July 2022 David Whyte Harris Hagan, Responsible Gambling 264

Following its announcement, in April 2022, of the introduction of a new Social Responsibility Code Provision (“SRCP”) 3.4.3 that comes into effect on 12 September 2022, the Gambling Commission (the “Commission”) published its customer interaction guidance – for remote gambling businesses (formal guidance under SR Code 3.4.3) (the “2022 Guidance”) on 20 June 2022, which comes into effect at the same time as SRCP 3.4.3. To date the Commission has made no reference to the revision of its guidance for premises-based businesses and therefore those licensees remain in the dark about any changes that may be introduced in the future.

However, the Commission’s reference to “ew consumer protection guidance” in the press release for the 2022 Guidance demonstrates further its self-driven evolution into a consumer protection body and, given that the requirements set out in SRCP 3.4.3 require action across licensees’ entire customer base, the Commission’s reference to “new rules on action for at risk customers” in the release for the new SRCP is a further indication that the Commission considers all gamblers to be “at risk”. It is therefore likely that revisions to the requirements for premises-based licensees will follow. As we know from the affordability issue, whether formal inclusion of these licensees occurs or not, the Commission is not averse to applying guidance to the entire industry. As we have explained before, the Commission’s approach is difficult to reconcile with the licensing objectives set out in section 1 of the Gambling Act 2005 (the “2005 Act”) and in the Commission’s statutory obligations under section 22 of the Act:

“(a) to pursue, and wherever appropriate to have regard to, the licensing objectives, and

(b) to permit gambling, in so far as thinks it reasonably consistent with pursuit of the licensing objectives”

The Commission is not charged with protecting all consumers, however admirable that may be; it could be the purpose of an ombudsman if appointed as part of the changes to gambling legislation. It was certainly not the intention of Parliament when passing the 2005 Act that the third licensing objective – “protecting children and other vulnerable persons from being harmed or exploited by gambling” apply to all customers who, at some point in time, may be “at risk”.

The 2022 Guidance, which we recommend licensees review in detail, reveals an apparent ignorance on the Commission’s part of various concerns that have been raised in the past about its approach, thereby exposing it to the risk of challenge. This article does not attempt a detailed critique of the entire 2022 Guidance; rather we have sought to identify the most salient points which we believe may have the greatest impact on licensees, or where we believe the Commission’s approach is misconceived.

Section A – General requirements

Paragraphs 1 and 2 – Formal guidance?

The Commission maintains its previous approach in paragraphs 1 and 2 of SRCP 3.4.3, requiring licensees to “embed the three elements of customer interaction – identify, act and evaluate”. Its replacement of the previous requirement to “interact” with a requirement to “act to minimise harm” illustrates its expectation that licensees do more than simply engage with customers and that tailored, proactive steps are taken to minimise the risk of harm.

The 2022 Guidance is more prescriptive than the existing guidance documents that the Commission has issued in relation to customer interaction, and it is certainly less outcome focussed. It requires licensees to undertake specific measures, for example that “licenses must understand that there are many reasons a person may be in a vulnerable situation” or that “licensees must identify customers that may be at risk of harm using all of the information available about the customer.” The use of words such as “must” and “required” have no place in guidance: they are the language of statute, conditions and codes of practice. We will leave for now the bigger issue that this prescription undermines the entire premise of the 2005 Act, which introduced a principles and risk-based system, as opposed to the prescriptive regime of the Gaming Act 1968 which it replaced.

It is of note that paragraph 2 requires that licensees “take into account the Commission’s guidance on customer interaction … as published and revised from time to time…” and that the Commission makes similar reference in the 2022 Guidance, stating that “for the purposes of raising standards, protecting customer interests, and preventing harm to customers, will update and re-issue guidance.” It is intriguing how the Commission considers that future updates to guidance “intended to support compliance with LCCP SR code 3.4.3” can raise standards or prevent harm. Unless, that is, the Commission intends to use the “formal” 2022 Guidance to implement “formal” requirements.

For a number of reasons, the Commission’s attempt to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear is evident from the questionable foundations upon which the evolved 2022 Guidance is based. Firstly, and somewhat unsurprisingly, the Commission continues to ignore previous concerns raised, not least by us, about its use of guidance: guidance that enables the Commission to outline its expectations to licensees to assist their understanding of licence conditions or codes of practice is sensible. However, the Commission continues to introduce formal requirements through its use of guidance and without consultation, which is wrong. The Commission’s powers are controlled by statute and are therefore the preserve of Parliament. The 2005 Act requires that the Commission must consult before specifying a licence condition (section 76) and before issuing or revising a code of practice (section 24). Guidance must therefore be easily distinguished from a licence condition or code of practice (including those that carry the weight of a licence conditions such as SRCP 3.4.3) and should not prescribe additional requirements.

The distinction is not more apparent than real. Aside from the fact that it exceeds the Commission’s powers to introduce a licence condition or code of practice without consultation, by using guidance which should only be explanatory rather than mandatory, the distinction has very different consequences. Breach of a licence condition or code of practice carrying the weight of a licence condition is a criminal offence and allows the Commission to prosecute or resort to its full armoury of penalties through licence review. By contrast, licensees must “take into account” guidance and therefore not following it should not be an automatic breach. It is therefore wrong, and confusing, for the Commission to include specific requirements in the 2022 Guidance, particularly when it has very recently consulted on the introduction of SRCP 3.4.3 and has thus had the opportunity formally to introduce whatever further formal requirements it wished at that time. Reference to “formal” guidance in the title of the 2022 Guidance is indicative that it knew what it was doing.

Secondly, if the Commission is willing and able to circumvent statutory controls now, and not for the first time (it introduced its Covid-19 guidance very quickly and not alongside a change to the SRCP or consultation), it is likely to do so again. This leaves licensees and other stakeholders exposed to the risk of further change without fair notice or the ability to challenge.

Thirdly, whilst it may seem somewhat hypocritical to challenge now this prescription when licensees have been desperate for clarity for many years, a more thorough analysis of the 2022 Guidance reveals that, despite it being more prescriptive, it is unlikely to provide licensees with the clarity that they desire and will certainly lead to a continuance of the ‘flexible interpretation’ experienced by licensees during compliance assessments and subsequent regulatory investigations. One might argue that, like licensees, the Commission has also struggled to identify what specific controls and thresholds will adequately identify who might be at risk of harm and balance those controls against the freedom of choice.  

It seems that in recent times, guidance, formal guidance and licence conditions have become one and the same thing in the belief of the Commission, the only difference being that the former two contain requirements that the Commission have found inconvenient.

Section B: Identify

Paragraph 3 – Transforming vulnerability

Paragraph 3 requires that “Licensees must consider the factors that might make a customer more vulnerable to experiencing gambling harms and implement systems and processes to take appropriate and timely action where indicators of vulnerability are identified. Licensees must take account of the Commission’s approach to vulnerability as set out in the Commission’s Guidance.” Prior to the publication of the 2022 Guidance, the wording of paragraph 3 indicated that the Commission may have taken a step back from its intention, set out in its consultation, to require that licensees “take account of its definition of vulnerability”. However, it is clear in the 2022 Guidance that this is not the case: the requirement remains but it is drafted more subtly. The Commission sets out in “Aim 3” (which reads as more of an obligation than an aim – a theme that runs throughout the 2022 Guidance) that “ require operators to take action when they are aware that a customer is in a vulnerable situation”, and sets out its own definition of a vulnerable person as

“somebody who, due to their personal circumstances, is especially susceptible to harm, particularly when a firm is not acting with appropriate levels of care”.

The Commission requires (amongst other things) that “licensees must understand that there are many reasons a person may be in a vulnerable situation…” explaining that a vulnerable situation “can be permanent, temporary or intermittent, and may be related to health, capability, resilience, or the impact of a life event such as a bereavement or loss of income”.

In recent years the transformation of what the Commission considers to be “vulnerability” is bewildering. Parliament clearly considered the interpretation of vulnerability a straightforward matter: it did not find it necessary to include a statutory definition in the 2005 Act. This is understandable: as we have discussed previously, the reference in the third licensing objective firstly to children, and then to other vulnerable persons, adequately set out Parliament’s intention that the licensing objective apply to those people who are not able to make properly informed or ‘adult’ decisions.

Most worrying, however, is that vulnerability as now defined, is to be determined by whether a “firm”, which we understand to mean a licensed operator, is “acting with appropriate levels of care”. Given that the decision about whether a licensee has acted with “appropriate levels of care” rests with the Commission, it seems that vulnerability will be determined subjectively by the Commission, in hindsight, most likely during compliance assessments, and based primarily on a licensee’s actions and controls in relation to each individual customer. In referring to those “appropriate levels of care” the Commission also suggests incorrectly that licensees have a duty of care at law to prevent customers from gambling if they are or might be vulnerable and risks improperly seeking to introduce such a duty in law, or at least exposing licensees to such a challenge based on its definition.

Matters are likely to become further complicated when the Commission launches its further consultation on the ways to tackle what it considers to be three key financial risks for consumers: binge gambling, significant unaffordable losses over time, and risks for those who are financially vulnerable (the “Financial Risks Consultation”). Licensees who are hoping that this consultation will provide clarity about affordability expectations may be disappointed and faced with a further definition to consider, this time of “financial vulnerability”. Based on its current approach, the Commission is likely to permit itself a similar level of hindsight, the focus of its decisions being on action taken and controls implemented.  

The Commission apparently considers itself lawmaker on a par with Parliament: it will determine who is and who is not vulnerable, and will further amend its definition without consultation, whenever it sees fit.

Paragraphs 4 and 5 – Affordability?

Paragraphs 4 and 5 require licensees to “have in place effective systems and processes for monitoring customer activity” and set out a range of indicators which must be operated by licensees. The 2022 Guidance expands on these requirements, making it clear that the Commission expects a mix of automated and manual processes and that systems should “draw on all available sources of data”.

The 2022 Guidance does nothing to clarify the uncertainty about affordability, with the Commission’s position largely replicating the previous guidance. In setting out examples of indicators which should be used by licensees (some of which have now been made requirements) the Commission refers to “mounts spent compared with other customers, taking account of financial vulnerability”. It is of note that in its reference to the Financial Risks Consultation, the Commission indicates that further “guidance” will follow. Again, given that the Commission has considered it necessary to define “vulnerability”, this is an indication that a further definition for “financial vulnerability” seems likely.

Section C – Act

Paragraphs 8, 9, and 11 – An absence of prescription or guidance?

These paragraphs require that licensees take “appropriate action in a timely manner when they have identified a risk of harm” and that this action is tailored “based on the number and level of indicators of harm exhibited.” The 2022 Guidance obliges licensees to have a suite of actions in place ranging from “early generic action” to “very strong” action (this essentially amounting to ending the business relationship). The Commission does not, however, specify which indicators of harm it considers lower level and which it considers strong. Rather, strong indicators must be “defined within the licensees’ processes”. Prescription, when most likely to be helpful, is absent. The resulting inevitability of inconsistent standards and expectations being applied during compliance assessments will further frustrate licensees.

The requirement not only to “implement automated processes”, but also when those automated processes are applied to “manually review their operation in each individual customer’s case” is burdensome, impracticable, counterproductive and undermines the benefits of automation. The limited guidance – in its true sense – in relation to this requirement and the lack of clarity about when any manual review must take place, is indicative that the Commission has not considered fully how it is “consistent with data protection requirements”.

Section D – Evaluate

Paragraphs 12, 13 and 14 – Impact?

Evaluating the impact of each customer interaction is no easy task. As licensees have already experienced, it doubles the operational impact, with additional and equivalent resource required to follow up on the original interaction. The Commission fairly points out in the 2022 Guidance that “not every customer who receives an interaction will require a follow up” however it overlooks the fact that not every interaction will require evaluation. The Commission states that “by impact we mean a change in the customer’s gambling activity which could be attributed to the interaction”. The implication here is that if the customer’s gambling activity does not change for the better (i.e stop or reduce), they are suffering, or continue to be at risk of suffering harm. This cannot be correct. Some customers will, for various reasons, simply continue to gamble at previous levels, or may even increase their spend, particularly if they are winning (as is commonplace when most people gamble). This is certainly not always an indicator of harm. This lack of clarity will mean that licensees will continue to feel obligated to ensure that on every occasion they interact with a customer they see a change in behaviour, and where this is not the case will feel bound to take further action whether or not any such action is wanted by a customer or thought necessary to prevent harm.

The requirement that licensees evaluate the effectiveness of their overall approach maintains the current requirements, however the Commission sets out in more detail its expectations. The new obligation to “take account of problem gambling rates for the relevant activity published by the Commission in order to check whether the number of customer interactions is, at a minimum, in line with this level” is something of a step away from the tailored approach of other requirements in SRCP 3.4.3 and the 2022 Guidance. To avoid criticism, licensees will need to be acutely aware of any updated publication of problem gambling rates by the Commission, however questionable that data may be, and ensure that this is reflected in their approach.

Conclusion

Whatever the Commission’s intention, and however strongly it feels that licensees are not going far enough to protect consumers, it is vitally important that it acts within its statutory remit. Not for the first time, the 2022 Guidance reveals a willingness on the Commission’s part to act beyond its powers, this time under the guise of the new SRCP and its intention to introduce “stronger and more prescriptive” rules. The Commission’s willingness to continually use guidance as a means of introducing formal requirements through the back door is concerning and it may only be a matter of time before it faces challenge. In the meantime, licensees should ensure that they take steps to ensure that they are able to adhere to both the SRCP and the 2022 Guidance to mitigate the risk of regulatory action.

With thanks to Julian Harris for his invaluable co-authorship.

Read more
07Jul

The Affordability Debate (4): The Commission Unmasked

7th July 2022 Julian Harris Harris Hagan, Responsible Gambling 285

Readers may recall the three articles we have previously written analysing the Gambling Commission’s (the “Commission”) covert operation to introduce a requirement on operators to conduct evidenced affordability checks. Whilst we cannot claim that it is as a result of those publications, it is encouraging that the Commission has finally and “officially” been taken to task on this controversial issue by no less a body than the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (the “DCMS”) Committee of the House of Commons (the “Committee”). On the penultimate day of the Committee’s Inquiry on What next for the National Lottery? (30 June 2022), the Committee heard evidence from Commission CEO, Andrew Rhodes and its Executive Director, John Tanner. Whilst much of the questioning by the Committee related to the subject matter suggested by the title of the Inquiry, the Committee then turned to the subject of affordability checks and then customer interaction.

We can all sympathise with being taken off guard by unanticipated questioning, but less so with Mr Rhodes’ apparent denial of responsibility for, or even knowledge of, matters that occurred before his appointment, especially in relation to such a critical issue for consumers and the industry.

Even less worthy of sympathy was his apparent inability to explain the relationship between the newly published Customer interaction guidance – for remote gambling licensees, the November 2020 Consultation and call for evidence – Remote customer interaction  (the “Consultation”) on which the Committee interrogated Mr Rhodes, and the issue of affordability which was the basis for the questioning. This is particularly the case given that the core and most contentious of the Commission’s ever evolving proposals in relation to affordability, the introduction of mandatory financial thresholds for affordability checks, was introduced in the Consultation.

Secrecy v transparency

To quote Jeremy Bentham, “secrecy, being an instrument of conspiracy, ought never to be the system of a regular government.” summarises neatly the Committee’s displeasure – to put it mildly – at the Commission’s failure to publish the results of its Consultation. As the Chair, Julian Knight MP, put it:

“This is important work. Affordability and affordability checks are of great public interest. It seems to be very strange that this has not been made publicly available. I do not know what is so secret about it that it needs to be handed over covertly to DCMS and then inform the White Paper. We have a right to see it as well and so does the general public, because we pay for you.”

Mr Rhodes denied knowledge of the reasons, on the basis that it pre-dated his appointment. Now that he has been the CEO for a year, one would expect that he knew, or ought to have known, about the Commission’s handling of an important document relating to a key Commission policy that has been disclosed to DCMS, which has been the subject of numerous licence reviews conducted by the Commission, is of critical importance to those whom the Commission regulates and to consumers, and which has been the subject of very substantial commentary. As the Chair commented:

“It does seem to be very strange that you should announce a consultation in November 2020 on such an important area, which frankly does need scrutiny more widely than just DCMS and the Department, and that was not released publicly. I thought that would be of interest to parliamentarians, rather than for it just to be handed covertly to officials at DCMS. That seems a very strange approach and lacking in transparency, frankly.”

Strange indeed. A lack of transparency on the part of the Commission has unfortunately permeated this issue; coupled with the Commission’s sleight of hand in introducing affordability requirements outside due process, this has left operators confused by the relationship between their regulatory obligations in law and the Commission’s expectations, as explained in more depth in our second article (The Affordability Debate (2): Ambiguous Regulatory requirements). Mr Rhodes again pleaded ignorance:

“I was not at the Commission at the time, so I am very happy to look at what the reasoning was for it not being published. My understanding since I have joined the Commission is that we have fed into the White Paper that affordability checks will be considered as part of the White Paper’s recommendations, rather than have essentially two bites at that.”

More disappointing is that he did not explain what the Commission is doing now in relation to affordability. Given that the Committee referred to this as being “such an important issue”, we consider this to be somewhat disingenuous: it does not reflect the degree of transparency which the Committee felt entitled to expect, nor to the level which the Commission expects of its licensees.

Realpolitik

As operators are painfully aware, the Commission has for some three years done rather more than, in the word of Mr Rhodes, “…fed into the White Paper…”.  The Consultation was followed just three days later by the Compliance and Enforcement Report 2019 to 2020 (6 November 2020) (the “2020 Enforcement Report”).  In fact, even earlier – in its Compliance and Enforcement Report 2018 to 2019 (27 June 2019) (the “2019 Enforcement Report”) – the Commission outlined various open-source data that may help licensees to “assess affordability for its GB customer base and improve its risk assessment and customer interventions.”  In referring to the recommendations it made in the 2019 Enforcement Report, and considering customers who have “demonstrated gambling related harm indicators and been able to continue to gamble without effective engagement”, the Commission opined that: “Furthermore, these individuals have funded their gambling without satisfactory affordability checks and appropriate evidence being obtained.” . The 2020 Enforcement Report proceeded to outline various open-source data that can help licensees to “assess affordability for GB customers and improve risk assessment and customer inventions”. Similar to the 2019 Enforcement Report, this data primarily focuses on average annual salary as outlined in the ONS survey of Hours and Earnings.

The core, critical “requirement” is that:

“Operators must interact with customers early on to set adequate, informed affordability triggers to protect customers from gambling related harm. Failure to do so could render the operator non-compliant.”

“Customers wishing to spend more than the national average should be asked to provide information to support a higher affordability trigger such as three months’ payslips, P60s, tax returns or bank statements which will both inform the affordability level the customer may believe appropriate with objective evidence whilst enabling the licensee to have better insight into the source of those funds and whether they are legitimate or not.”

The Commission takes the view that its Enforcement Reports serve as indicators to licensees of its expectations, for which licensees can be held to account; these reports therefore arguably contain policy positions that, if enforced, are more akin to licence conditions or code provisions. We have discussed previously our concerns that the Commission may be making indirect changes to licence conditions and/or code provisions through its introduction of requirements to adhere to guidance and this is perhaps another, somewhat broader, example of that. Aside from the fact that the Commission is not adopting a risk based and proportionate approach, the evidential basis for the Consultation included research in which customers admit to having sometimes lost more than they can afford, rather than their gambling being unaffordable. The Commission cite the Enforcement Reports as evidence in support of their proposed measures, when in fact the Enforcement Reports deal with “clearly unaffordable” gambling, whilst the proposed affordability constraints go far beyond customers losing tens of thousands, extending to affordability checks after lifetime losses of as little as hundreds of pounds; a point not missed by the Committee, when the Chair referred to “consumers potentially having to submit bank statements or tax returns to bet as little as £100 a month.”

We do not agree that the Enforcement Reports carry the weight of formal guidance. It is clear from the content of the Licence Conditions and Codes of Practice (the “LCCP”) that in cases where the Commission expects licensees to adhere to formal guidance, it says so. Social Responsibility Code Provisions 2.1 (anti-money laundering – casino) and 3.4 (customer interaction) are examples of the Commission explicitly requiring licensees to adhere to, or take account of, specific formal guidance. Nowhere in the LCCP is there any reference to the Enforcement Reports carrying such weight, as we have previously explained (The Affordability Debate (2): Ambiguous Regulatory requirements).  

So, in the case of affordability, the Commission expects licensees to abide by a series of “requirements” none of which are clearly set out in licence conditions, codes of practice, or formal guidance issued by the Commission under its statutory remit, but in their Enforcement Reports and the existing Customer Interaction Guidance and more broadly the Consultation. Breach of a Code under section 24 of the Gambling Act, 2005 may properly be taken into account by the Commission in the exercise of its statutory function but acting contrary to whatever opinions it expresses in its Enforcement Reports, or in speeches, may not. There can therefore be no basis for the Commission, when raising safer gambling concerns, to refer to those Enforcement Reports in its compliance assessment findings, licence review threats or regulatory actions, as it is increasingly doing.

A Bridge Too Far

As licensees know from sometimes bitter experience, and as we explained in our second article on this subject, whilst the Commission has not formally imposed the proposals in the Consultation, it has sought to require operators to abide by them, or variants of them, referred to in its Enforcement Reports, by exerting pressure and threatening regulatory action for failing to implement affordability checks. This is clearly inconsistent, unfair and possibly exceeds its powers. Operators subjected to regulatory action have been pressured by the Commission to adopt affordability checks as if they were a legal requirement. The consequence, aside from placing them at a disadvantage to competitors, has been to create a climate of fear.

This has been exacerbated by confusion as to what the Commission actually requires. Moreover, despite the fact that the Consultation contains proposals for such checks to be applied solely to the online industry, the Commission is requiring such checks also from the land-based industry. The Commission has not merely pre-empted the Government’s decision, it has taken upon itself the role of Government and Parliament, i.e. that of lawmaker.

The whole truth

Mr Rhodes was unambiguous in saying that the issues relating to affordability checks “are something for the White Paper.”

Against the background explained above, it is reasonable to ask how he found himself able to make this statement. He was certainly correct in his pithy summary of how the Commission should have addressed affordability. However, he failed to explain that the Commission has been acting on many of the proposals on which it purported to consult for some three years, without reference to any higher authority. We find this strange indeed, not least given the Committee’s obvious interest and concern about the subject and the Chair’s statement that “affordability and affordability checks are of great public interest.”  Given this “public interest” in the issue and the Committee’s concern as to lack of transparency on the part of the Commission, the Committee should have been informed of the Commission’s existing enforcement on the whole industry of affordability checks.

There is little point in speculating as to the reason for this absence, but it is reasonable to question whether (1) Mr Rhodes did not consider it relevant; (2) he was unaware of it and of the numerous licence reviews in which affordability has been an important feature; or (3) he chose not to mention it. If (1) obviously his view was misconceived; if (2) this would be a cause to question his grasp of the Commission’s work; and if (3) one wonders why not.

In the first article on affordability (The Affordability Debate: Protection, Responsibility and the Right to Choose), we commented that in disregarding the Consultation and pre-empting the results, the Commission had become the emperor that had no clothes. He has now been defrocked.

A question of trust

In conclusion, the Committee Chair asked Mr Rhodes if the Commission “have any measures or metrics in place to decide exactly how you are trusted by your licensees, for instance? Is there an overarching survey of that?” His answer was: “Not presently, no. There isn’t.”  The answer from Mr Rhodes was correct: an answer that the Committee probably found disappointing.The fact of the question being asked hints at the possibility that the Committee considered there could be a negative response to such a survey.

There are stronger remarks that leave little doubt as to the Committee’s opinion; in questioning on metrics to determine whether the National Strategy to Reduce Gambling harms works, the Chair described the approach set out by Mr Rhodes as “very slipshod”. Having then heard Mr Rhodes admit there were no metrics to determine whether the £40 million spent does any good, the Chair concluded the hearing by saying:

“What do you do? There seems to be money going out the door and no accountability for that money, apart from when you make the award. This money just splashes out there and you have no idea in terms of what this impacts with the licensees. I am struggling to think precisely as an organisation how you are doing your job, because these seem to be key measures and indicators of whether you are successful.”

It is not for us to speculate on the views of licensees, who are quite able to make their views known themselves, but this withering criticism from the Committee reflects what was said by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Betting and Gaming: there is reason to suppose it may well be shared by others.

As we know from experience, the degree of engagement between the Commission, those whom it regulates and even independent advisers, is negligible. The Commission seems interested in canvassing the views of those whom it knows to be anti-gambling or have reason to dislike the industry. This has been demonstrated by its formation of a group of people with “lived experience”, which meant only those who had suffered a problem with gambling. The Commission has never, to the best of our knowledge sought views from the vast majority who enjoy gambling as an adult leisure activity. For most licensees, the only real engagement with the regulator is through regulatory reviews or other confrontational issues.

In short, this issue demonstrates the need for the Commission to go on an “improvement journey”, be put into “special measures”, or even the equivalent of a “licence review” to establish whether it is fit, able and prepared to carry out the function with which it is charged under the Gambling Act, 2005 and not to make law according to its own whims.

Read more
06Apr

Change of Corporate Control Reminder

6th April 2022 Julian Harris Harris Hagan 261

The Gambling Commission has issued a reminder in its fortnightly E-bulletin (4 April 2022) about the requirements on a Change of Corporate Control (“CoCC”), indicating a tougher approach where applications are late.

Under section 102 of the Gambling Act 2005, a CoCC takes place when a new person or other legal entity becomes a new “controller” of the licensee. The definition of a controller stems from complex financial services legislation and, broadly speaking, it means a person or entity that holds:

  • 10% of more of the shares in the licensee or in a parent company of the licensee (i.e. directly or indirectly);
  • 10% of more of the voting power in the licensee or in a parent company of the licensee; or
  • less than 10%, but able to exercise significant influence over the management of the licensee.

The Gambling Commission is reminding licensees that a CoCC must be notified to them, via eServices, by means of a key event within five working days of the event happening. They must also submit a CoCC application within five weeks of the event occurring.

At present, where an application for a CoCC is late, licensees are able to explain the delay and obtain an extension of time for the application, in the words of the Gambling Commission, where an “adequate and reasonable” explanation is provided.

From July 2022, the Gambling Commission have warned that their approach to late submissions will become stricter, due, they claim, to an increase in the complexity and number of applications. Where the explanation is not considered to be “adequate or reasonable”, there will be a refusal to grant an extension and revocation of the licence where the new controller is unknown to the Gambling Commission (i.e not already a licensee) and is not:

  • Regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority; or
  • An immediate family member entering a small family business.

This is important because of the binary choice facing the Gambling Commission in determining a CoCC application; they may, in law, only grant the application, or refuse it. If the latter, the licence is revoked. The consequences for licensees are therefore potentially catastrophic. It is therefore to be regretted that the apparent reasoning for this change on the part of the Gambling Commission is the burden of their own workload. The consideration of a CoCC application is a statutory duty for them, and the subject of often huge application fees. Ironically, the complex applications which concern the Gambling Commission are generally those pertaining to larger, often international, licensees regulated in numerous well-respected jurisdictions.  These licensees are very often owned by publicly traded companies, who submit numerous CoCC applications, in relation to their blue-chip institutional investors or acquisitions they have made in the sector.  A stricter approach that could put the licences of such licensees at risk merits greater justification than the workload of the Gambling Commission.

The Gambling Commission have never provided an explanation of their view as to what constitutes an “adequate or reasonable” explanation, nor do they offer any guidance now as to its meaning, or as to what the change will mean in practice or who will make such a determination.   The Gambling Commission’s Corporate Governance Framework (last revised in January 2022) states that an out of time extension request may be granted by a “Regulatory Manager or above”.  However, it does not state who has the delegated authority to refuse such a request and issue a “minded to revoke” letter.  The framework goes on to say “here, in response to such a letter, the licence holder requests a hearing, this will be before an Executive Director who will determine the case, otherwise a Senior Manager or above may take the decision.”

In our experience, the Gambling Commission have generally been understanding as to missed applications, particularly in complex, often international corporate groups, where restructuring somewhere in the chain of ownership may not necessarily be notified to those responsible for compliance in Britain, or where shares are publicly traded on a stock exchange with quarterly reporting periods.

In her blog last year, Changes of Corporate Control: The Basics, Bahar Alaeddini recorded our then experience that the Gambling Commission had become stricter in their approach to application deadlines, recommending that licensees take steps to ensure awareness of changes of control and ensure their ability to comply with application deadlines. Bahar recorded then that “the Gambling Commission is no longer generous in giving extensions, sometimes with extension requests being refused, so their goodwill cannot be relied upon.” This statement by the Gambling Commission confirms the reality of what we had experienced.

It may be that the Gambling Commission will continue to be sympathetic to inadvertent failures to meet the statutory deadline on a CoCC application, particularly where the delay is short, or due to share fluctuations, and in circumstances where, as frequently happens, the same institutional investors from time to time trigger a new CoCC. Where we suspect they will look less favourably on late applications, is when licensees discover several CoCCs missed over a considerable period of time or repeated failures; this the Gambling Commission might regard as evidence of more serious governance and compliance failure. In any event we strongly advise all licensees to check that they have appropriate means of identifying and addressing CoCCs. In the unfortunate event that any are or have been missed, immediate legal advice should be sought.

Please get in touch with us if you believe you have failed to comply with the statutory deadline or require assistance preparing a CoCC application.

Read more
18Feb

The Gambling Commission’s emerging money laundering and terrorist financing risks – 10 February 2022 update

18th February 2022 David Whyte Anti-Money Laundering, Harris Hagan 242 





The Gambling Commission released its most recent update on emerging money laundering and terrorist financing risks on 10 February.





The Gambling Commission reminds licensees on its website that they are required, by licence condition (“LC”) 12.1.1(3), to “keep up to date with any emerging risks that the Commission publishes”. This update covers three emerging risks that we set out in detail below.





1.     Improvements needed to money laundering and terrorist financing risk assessments





The Gambling Commission points out that it expects to see licensees significantly improve their money laundering and terrorist financing controls, flagging that there are “too many instances being identified where licensees are failing to meet the requirements of the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017  and the LCCP”.





It reminds licensees of the mandatory requirement under LC 12.1.1 that they “conduct an assessment of the risks of their business being used for money laundering and terrorist financing and have appropriate policies, procedures and controls in place to mitigate the risk of money laundering and terrorist financing”.





In warning licensees that it will take regulatory action where it identifies significant failings (which, it also reminds licensees, can include suspension and revocation) the Gambling Commission directs them to its most recent compliance and enforcement report, Raising Standards for consumers – Compliance and Enforcement Report 2020-2021 (the “2021 Report”), within which it has identified and included examples of good practice to consider.





Having seen first-hand the Gambling Commission’s punctilious expectations of licensees’ money laundering and terrorist financing risk assessments, and noting some differences between the good practice examples set out in the 2021 Report and our own practical experience of its expectations, we recommend licensees consider the following:





  • Ensure that you review your risk assessment in the light of this emerging risk update. If the Gambling Commission has cause to raise concerns about your approach in the future, it will almost certainly point to this update as an opportunity for you to have improved your risk assessment sooner.
  • Ensure that you also review your risk assessment “as necessary in the light of any changes of circumstances”, including the examples set out in LC 12.1.1(1).
  • Methodically work through the Gambling Commission’s AML guidance for casinos (in particular paragraphs 2.12 to 2.39) or other gambling businesses (in particular section 18) (together the “AML Guidance”) when completing or updating your risk assessment. Gambling Commission officials seem to use the guidance as a checklist when reviewing risk assessments during compliance assessments.
  • Ensure that your risk assessment accords with the Gambling Commission’s own money laundering and terrorist financing risk assessments. As with the AML Guidance, Gambling Commission officials will likely cross check the content. Should your assessment of any individual risk differ from the Gambling Commission’s, it will likely expect you to be able to explain why. Please note that the Gambling Commission sets out in its 2020 risk assessment its expectation that you also refer to its 2018 and 2019 risk assessments “s part of your commitment to anti-money laundering and the prevention of terrorist financing”. We therefore recommend that, if you haven’t already, you cross check your risk assessment against all three documents, as together they form a catalogue, rather than superseding each other.
  • Include reference to all theoretical risks included in the AML Guidance and the Gambling Commission’s own risk assessments, irrespective of whether you consider those theoretical risks to present any actual risk to your business. We have seen Gambling Commission officials criticise licensees who have, justifiably, considered it sensible to omit theoretical risks from their risk assessment because they simply do not exist in their operation and therefore cannot be assessed. By means of an example, even when cryptocurrency it is not accepted, the Gambling Commission has stated it expects details to be included in a risk assessment, including about how this payment method is prevented. Whilst this may be something that can be explained and/or corrected at a later stage, the time and effort required in doing so is best avoided if possible.
  • Ensure that your policies, procedures and controls are prepared having regard to your risk assessment and cross refer to it where appropriate. By means of an example, a key area of concern often raised by Gambling Commission officials is that there is no explanation in the risk assessment about why triggers and thresholds were set at current levels. Putting aside any argument that policies, and not risk assessments, are the best place for this explanation to be recorded (as how else could those policies – and therefore the triggers and thresholds – have regard to the risk assessment?) the Gambling Commission will be looking for evidence of such consideration.
  • Ensure that you have a clear methodology for your risk assessment and that you can show that your approach has been applied logically to the risks. If you are unsure on an appropriate methodology to use, consider applying the same methodology that is used by the Gambling Commission in its own risk assessments.
  • Ensure that you are risk profiling customers from the outset of the business relationship.
  • Take into account when completing your risk assessment the risks presented by unaffordability, problem gambling or gambling addiction that leads to crime (for example increasing spend inconsistent with apparent source of income). Similarly, as part of a balancing exercise, be careful not to conflate those risks with those presented by money laundering and the financing of terrorism.  
  • Include clear and detailed explanations of risks and mitigation rather than vague references.
  • Ensure that you do not reference any out-of-date Gambling Commission guidance and/or advice. The Gambling Commission sets out in the 2021 Report its expectation that licensees keep up to date with any guidance and/or advice it provides and then update their risk assessment and polices, procedures and controls based on that guidance and/or advice.





2.    Due diligence checks on third party business relationships and business investors





The Gambling Commission sets out that it has become aware of instances of licensees failing to conduct sufficient due diligence in their business relationships, including where licensees have entered white label partnerships (which are noted as high risk in the Gambling Commission’s 2020 risk assessment, specifically for AML failures) or received third-party investment.





Again, the Gambling Commission reminds licensees to refer to the AML Guidance, within which it asserts that increased risks are posed by the jurisdictional location of the third-party, as well as by transactions and arrangements with business associates and third-party suppliers, such as payment providers, including their beneficial ownership and source of funds. Examples given are insufficient checks on the source of funds from an investment that had originated from cryptoassets that was converted to sterling when invested into the gambling business, and repeated failures to consider jurisdictional risk in relation to third-party business relationships.





The Gambling Commission advises licensees to remind themselves of the content of its April and July 2020 e-bulletins for more information on these risks.





This is not the first time the Gambling Commission has raised this issue and as such it is indicative that it may be preparing to widen its practical examination of licensees’ approaches to money laundering and terrorist financing risk, to concentrate further on their transactions in higher risk jurisdictions.





We recommend that licensees, in particular those in white label or B2B arrangements, review their approach to due diligence and risk in anticipation of additional scrutiny. As the Gambling Commission points out, failure to do so could amount to a breach of the MLR, the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, the Terrorism Act 2000 or LC 12.1.1.





3.    Scottish notes and pre-paid cards





Having set out in its 2020 risk assessment “the significant, potential money laundering risks associated with the use of Scottish notes and pre-paid cards” the Gambling Commission points out the increased risk of Scottish notes being used to top up pre-paid cards. It reminds licensees to “remain curious as to the source of customer funds and conduct ongoing monitoring to ensure that customer spending levels align with your knowledge of their affordability to gamble”.





It would be sensible for licensees to take this into account when reviewing their risk assessments, and to be mindful of the Gambling Commission’s concerns if they are accepting pre-paid cards.





Please get in touch with us if you would like any assistance on compliance or enforcement matters.


Read more
		


	






	        

            
06Jan

        

	
	

        
		
Gambling Commission Compliance and Enforcement Report 2020-2021


		
			


				                    6th January 2022
				
									
						Ting Fung
			        
				
				                    
                        Anti-Money Laundering, Marketing, Responsible Gambling
                    
				
				                    
						275                    
				
			


				

			

The Gambling Commission’s latest Raising Standards for consumers – Compliance and Enforcement report 2020 to 2021 (the “Report”) was published on 9 December 2021, the first since Neil McArthur’s departure, and details “one of the busiest  for  Enforcement and Compliance teams…”. Unsurprisingly, the focus of the Report remains on social responsibility and anti-money laundering failings. It also includes designated sections on licensed operators and financial stability, special measures and licence suspensions, personal management licence (“PML”) reviews and illegal gambling. However, surprisingly, and unlike the Raising Standards for consumers – Compliance and Enforcement report 2019 to 2020, affordability is not featured as a key theme despite the continuing and increasing focus by the Gambling Commission across its compliance enforcement work.





Certainly, this is reflected in the Gambling Commission’s summary of its compliance and enforcement work:





  • 15 financial penalty packages or regulatory settlements totalling £32.1 million;
  • 262 security audits;
  • 57 personal licence reviews were finalised; and
  • 82 website reviews conducted; and
  • 30 full assessments of online and non-remote operators.





Alongside an acknowledgment of the challenges of the pandemic upon consumers and businesses, the foreword concludes that:





“Looking back at enforcement in 2020 to 2021 we see the same two weaknesses in almost every case – operators failing to adhere to social responsibility and anti-money laundering rules…The reasons for these failings are almost as concerning as the failings themselves. Our casework reveals that operators are either not making suitable resources available or are simply putting commercial objectives ahead of regulatory ones…As the Great Britain’s regulator for the gambling industry, we still see far too many breaches of regulations where everyone in the industry agrees we should not see them. The industry has the resources, skills and knowledge to change this.”





We strongly encourage applicants and licensees to review, carefully, the Gambling Commission’s identified common poor practices, case studies, notable enforcement cases, guidance and lessons learned and health-check good practices.





Summary of other key areas from the Report:





Anti-money laundering and counter terrorist financing





“The Commission is finding increasing instances of gambling operators failing to consider how problem gambling can be linked to ML and TF despite both the Commission’s Guidance for remote and non-remote casinos: The prevention of money laundering and combating the financing of terrorism and Duties and responsibilities under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002: Advice to operators (excluding casino operators) stating:
a pattern of increasing spend or spend inconsistent with apparent source of income could be indicative of money laundering, but also equally of problem gambling, or both.”





The common poor practices which led to “avoidable failings” were cited as:





  • inadequate due diligence measures;
  • failure to account for the Gambling Commission’s various guidance documents;
  • failure to consider the full range of circumstances in which enhanced due diligence (“EDD”) is to be applied;
  • over reliance on third party providers to conduct due diligence (“CDD”) checks;
  • delayed customer identification checks;
  • commercial considerations overriding the need to comply with anti-money laundering (“AML”) and counter-terrorist financing (“CTF”) provisions;
  • operators having no clear methodology in place in their money laundering (“ML”) and terrorist financing (“TF”) risk assessments;
  • vague references made in ML and TF assessments;
  • not considering how problem gambling can be linked to ML and TF;
  • high financial thresholds in place before CDD or EDD measures take place;
  • high financial thresholds based on losses, deposits, or winnings only; and
  • the ML/TF risk assessment not being fully used to inform policies, procedures and controls.





The Gambling Commission highlighted the need for licensees to:





  • apply a risk-based approach;
  • conduct robust CDD and EDD checks;
  • ensure that their ML/TF risk assessment along with their policies, procedures and controls sufficiently mitigate the risk of ML and TF;
  • ensure that they are compliant with and stay up to date on customer interaction requirements, and that they take account of the current formal guidance for their sector; and
  • deliver robust and up to date employee training.





Licensed operators and financial stability





“It is not surprising given the significant challenges the pandemic has posed globally, that we have observed a significant increase in gambling operators, particularly land-based operators, experiencing extreme financial difficulty. In such situations it is imperative that operators, and their representatives are mindful of what is required of them in relation to the Licensing Objectives and customer protections. We urge licensees who are encountering financial stability issues to engage with the Commission at an early stage.”





Key takeaways from this section are:





  • responsibility for regulatory compliance remains – at all times – on the licensee, whether this is the gambling business or an appointed administrator;
  • in the case of administration, all regulatory responsibilities continue and vest in the administrator; and
  • operating licensees and PMLs were reminded the Gambling Commission will remain focused on ensuring licensees are treating consumers fairly. Fair treatment includes but is not limited to ensuring that segregated funds with medium and/or high-risk customer protection measures are ring fenced and not used to pay business expenditure.





The unsurprising consequence of either improper closedown or not adhering to continuing regulatory responsibilities are risks to any continuing operating licences PMLs. The Gambling Commission further emphasised that any adverse outcomes “may” affect future applications both in Great Britain and with other regulators abroad.





Special measures





As part of its regulatory toolkit, the Gambling Commission has been piloting the use of special measures, since September 2020, “to bring operators to compliance at pace” following the identification of failings during a compliance assessment. 





During the special measures process a licensee makes various commitments to, and is supervised by, the Gambling Commission in “a closely managed and monitored timetable to achieve compliance over a relatively short period of time.”  Wide-ranging, significant and immediate improvements are required to the licensee’s policies, procedures and controls, generally, within a challenging timeframe.  Once the Gambling Commission is satisfied improvements have been made and there is no risk to the licensing objectives, particularly consumers, the special measures will be lifted.





The Report highlights that the pilot scheme has used in relation to eight licensees.  The Gambling Commission has found special measures highly effective in incentivising licensees to make quick and substantial improvements (and divestments!) to avoid a licence review, and that it why they are being formalised (as noted below). The shared objective of the dangled carrot is to avoid a section 116 licence review, and in the case of the licensee, the uncertainty, huge stress and cost that they bring! 





The Gambling Commission is currently consulting on special measures, to make them a permanent feature of their regulatory toolkit, as part of its consultation on the Licensing, compliance and enforcement under the Gambling Act 2005: policy statement.  Read more about the consultation and special measures process in our blog on 13 December 2021.





PML reviews





“Businesses do not make decisions – people do. This is why the Commission continues to ensure that personal licence holders are held accountable, where appropriate, for the regulatory failings within the operators they manage.”





Key failings identified through casework included:





  • inadequate source of funding or source of wealth checks;
  • record keeping – lack of adequate documentation and audit trails to demonstrate properly informed decision making;
  • reporting criminal offences – delays or failures to report Schedule 7 offences as a key event;
  • nominated officer/ MLRO poor practice; and
  • senior management lacking oversight.





The associated casework has resulted in the following outcomes:





  • 10 licence revocations – eight Personal Functional Licenses (“PFL”) and two PMLs;
  • 11 PML warnings issued;
  • One PML warning with conditions;
  • 21 PML advice as to conducts; and
  • 10 PMLs surrendered.





Illegal gambling





“We are particularly focused on identifying and disrupting websites which are targeted at young or vulnerable people, those who experience significant harms from their gambling and self-excluded gamblers. The most widely reported complaints from members of the public related to the allowance of gambling. This accounted for 62% of all unlicensed remote reporting for the financial year 2020 to 2021 representing a 17% increase compared to the financial year 2019 to 2020.”





There were 99 reports of unlicensed remote operators in the financial year 2020 to 2021, some of which accounted for the same illegal website. In addition:





  • consumers’ inability to withdraw funds remained a prevalent issue;
  • there was a rise of illegal lotteries on social media;
  • the Gambling Commission continues to work with social media outlets and other regulators internationally to counteract the risks posed by illegal lotteries;
  • the Gambling Commission is also assessing its need for further legislative powers to counteract illegal gambling and will report any conclusions to the Department of Culture, Media and Sport as part of the Gambling Review.





What’s next?





The Gambling Commission’s foreword concludes that:





“The reasons for  failings are almost as concerning as the failings themselves. Our casework reveals that operators are either not making suitable resources available or are simply putting commercial objectives ahead of regulatory ones.
This is simply unacceptable and will be seen as such by others in the industry who work hard to achieve compliance.
…
Our Enforcement and Compliance work will continue to focus on customer protection, as consumers have every reason to expect. This will vary from paying very close attention to novel products to checking that operators are looking after their customers by meeting the LCCP requirement and taking into account the current Commission guidance on anti-money laundering and customer interaction”.





Compliance and enforcement action will continue unabated.





Updated and consolidated guidance on AML and customer interaction is due to be issued “shortly” following the Gambling Commission’s consultation that ended nearly a year ago on 9 February 2021.





We strongly encourage applicants and licensees to review, carefully, the Report and the Gambling Commission’s identified common poor practices, case studies, notable enforcement cases, guidance and lessons learned and health-check good practices.


Read more
		


	






	        

            
13Dec

        

	
	

        
		
Gambling Commission consultation on the Licensing compliance and enforcement policy statement: Proposed changes to compliance and enforcement


		
			


				                    13th December 2021
				
									
						Bahar Alaeddini
			        
				
				                    
                        Harris Hagan
                    
				
				                    
						274                    
				
			


				

			

On 17 November 2021, the Gambling Commission launched a consultation proposing changes to its Licensing, compliance and enforcement policy (the “Consultation”), including changes to:





  • how compliance assessments are conducted;
  • its regulatory toolkit, introducing special measures;
  • the licence review process;
  • the way in which financial penalties are calculated; 
  • interim suspension appeals; and
  • regulatory settlements.





This is the second blog on the Consultation in which we consider the proposed changes to compliance and enforcement.  The first blog can be accessed here. The enforcement proposals, if implemented (cue cynicism), will severely impact fairness to licensees and unveil an even more punitive and unpredictable regulator.  





Compliance changes





a) Compliance Assessments





Under sections 27 and 305 of the Gambling Act 2005, the Gambling Commission, its enforcement officers and other authorised persons are empowered to monitor and assess the compliance of licensees. In recent years, the Gambling Commission moved to conducting these compliance assessments remotely.





The Consultation proposes to formalise the current position by adding the following new section:





Remote compliance assessments





The Commission may conduct remote compliance assessments for the purposes of determining whether activities are being carried on in accordance with the conditions of the operator’s licence or determining the suitability of the licensee to carry on the licensed activities. Such assessments may be conducted using video conferencing platforms such as Skype. During such assessments the Commission may request sight of documents and records held by the licensee, including customer records and the audit trail in relation to customer accounts.





Additionally, as part of the framework to judge levels of compliance, the Consultation proposes to add details of what non-compliant/just compliant and compliant looks like. 





b) Special measures





As part of its regulatory toolkit, the Gambling Commission has been piloting the use of special measures, since September 2020, “to bring operators to compliance at pace” following the identification of failings during a compliance assessment.  The recently published Raising Standards for consumers – compliance and enforcement report 2020 to 2021 reports that the pilot scheme has used in relation to eight licensees.  





During the special measures process the licensee makes various commitments to, and is supervised by, the Gambling Commission in “a closely managed and monitored timetable to achieve compliance over a relatively short period of time.”  Wide-ranging, significant and immediate improvements are required to the licensee’s policies, procedures and controls, generally, within a challenging timeframe.  Once the Gambling Commission is satisfied improvements have been made and there is no risk to the licensing objectives, particularly consumers, the special measures will be lifted. 





The Gambling Commission has found special measures highly effective in incentivising licensees to make quick and substantial improvements (and divestments!) to avoid a licence review, and that it why they are being formalised. The shared objective of the dangled carrot is to avoid a section 116 licence review, and in the case of the licensee, the uncertainty, huge stress and cost that they bring!  





The Gambling Commission’s online guidance on compliance assessments states:





Special measures





To increase the tools available to us and to ensure swift interventions with failing licensees we have been piloting a ‘special measures’ scheme. The aim of this process is to raise standards immediately under strict supervision. Where licensees are being considered for regulatory action, we may consider special measures and notify you that it is an option. Special measures is an opportunity to achieve compliance before formal action. Failure to achieve compliance during the special measures process would lead to a regulatory investigation.





Special measures is only appropriate if:





  • there is an acceptance of failings
  • we have a high level of confidence that a licensee can become compliant quickly, and they have demonstrated this during the assessment
  • actions which mitigate the risks to the licensing objectives and consumer harm are put in place immediately
  • there isn’t a history of protracted non-compliance
  • there isn’t evidence of significant consumer harm
  • there is an offer to divest any profit made from non-compliance.





Furthermore, the Raising Standards for consumers – Compliance and Enforcement report 2020 to 2021 states:





Our requirements





The process of special measures is commenced by the Commission and requires a licensee to meet the following requirements:





  • the licensee must acknowledge and accept the failings
  • key persons must attend a formal meeting and explain why there are failings and what will be done immediately to mitigate the risk of consumer harm
  • a formal action plan detailing improvements to be made must be submitted within five days, this plan should implement controls that immediately mitigate the risk of consumer harm





The Commission will consider the submitted action map and decide whether it appears acceptable. A further short extension may be given if some alterations are required (not more than two days) to enable agreement on the suggested revision. Following this, the licensee is required to adhere to the following requirements:





  • report weekly on the progress against the action plan and meet the deadlines proposed
  • complete the action plan within three months
  • pass one of our compliance assessments after three months
  • calculate how much they have financially benefited from non-compliance and propose how they will divest themselves of this amount.





The Consultation proposes to add the following new paragraph to the Licensing, compliance and enforcement under the Gambling Act 2005: policy statement (the “Policy”):





Special measures





4.22   If serious failings are revealed during or as a result of a compliance assessment, then the Commission may decide that it is appropriate to place the licensee into Special Measures. The effect of Special Measures is that the licensee will be invited to submit and agree an urgent action plan to rectify the regulatory failings identified. This may include divestment of any financial benefits derived from the failings. If the licensee fails to agree an action plan, or fails to implement the agreed action plan, the Commission is likely to proceed to review the licence. Compliance with the action plan does not prevent the Commission from reviewing the licence in any event, but such compliance will be treated as a mitigating factor. Where the licensee has fully complied with the action plan, it may request release from Special Measures. The Commission will consider such a request following a further compliance assessment.





Enforcement changes





a) Commencing a licence review





If the Gambling Commission decides to commence a licence review, generally, the following – unreasonably lengthy – process is followed:





Stage 1Section 116 letter sent providing notice to the licensee setting out the grounds of the review, the procedure and the licensee’s right to make representations and when (the “Section 116 Letter”).
Stage 2Invariably lengthy Gambling Commission investigation.
Stage 3Following its investigation, the Gambling Commission sends letter setting out its preliminary findings (the “Preliminary Findings”).  This will usually set out details of the documents and any other evidence being relied upon.  The letter will remind the licensee of their right to make representations on both: (i) the Preliminary Findings; and (ii) the preliminary assessment of seriousness, and timing requirements (normally 28 days).
Stage 4Licensee responds to Preliminary Findings with representations (the “Representations”).
Stage 5Gambling Commission considers the Representations or if none are received by the deadline, further notice setting out the settled findings (the “Settled Findings”) and the outcome of the review.  If the Gambling Commission is minded to impose a financial penalty, the licensee will be given a further opportunity to make representations about the proposed financial penalty.  The licensee may accept the outcome of the review or refer the matter – both the Settled Findings and the proposed sanction – to the regulatory panel for determination.





Any licensee that has lived through enforcement action will know well that the Gambling Commission will take (persistently in our extensive experience) many months, and sometimes more than a year, to reach Preliminary Findings (Stage 3 above), leaving a cloud of uncertainty and tension hanging over the business.  It therefore seems unfair to say the least that licensees are granted a single month to respond with their case – with extensions generally refused these days – whilst continuing: (1) to run their business, without which a licence is obviously not required; and (2) on their improvement journey.  In the months or years that have elapsed, key employees may have changed and those remaining may have a dwindling recollection of events that in many cases occurred years before the Section 116 Letter.





The Consultation explains:





During a section 116 review, the Gambling Commission is obliged to properly consider and take account of all information revealed during that review and to provide licensees with an opportunity to make representations. Whilst every attempt is made to do this in one act, there may be times when issuance of further preliminary findings is required particularly where, in responding to previously issued findings, new evidence is introduced. The Commission considers that until an outcome is reached, the investigation stage of a review remains live.





…





It is essential that within a review, all relevant matters, mitigation, remedial actions, and aggravating factors are assessed, considered and representations gained. This ensures fairness to the licensee in being able to present their response to our conclusions before an outcome is obtained.





The Consultation proposes to add the following new paragraphs to the Policy:





5.10 The process of review may itself reveal facts or matters requiring investigation. Accordingly, the Commission will take a flexible approach to the procedure to ensure that all relevant facts and matters are investigated, and that the licensee has a full opportunity to make representations in relation to the review 





5.20 While in most cases, the Licensee’s representations will enable the Commission to proceed to a determination, in some cases the Licensee’s representations may raise further questions for the Commission. This may be because the licensee has not adequately replied to the preliminary findings letter or because its representations raise further questions requiring investigation. This may lead to further investigations by the Commission, as set out at paragraph 5.10 above, which may result in a further consolidated preliminary findings letter. In such a case, the Commission will afford the Licensee the opportunity to make further representations before moving to consider its determination.





The Gambling Commission proposes to take a “flexible approach to the procedure to ensure that all relevant facts and matters are investigated”, for example, with the opportunity to send “a further consolidated preliminary findings letter” following the Representations (after Stage 4 above). In contrast, existing policy requires the Gambling Commission to send Preliminary Findings (Stage 3) following an investigation (Stage 2).  “Flexible” is not a word one would use to describe the Gambling Commission, and nor should it be, at least in the context of important policy and procedure.  The Regulators’ Code, which the Gambling Commission and its officers are obliged to follow, stipulates that “regulators should ensure that their approach to their regulatory activities is transparent.”  Adopting a flexible approach during enforcement action is anything but transparent, especially where it would be so one-sided!  Inevitably, adopting such an approach and issuing further preliminary findings during the same licence review will delay an already unreasonably lengthy process.  





As though we needed another reminder of the notable shift in the Gambling Commission’s approach to regulation, the Consultation adds that the additional stage “may be  because the licensee has not adequately replied to the preliminary findings letter or because its representations raise further questions requiring investigation.”  The proposed “flexible” approach would be especially unfair and unjust to a licensee, and against the principles of natural justice, because the Gambling Commission would be able to reach new and additional findings of fact based on the original investigation. A cynic would say that it unfairly gives the Gambling Commission a second bite at the cherry if its initial investigation was incomplete, for example, through its own incompetence.  However, it is much worse.  In its Representations, a licensee will put forward its case, including acceptance of failings and, very often, a Regulatory Settlement offer. The Gambling Commission is proposing to give itself the option – upon receipt of the Representations and having considered the licensee’s case – to issue further Preliminary Findings, taking advantage of the Representations and pushing up an offer.  This is procedurally unfair in the absence of new information, prolonging an already invariably lengthy investigation.





b) Financial penalties





Financial penalties, which are sanctions imposed by the Gambling Commission only if a licence condition has been breached (with or without a licence review), are governed by the Statement of principles for determining financial penalties.  Paragraph 2.5 of that policy states:





2.5 Although the Act…does not set a limit for a financial penalty, a penalty will be set at a level which the Commission considers to be proportionate to the breach. It will take into account the financial situation of the licensee where this information is provided to the Commission. A financial penalty allows the Commission, amongst other things, to eliminate any financial gain or benefit from non-compliance.





The Consultation proposes to add the following new paragraph:





Whether a financial penalty is to be imposed following a review or without a review having taken place, the Commission may request financial information regarding the financial resources available to a licensee, including but not limited to its own resources and those of any parent or group company or ultimate beneficial owner. In the absence of sufficient information, the Commission will infer that the licensee has the resources to pay such financial penalty as is appropriate in the circumstances of the case.





In considering quantum, the Gambling Commission requires financial information regarding the licensee’s financial resources.  In our extensive experience, this requires the disclosure of not only the licensee’s, but also parent companies’, financial accounts.  The Consultation therefore proposes to go one step further by enabling the Gambling Commission “to consider the resources available to the licensee and any parent or group company as well as the ultimate beneficial owner” . Boldly, the Gambling Commission describes this as providing “further clarity on  approach”, which is disingenuous because it is a marked departure from existing policy.  The Consultation goes on to state that if the requested information is not provided, “the inference should be that  is sufficiently resourced to meet the penalty.”  





Paragraph 1.4 of the Statement of principles for determining financial penalties requires the Gambling Commission to make decisions “openly, impartially, with sound judgment, and with justifiable reasons” and “make a decision only after due consideration of all information reasonably required upon which to base such a decision”.  





The Regulators’ Code requires it to “choose proportionate approaches” to those it regulates based on “business size and capacity”, “minimis negative economic impacts of their regulatory activities”.  It seems to us that reference here is being made to the licensed gambling business in Great Britain rather than its parent or sister companies, let alone its ultimate beneficial owners.





Critically, the Gambling Commission appears to believe it is empowered to break the corporate veil (between the licensed company and its shareholders) by virtue of section 121(7)(c) of the Gambling Act 2005.  This provision states that in considering the imposition of a financial penalty, the Gambling Commission is required to consider “the nature of the licensee (including, in particular, his financial resources).”  This language is mirrored in the “key considerations” at paragraph 1.6 of the Statement of principles for determining financial penalties.  Unhelpfully, the Explanatory Notes to the legislation do not provide any guidance to help us – or the Gambling Commission – establish the intent of parliamentary draftsmen.  We would therefore expect the Consultation to explain the reasoning behind such a seismic change.  





The key question is whether the Gambling Commission is empowered to consider the financial resources of all parent companies, group companies and shareholders?  Plainly the Gambling Commission believes it is empowered to do so because it has determined that the “nature of the licensee” and its “financial resources” includes group companies, parent companies, shareholders and any other ultimate beneficial owners.  The result being to push up quantum, in many cases by millions of pounds.  In our view, “nature” is not carte blanche to consider any of the licensee’s corporate or individual relatives, save where the licensee’s corporate structure is not bona fide, as described below.





The Gambling Commission proposes to also have regard to the financial resources of ultimate beneficial owners.  This is interesting because: (1) as discussed in my first blog, there is no definition of this term so it could include an indirect shareholder at 3%; and (2) it is in stark contrast to the Gambling Commission’s focus on an operating licence application, where financial documentation would only generally be required in respect of controllers (those at 10%) unless the ultimate beneficial owner was also funding the business.





We accept that a licensee could not structure itself such that it had no financial resources for paying a financial penalty but continued to generate revenues for group companies and shareholders.  In such circumstances, there is established English case law that the separate legal personalities of group companies constitute a single unit for economic purposes and should therefore be seen as one legal unit. This, of course, would not be the case in the structure of most licensed groups acting in good faith.





Where should the line be drawn? The principle of single unit for economic purposes seems indisputably fair in the extreme example of a licensee acting in bad faith.  However, life rarely operates in extremes (except for the pandemic).  What about the following fact scenarios?





  1. A licensee that has £1m in the bank, passed £10m up the chain of ownership, during the three financial years before, in a corporate group structured in good faith.  It balks at a £5m financial penalty because it cannot pay without the support of its parent company and ultimate beneficial owners.  Is it piercing the corporate veil to expect money to come back down? Does the single economic unit argument exceptionally work for the Gambling Commission because the statutory wording – “licensee’s resources” – includes monies paid to the parent in such circumstances?
  2. A loss-making licensee who has received financial support in the form of intra-group loans, without which the British business would have gone bust.  The British business has been loss-making since inception, but the business outside Great Britain, in Malta, has been highly profitable and subject to M&A activity.  Does “licensee’s resources” overlook the losses and intra-group loans?  
  3. A licensee under new ownership. Does the Gambling Commission consider the group financial situation before or after the change in ownership? Is this something potential investors should consider carefully when investing?
  4. A licensee and its ultimate parent company have suffered financially because of the pandemic which hit its retail business heavily.  Both companies have limited financial resources and received Government support during the pandemic.  The ultimate beneficial owners provided various shareholder loans to the business, which remain largely unpaid.   Does “licensee’s resources” overlook the unpaid loans, despite the inappropriateness of doing so from an accounting perspective, and focus on the wealth of the ultimate beneficial owners?  Can the Gambling Commission reasonably expect disclosure of the ultimate beneficial owners’ financial resources?





Regulators must be consistent and transparent in their approach. The Consultation should, therefore and at a minimum, have answers to these questions (and more!) to understand how the Gambling Commission intends to apply its wide-ranging proposals.  This is not the first time the consultation process has seemed like a sham.  Most notably, in earlier blogs, we noted our concerns regarding the regulatory panel reforms, where the overwhelming majority of respondents, including Harris Hagan, disagreed with the proposals.





To date, instead of poking the bear, clients have been eager to draw a line under licence reviews that inevitably take years to conclude, creating huge uncertainty and stress for the business.  It seems to us that until a licensee is motivated (and brave enough) to challenge the Gambling Commission by taking a licence review to regulatory panel or judicial review, rogue and baseless decisions will continue to be reached.  Worryingly though, the Consultation proposes to prop up the bear by empowering it to make even worse decisions on quantum.  





c) Interim suspension





Where there is a serious risk to the licensing objectives the Gambling Commission may decide it is “proportionate and appropriate” to suspend the operating licence.  A suspension may take place with immediate effect, and it may relate to only certain activities authorised by the operating licence.  





In recognising the impact an interim licence suspension may have upon a gambling business, the Gambling Commission proposes to list any challenge before the Regulatory Panel “as soon as reasonably practicable”.  Unlike many other regulators, a definitive time period is not provided; however, the Consultation refers to “expediting these hearings wherever possible”.  It is not clear whether this means within seven days or four weeks, but getting before a Regulatory Panel quickly is a good thing.





Interestingly, the Raising Standards for consumers – compliance and enforcement report 2020 to 2021 now includes a designated section on licence suspensions, which may signal a stronger appetite for imposing them!





d) Regulatory settlements





The Chief Executive’s message to the Raising standards for consumers – compliance and enforcement report 2019 to 2020, published in November 2020, stated:





Regulatory settlements are a way of resolving enforcement cases which we have used to good effect. Frankly, however, there are too many occasions where settlement proposals are made at a late stage of our investigation process or approached as if a licence review is a commercial dispute to be negotiated. That is not acceptable.





Our Statement of Principles for Licensing and Regulation…makes it clear that settlements are only suitable where a licensee is open and transparent, makes timely disclosures of the material facts, demonstrates insight into apparent failings and is able to suggest actions that would prevent the need for formal action by the Commission. Only licensees who meet those criteria need make settlement offers; licensees who choose to contest the facts before conceding at a later stage need not make offers of settlement.





As part of the Consultation, the Gambling Commission wants “to provide greater clarity for licensees… reset to  original purpose  i.e. to expedite the delivery of an appropriate regulatory outcome.”





The Consultation proposes to add the following new paragraph:





The process of regulatory settlement is intended to produce a rapid and fair disposal of a case. Accordingly, regulatory settlements should be offered at an early stage in the process. The Commission will not normally accept offers of regulatory settlements offered after the licensee has made representations on the Commission’s preliminary findings.





Unsurprisingly, in an archetypal Gambling Commission edict, licensees are blamed for submitting late offers, contesting “facts” and treating the process like a commercial negotiation. Conveniently, the Gambling Commission now wants offers to be made before the licensee makes its Representations, assuming the Gambling Commission is always right in its findings of fact. Any licensee with Gambling Commission enforcement war wounds will know first-hand that the Representations (Stage 4 above) is – without doubt – the most critical in putting forward the licensee’s case. Bypassing this stage suggests the Gambling Commission is right with all its findings and that the licensee should just accept the one-sided “facts” and lay its head on a platter, as required by the Gambling Commission. In our extensive experience, no proper view can be taken on the appropriateness of: (1) Regulatory Settlement; and (2) the proposed offer put forward by the licensee, until after receipt and consideration of the Representations, and perhaps even until the Gambling Commission produces its Settled Findings (Stage 5).





What both the enforcement report and the Consultation fail to point out is that, in accordance with the Commission’s own policies, offers can be made at any time. Further, paragraph 5.33 of the Policy states “the Commission will only engage in such discussions once it has a sufficient understanding of the nature and gravity of the suspected misconduct or issue to make a reasonable assessment of the appropriate outcome.” Surely, this can only be after the Representations have been submitted? How can the “nature and gravity” be assessed when only the “prosecutor” has been heard? Even in a dictatorship, a jury would not be asked to return a verdict without hearing the defence’s case. Fairness is not a word one associates with the Gambling Commission these days, unless of course the letters “u” and “n” are added at the beginning.





The Gambling Commission states its purpose is early settlement. Again, this is disingenuous, because accepting a regulatory settlement between the Representations and any regulatory panel is still early! Each stage of the licence review process takes at least several months and whilst there is a shared keenness to reduce the unreasonable length of time the Gambling Commission takes for a licence review, it cannot be at the sacrifice of fairness to the licensee. As the only party with the luxury of more than a few weeks to respond, the Gambling Commission’s efforts would be best served overhauling its compliance and enforcement departments to speed up its investigation process (Stage 2) and the time taken to reach Settled Findings or accept a licensee’s regulatory settlement (Stage 5).





Respond to the Consultation





We strongly encourage licensees and even their owners to respond to the Consultation to express their concern for the proposals.





The Consultation closes on 9 February 2022. Responses can be submitted here.





Please get in touch with us if you would like assistance on any compliance or enforcement matters.


Read more
		


	






	        

            
22Jun

        

	
	

        
		
Consultation response: Gambling Commission fees to increase from 1 October 2021


		
			


				                    22nd June 2021
				
									
						Jemma Newton
			        
				
				                    
                        Anti-Money Laundering, Harris Hagan, Responsible Gambling, Uncategorised
                    
				
				                    
						322                    
				
			


				

			

On 14 June 2021 the UK Government issued its response to a consultation by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (“DCMS”) in relation to proposals to increase the fees which are payable by gambling operators in Great Britain to the Gambling Commission (the “Commission”).





The Government’s response set out that the consultation had proposed an increase in fees in order to enable the Commission to continue to “recover its costs and address regulatory challenges”.





The Government confirmed it intends to proceed with implementing the proposals outlined in the consultation, which were to:




    

  • increase annual fees for remote operating licences by 55% from 1 October 2021;
    • 

  • increase all application fees by 60% from 1 October 2021;
    • 

  • make other changes to simplify the fees system, including removing annual fee discounts for combined and multiple licences, from 1 October 2021; and
    • 

  • increase annual fees for non-remote operating licences by 15%, with implementation of these increases delayed until 1 April 2022.
    • 





The Government also confirmed that two minor amendments will be made to fees regulations:




    

  • to “ensure fees regulations are consistent with the provisions of UK GDPR and the Information Commissioner’s Office’s guidance”, no variation fee will be charged where individuals exercise their right to have inaccurate personal data rectified; and
    • 

  • the fee for an application for a Single Machine Permit will be increased, from £25 to £40, “to ensure that the Commission recovers its costs in processing these applications”.
    • 





The Government’s full response can be viewed here.





The Commission released a response to the Government’s confirmation of an increase in fees, stating that it “welcomes publication of  consultation response on the funding of gambling regulation”, and clarifying that the much needed changes to its fees income “will enable  to continue to regulate effectively”. The Commission’s response can be viewed here.





What does this mean for licensees?





As set out above, in addition to a significant increase to licence application fees, remote licensees will be required to pay considerably higher annual fees to the Commission from 1 October 2021. Notably, the increase in annual fees for non-remote licensees will be delayed until 1 April 2022, to account for the Government’s recognition of the impact COVID-19 restrictions have had on the non-remote sector. The Government’s response sets out that:




The majority of non-remote operators are required to pay their annual fees in August or September each year, meaning that the new annual fee levels for much of the non-remote industry will not be due until August 2022.
Read more
		


	



                                


	

		
    • 1…89101112…14
	


                            

                        

                    
		


		
	


	                        


                        
                    


                


                

    

	

		

			



	

		

			

				
				
                			

		

					
in

			

				

					
					

				

			

				

			
		

	


		

			







                                
                
                



                                                
                                

                                

                            
                        
                    
                    
                


            
        


	
		
		






































		
		
Harris Hagan uses cookies to enhance your experience on our website.  Please see our Cookie Policy for more information about the cookies and how to disable them.  By continuing to use our website without disabling cookies, you agree to our use of cookies.