Appeals
Request
- How many licensing appeals under the Gambling Act 2005 were made in the UK between 2021-2024 and so far in 2025?
- How many of these appeals were successful?
- Please give details of the names of the companies in 1, 2, and 3.
Response
Thank you for your request which has been processed under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).
In your email you have requested:
- How many licensing appeals under the Gambling Act 2005 were made in the UK between 2021-2024 and so far in 2025?
- How many of these appeals were successful?
- Please give details of the names of the companies in 1, 2, and 3.
The route for appealing licensing decisions made by the Commission is via the First Tier Tribunal. Details about that process can be found here: Gambling licence decisions: appeal to a tribunal - GOV.UK (opens in a new tab). First-tier tribunals are also published here: BAILII - First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) (opens in a new tab)
Please see the following information held by the Gambling Commission we are able to disclose falling within the scope of your request.
| Licensing appeals between 2021 to present - Case name | Was the appeal successful? | Name of company involved in appeal (if applicable) |
|---|---|---|
| REDACTED | No (withdrawn) | N/A |
| REDACTED | No | N/A |
| REDACTED | No (withdrawn) | REDACTED |
| REDACTED | No (consent order agreed between parties reinstating Licensee’s licence) | This was an appeal by an individual PFL holder, not a company |
| REDACTED | No (withdrawn) | REDACTED |
Please note, the following exemptions apply to some of the information that we hold.
Section 40(2)
We have redacted from the following table information relating to identifiable individuals that would constitute personal data. This includes names.
The Data Protection Act 2018 requires personal data to be processed lawfully, fairly and in a transparent manner in relation to the data subject. It is the view of the Commission that disclosing the personal information within the attached documents would constitute the disclosure of personal data and would contravene this principle.
This information is therefore exempt under section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
Section 31
Section 31(1)(g) exempts information whose disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice the exercise by any public authority of its functions for any of the purposes specified in subsection (2).
The Commission considers the subsections below apply and therefore the information is exempt from disclosure:
i. Subsection 31(2)(b) refers to the purpose of ascertaining whether any person is responsible for any conduct which is improper,
ii. Subsection 31(2)(c) refers to the purpose of ascertaining whether circumstances which would justify regulatory action in pursuance of any enactment exist or may arise,
iii. Subsection 31(2)(d) refers to the purpose of ascertaining a person’s fitness or competence in relation to the management of bodies corporate or in relation to any profession or other activity which he is, or seeks to become, authorised to carry on.
It is our view that the regulatory functions of the Commission would be prejudiced by disclosure of this information as it would prejudice the Commission’s compliance and enforcement activity and ability to raise overall standards in the gambling industry. It would undermine the trust the Commission has gained with licensees in terms of disclosing information where it is necessary and proportionate and to cooperate in an open manner.
Arguments in favour of disclosure:
- The Commission is a public body which is required to regulate the gambling industry in the public interest. There is therefore a public interest in members of the public having confidence the Commission is being open and honest with the information it holds so that it can be held to account.
- It is important that the public are assured that the Commission is carrying out its functions in ensuring that any individuals or organisations who are involved in providing gambling facilities to the public have undergone the necessary assessments and will uphold the licencing objectives ensuring that consumers are protected.
- Disclosure of the requested information could demonstrate to stakeholders and relevant parties how the Commission is assessing licensees and, furthermore, this disclosure may encourage stakeholders to work with us and contribute to our programme of work, increasing confidence in the Commission as a regulator and its ability to uphold the law.
Arguments in favour of maintaining the exemption:
- The Commission has robust and effective processes and procedures in place which are utilised when assessing existing licensees. These procedures and processes have been put in place to minimise the risk of a licensee continuing to provide gambling services where they do not meet the required standards. This demonstrates to the public at large that they can have confidence in the Commission’s compliance assessment processes.
- There is an expectation of confidence in much of the Commission’s work, particularly when discussing areas of a licensee’s compliance with the LCCP. It is the impact on this work of the Commission which is more likely to be affected by disclosure.
- A number of the appeals were withdrawn, meaning information in relation to the appeals was not released within the public domain.
- To disclose to the public whether we hold this information could impact on the free and frank exchange of information between the Commission and licensees which could ultimately result in consumers not being protected from licensees who are unfit or incompetent in their activities.
- Further to this, disclosing information which makes specific individuals or events identifiable is likely to impact on the openness of stakeholders.
- Disclosure of this information would also undermine the Commission's ability to uphold the licensing objectives which would impact on the trust and confidence of the public in it as a regulator.
Weighing the balance
The Commission acknowledges that there is a public interest in promoting the accountability and transparency of public authorities and the importance of having sufficient information in the public domain to support consumers with their choice of licensee, however, disclosure of the information would be damaging to the Commission as a regulatory body which ultimately serves to protect the wider public interest.
It is important that the public are assured that the Commission is carrying out its functions in ensuring that any individuals/organisations who are involved in providing gambling facilities to the public have undergone the necessary assessments and will uphold the licencing objectives ensuring that consumers are protected.
However, there is a strong public interest in preserving the processes that the Commission has in place to assess licensees’ compliance with the LCCP and identify any licensees who will be unable to comply with the licensing requirements. The public trust that the Commission has robust processes in place to assess licensees so that when they use the services provided by a licensee, they are confident that there has been sufficient scrutiny of that licensee to ensure that they are protected. If this information were released it would undermine that confidence.
The Commission considers that the public interest in disclosing this information is outweighed by the impact that disclosure would have on third-party organisations and our working relationships. The Commission depends and relies on the free flow of confidential information from licensees that it regulates more generally to perform its statutory functions. The Commission’s ability to undertake its statutory functions would be significantly fettered if disclosure occurred.
We consider that the public interest is better served by withholding this information, ensuring that consumers are protected through our processes rather than releasing information about licensees which in our view will not benefit the public as a whole.
Review of the decision
If you are unhappy with the service you have received in relation to your Freedom of Information request you are entitled to an internal review of our decision. You should write to FOI Team, Gambling Commission, 4th floor, Victoria Square House, Victoria Square, Birmingham, B2 4BP or by reply to this email.
Please note, internal review requests should be made within 40 working days of the initial response. Requests made outside this timeframe will not be processed.
If you are not content with the outcome of our review, you may then apply directly to the Information Commissioner (ICO) for a decision. Generally, the ICO cannot make a decision unless you have already exhausted the review procedure provided by the Gambling Commission.
It should be noted that if you wish to raise a complaint with the ICO about the Commission’s handling of your request for information, then you are required to do so within six weeks of receiving your final response or last substantive contact with us.
The ICO can be contacted at: The Information Commissioner’s Office (opens in a new tab), Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF.
Information Management Team
Gambling Commission