Financial Risk Assessments

Request

I would like to make an FOI request for a breakdown of the number of financial risk assessments conducted by the Gambling Commission.

The risk assessments are mentioned in this news story:

https://igamingbusiness.com/legal-compliance/regulation/gambling-commission-financial-risk-checks/

According to the article:

• The checks are triggered when a bettor's net monthly deposit reaches £500 ($671.29), with operators able to trigger checks with credit reference agencies.
• The second phase of the project consisted of approximately 1.7 million checks, relating to around 860,000 accounts.

I would like the 1.7 million checks and the860,000 accounts to be broken down by operator, showing how many checks were triggered by each operator involved in the second phase of the pilot.

I would like this data to be as up-to-date as possible.

Response

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

In your email you have requested a breakdown of the number of financial risk assessments conducted by the Gambling Commission. The risk assessments are mentioned in this news story: https://igamingbusiness.com/legal-compliance/regulation/gambling-commission-financial-risk-checks/.

In addition, you have requested the 1.7 million checks and the 860,000 accounts to be broken down by operator, showing how many checks were triggered by each operator involved in the second phase of the pilot.

In relation to part one of your request, we can confirm that the Gambling Commission has not conducted any financial risk assessments. Financial risk assessments are conducted by each operator.

However, in order to be of some assistance, please see the following blog which provides the data on the assessments that were conducted (not in a live environment) as part of the pilot: Blog - Financial risk assessments pilot – update on Stage two.

The thresholds were similar to the thresholds set out in the consultation proposal. In the pilot we used net deposits of £1k in 24 hours or £2,000 in 90 days for those 25 and over. The thresholds for those under 25 were £500 net deposits in 24 hours or £1,000 in 90 days. For simplicity, we did not apply any “lookback periods” during the pilot.

Look back periods would be a way of taking account where a customer was in a net positive position prior to the relevant time period - for example a large recent win can be taken into account so that a customer might not reach the thresholds.

Section 22A(1) – Research Information

In relation to part two of your request, the Commission does hold some information about the number of assessments by operator, however we are of the view that this information is exempt under section 22A(1) (“Research Information”) of the FOIA. Please note, we consider the pilot to be research information.

Section 22A(1) (“Research Information”) provides that information obtained in the course of, or derived from, a programme of research is exempt information if:

(a) the programme is continuing with a view to the publication, by a public authority or any other person, of a report of the research (whether or not including a statement of that information), and

(b) disclosure of the information under this Act before the date of publication would, or would be likely to, prejudice the programme,

i. the interests of any individual participating in the programme,

ii. the interests of the authority which holds the information, or

iii. the interests of the authority mentioned in paragraph (a) (if it is a different authority from that which holds the information).

Any such report may or may not include the information that has been requested, without affecting the application of the exemption to the information.

Although the FOIA does not define ‘research’, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) use the following definition of the term research: a systematic investigation intended to establish facts, acquire new knowledge and reach new conclusions. We consider that the pilot falls within that definition.

Public Interest Test

This is a qualified exemption; therefore, the Commission must consider whether the public interest in maintaining the exemption is greater than the public interest in disclosing the requested information. These arguments are as follows:

Arguments in favour of disclosure:

• there is a legitimate public interest in promoting the accountability and transparency of public authorities.
• there is a legitimate public interest in promoting the openness of the research we carry out.
• there is a public interest in Government Departments providing information they hold, that falls within the scope of an FOI request, as quickly as possible.
• disclosure of the raw data and the conversations about it allows for a wider evaluation of the conclusions that have been published.

Arguments in favour of maintaining the exemption:

• this needs to be balanced with the public interest in the Commission ensuring the maximum time/cost effectiveness.
• this research is ongoing and there is an intention to publish data, alongside any supporting analysis.
• as such, the Commission should be able to complete research before it is subjected to external scrutiny.
• proper completion of our research and peer review processes allows for higher quality research.
• premature publication of this data could lead to an incomplete and confusing picture emerging and would be likely to cause prejudice to the programme of research and statistics. Early publication could therefore allow for misinterpretation and manipulation of the research.
• disclosure of the requested information would be likely to allow other researchers to carry out analysis and draw conclusions from the data ahead of the publication of the findings of the research. Individuals could then publish their own findings ahead of the planned publication, without having collected the data themselves. This would be likely to offer other researchers an advantage over the current project, and jeopardise the Commission’s relationship with its stakeholders.

Weighing the balance

Whilst we recognise that there is a public interest in promoting the transparency and accountability of public authorities in a timely manner, there is no outstanding public interest in releasing this information whilst the programme is still ongoing.

Having considered the above factors, the Commission is of the view that the balance of the public interest lies in maintaining the exemption.

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 new tab), Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF.

Information Management Team
Gambling Commission