Investigated Complaints Data
Request
- To be clear, from your response you are saying that prior to 2016 the Gambling Commission data was so poorly recorded that you are unable to distinguish between a customer complaint, a report of potential breaches of applicable codes or law by an expert or a basic enquiry, for example, as to the address of the Gambling Commission?
1.1. I refer you to the file that I have emailed to you separately under this FOIA reference which is information provided by the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) in response to a very similar FOIA request asking for a breakdown of report and complaint types and their 'subject'. They were able to provide this incredibly comprehensive response for this period prior to 2016 and within the time frame and costs applicable to FOIA Requests.
1.2. Is it not embarrassing for the Gambling Commission to claim that it cannot provide so much as one line of information for this same period and is unable to distinguish between any incoming contact , when The FOS was able to late and produce this FOIA response?
1.3. Furthermore, how was the Gambling Commission able to regulate, investigate and prevent harms and suicides if it was incapable of recording any incoming communication and distinguishing the type or significance of them?
1.4. In order for me to refine my request for the period prior to 2016, please:
a) confirm how complaints were handled and how a complaint was identified and passed to the relevant team to investigate. Surely there has to be records or logs within the complaints team as to the work or outcomes they produced over that period?
b) Likewise, confirm how many investigations of gambling operators were opened for each year between 2010 and 2016.
And explain how an investigation was initiated if there was no means of distinguishing incoming communications as you claim.
- I will revert with a narrowed and refined request for the period 2016 and later in due course.
Response
Thank you for your email.
In your email you have made the following comments regarding the Commission’s response to your previous request:
- To be clear, from your response you are saying that prior to 2016 the Gambling Commission data was so poorly recorded that you are unable to distinguish between a customer complaint, a report of potential breaches of applicable codes or law by an expert or a basic enquiry, for example, as to the address of the Gambling Commission?
- I refer you to the file that I have emailed to you separately under this FOIA reference which is information provided by the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) in response to a very similar FOIA request asking for a breakdown of report and complaint types and their 'subject'. They were able to provide this incredibly comprehensive response for this period prior to 2016 and within the timeframe and costs applicable to FOIA Requests.
- Is it not embarrassing for the Gambling Commission to claim that it cannot provide so much as one line of information for this same period and is unable to distinguish between any incoming contact , when The FOS was able to late and produce this FOIA response?
- Furthermore, how was the Gambling Commission able to regulate, investigate and prevent harms and suicides if it was incapable of recording any incoming communication and distinguishing the type or significance of them?
Firstly, for context, the FOIA gives individuals the right to request only recorded information held by public authorities, such as the Gambling Commission. It does not provide an avenue for individuals to gain views or opinions of public authorities or information not held at the time the request is made.
As these are not requests for recorded information, we are unable to process these in line with FOI legislation, and will not be making further comment.
As previously explained, the Gambling Commission are an industry regulator and not an ombudsman. Our role is to consider if a gambling business has breached their licence conditions, and we will take regulatory action where appropriate.
We use evidence from a range of sources, including from gambling customers, licensed operators, law enforcement agencies and other stakeholders to build cases against gambling businesses. Information provided to us helps inform our work to raise gambling industry standards and make gambling fairer and safer.
We make a record of all complaints made against a gambling business. Where consumers share information with us that indicates a breach of our rules, that information will inform any regulatory action that we decide to take. However, the way in which we record information we receive changes over time in order to most effectively support our regulatory functions.
Further to your above comments you have also made enquiries, which have been processed under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).
In your email you have requested for the period prior to 2016:
Please confirm how complaints were handled and how a complaint was identified and passed to the relevant team to investigate. Surely there has to be records or logs within the complaints team as to the work or outcomes they produced over that period?
Please confirm how many investigations of gambling operators were opened for each year between 2010 and 2016 and explain how an investigation was initiated if there was no means of distinguishing incoming communications as you claim.
I can confirm that information falling within the scope of both parts of your request is held by the Gambling Commission. However, the Commission does not have a ‘complaints team’ as you have stated in your request. We do not become involved in or “act upon” individual complaints, this means we do not have the powers to resolve individual gambling complaints or help consumers get their money back. However, all information received helps to build a picture of the gambling industry and support our regulatory functions.
As previously explained, prior to 2016, standard enquiries and consumer complaints were both categorised under ‘General Enquiry’ within our system. In order to identify whether we hold any information falling within the scope of your request we would need to review all of these general enquiries to assess if they were relevant to your request, Therefore, we estimate that it would take in excess of 18 hours to determine appropriate material and retrieve and extract any relevant information in reference to your request.
Section 12 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) makes provision for public authorities to refuse requests for information where the cost of dealing with them would exceed the appropriate limit, which for public authorities, such as the Commission, is set at £450. This represents the estimated cost of one person spending 18 hours in determining whether the department holds the information, locating, retrieving and extracting the information.
When a public authority applies the Section 12 exemption to a request, the FOIA guidance specifically states that a public authority should avoid providing any information found as a result of a search as it denies the requestor the right to express a preference as to which parts of the request they may wish to receive within the appropriate time limit. Guidance on the application of section 12 can be viewed here:
If you are able to refine your request, we may be able to narrow the number of records that we need to search.
Until we are able to process the search of the information you have requested, we are unable to ascertain if other exemptions will apply to any material identified which would also prevent disclosure. For example, S31 – Law Enforcement provides an exemption for information that the Commission holds where disclosure would reveal the methods and techniques the Commission uses as part of the assessment process. Disclosure of this information could seriously impact the Commission’s regulatory activities; this is strongly not in the public interest.
Please note, any refined request would be processed as a new request and the 20 working day statutory time limit would apply.
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