Application by Fame Ventures Limited

Request

The Independent Review into Football Index stated "following an unsuccessful application for the business to operate under an umbrella licence, Fame Ventures took the decision to incorporate Betindex"

Please release the following information, redacted where appropriate, to protect individual names:

• All copies of the application form(s).
• All supporting documents submitted with the application.
• Any written or electronic correspondence between the Gambling Commission
• and the applicant (or their representatives) relating to the application process.

Response

Thank you for your request which has been processed under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).

In your email you have referred to the Independent Review into Football Index which stated "following an unsuccessful application for the business to operate under an umbrella licence, Fame Ventures took the decision to incorporate Betindex."

You have requested release of the following information, redacted where appropriate, to protect individual names:

• All copies of the application form(s).
• All supporting documents submitted with the application.
• Any written or electronic correspondence between the Gambling Commission
• and the applicant (or their representatives) relating to the application process.

The Gambling Commission have recently published information that we are able to disclose falling within the scope of this request. Please see the following link to the published information: The application by Fame Ventures Limited.

The following exemptions apply to some of the information that we hold.

Section 40(2)

We have redacted from the attached, information relating to identifiable individuals that would constitute personal data. This includes names, email addresses, addresses, phone numbers and banking information.

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).

Please also note that the Information Commissioners Office (ICO) did previously uphold a complaint leading to the disclosure of due diligence carried out by the Gambling Commission on Bet Index Limited. In that specific case the decision notice did confirm that the S31 – Law Enforcement exemption was correctly engaged by the Commission. However, due to the sensitive nature of the collapse of BetIndex and the number of people who have been impacted by its closure, the public interest, although finely balanced, was found to be in favour of disclosure. The information was exempt, but the public interest in disclosure was found to outweigh the application of the exemption in this specific case.

The Licence held by Fame Ventures (Index Labs) was revoked due to Non-Payment of Fee after the collapse of BetIndex, preventing them from facilitating gambling in Great Britian. This licence was held from 27 March 2015 to 14 June 2022. This is a different scenario to the BetIndex request and as such, the public interest in disclosure will be different. Public interest test decisions are request specific and cannot simply be applied to other requests. The public interest test has to be conducted specifically to each individual request.

In relation to this request, the Commission considers the subsections below apply and therefore the information is exempt from disclosure:

1. 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.

Public interest test

The factors the Commission has considered when applying the public interest test have been detailed below.

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 an operator 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.
• The amount of information the Commission can release relating to our specific discussions about a licensee could lead to potentially non-compliant licensees altering their behaviour specifically to meet the Commission’s standards purely for assessment purposes. This in turn may impact on the Commission’s function of ascertaining a gambling operator’s fitness to carry out gambling activities.
• 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.
• Further, disclosure of the requested information would prejudice the outcome of future assessments by the Commission by exposing assessment techniques and practices to the detriment of the public interest.

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 operator, 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 operators’ compliance with the LCCP and identify any operators who will be unable to comply with the licensing requirements.

The public trust that the Commission has robust processes in place to assess operators so that when they use the services provided by an operator, they are confident that there has been sufficient scrutiny of that operator to ensure that they are protected. If this information were released it would undermine that confidence.

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 our processes 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