This box is not visible in the printed version.
Request date: 20 June 2025
This version was printed or saved on: 22 July 2025
Online version: https://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/about-us/freedomofinformation/summer-2023-consultation-on-proposed-changes-to-lccp-follow-up
As you will see in the attached copy of the Summer 2023 consultation on proposed changes to Licence Conditions and Codes of Practice(LCCP), Remote Gambling and Software Technical Standards (RTS), and arrangements for Regulatory Panels.
Q.5 clearly asks people to designate their occupational category:
Tell us a little bit about you to help us understand your perspective.
Are you:
Please select only one item
Yet you state in your letter of the 19th June 2025:
Please note that for this consultation, the Commission only captured the data requested from the 3 categories below:
Members of the public
An academic, responding as an individual
A person responding in a personal capacity who is or has worked in a gambling business.
We can confirm that we do not hold the information from the other respondent categories requested as we have only asked these consultation questions to those responding in a personal capacity.
Is what you're saying is that questions 6,7,8 & 9 were asked of those answering in a personal capacity?
If this is the case, please can you tell me why?
Why would the gambling experience of a person representing a charity/non-profit , or a gambling business , or representing a trade association, or representing a professional body, including academic organisations or representing a licensing authority or other regulator not be of interest?
What questions in the consultation have you captured answers for all the categories offered in Q.5?
Thank you for your request which has been processed under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).
In your email you have referenced the Summer 2023 consultation on proposed changes to Licence Conditions and Codes of Practice (LCCP), Remote Gambling and Software Technical Standards (RTS), and arrangements for Regulatory Panels. Specifically where Q.5 clearly asks people to designate their occupational category:
Tell us a little bit about you to help us understand your perspective. Are you: Please select only one item
You have also referenced an earlier FOI response which stated:
Please note that for this consultation, the Commission only captured the data requested from the 3 categories below:
We can confirm that we do not hold the information from the other respondent categories requested as we have only asked these consultation questions to those responding in a personal capacity.
In your email you have requested the following information:
It should be noted that 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.
The majority of your request is not for specific recorded information. As such, we are unable to provide any information in line with the FOIA. However, for clarity we are able to provide some context to our previous response you have referenced and the questions you have raised.
The experiences of those who make up the relevant bodies were of interest to the Commission and relevant for the consultation. For example (and this is only one example), organisations which represent people with lived experience of gambling harms often included information about their collective experiences of gambling harms, or the range of experiences that people in their organisations had in their consultation responses. We considered any information they provided in their responses about their collective or varied experiences of gambling.
These personal questions were only asked of those who selected one of the categories of personal respondents in question 5 by means of applying “skip logic”. “Skip logic” is digital consultation routing which allows respondents to progress through a consultation depending on their answer to a question.
All other questions were open to all respondents to answer. However, respondents could choose whether or not to answer all of the questions or only some of the questions. It is also worth noting that where someone was responding on behalf of an organisation they would also have been free to make a separate submission in their personal capacity if they wished to do so.
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