UK Tote
Request
I am writing in relation to the UK Tote, which you regulate.
You will be aware that the Tote is self-seeding a number of its own markets. This practice was highlighted in a recent Guardian article: The Tote Betting (opens in a new tab)
Could you please release all information that the Gambling Commission has on this practice of self-seeding of the Tote?
Response
Thank you for your request which has been processed under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).
In your email you have requested all information that the Gambling Commission has on the practice of self-seeding of the UK Tote.
The Commission is a regulatory body with licensing, compliance, and enforcement functions; through our regulatory activity, the Commission aims to protect consumers and the wider public, and to raise standards in the gambling industry.
The Gambling Commission do not provide comment on any information held regarding specific operators unless it is in the public interest to do so. As such, we are unable to confirm or deny whether we hold any information within the scope of your request. Section 31(3) of the FOIA (Law Enforcement) exemption applies.
Section 31(3) (“Law Enforcement”) provides that the duty to confirm or deny does not arise if, or to the extent that compliance with section 1(1)(a) would or would be likely to, prejudice any of the matters mentioned in subsection (1).
Public Interest Test
Having acknowledged that the Commission is not able to confirm or deny whether we hold any information within the scope of your request, section 31 of the FOIA requires that we consider a public interest test to identify whether there is a wider public interest in fulfilling this request as opposed to maintaining the exemption.
Arguments in favour of disclosure
We acknowledge that there is a legitimate public interest in promoting the accountability and transparency of the Commission.
It is important that there is sufficient information in the public domain, so consumers have an understanding of the regulatory activity that the Commission is taking with specific operators to enable them to make informed decisions regarding their choice of operator. Fulfilling this request may demonstrate the type of information processed by the Commission which may further increase public awareness of the work carried out by the Commission. Further to this, increasing confidence in the Commission as a regulator and its ability to uphold the law.
Arguments in favour of maintaining the exemption The Commission relies on a variety of sources sharing information, to enable the Commission to carry out its functions. Discussing within the public domain information which may have been passed to us may deter these sources from sharing important material with us, as such prejudicing our regulatory functions. As such, fulfilling this request may also prejudice the outcome of any future work by the Commission, or another body, to the detriment of the public interest. Confirming or denying information which makes specific individuals or events identifiable could alert individuals involved to the fact that the Commission was/is or alternatively wasn’t/isn’t investigating a particular case and provide them with an opportunity to alter their behaviours or evade detection. This would result in making it more difficult for the Commission to achieve its aims.
Simply confirming or denying this request for information would impact on the openness of stakeholders when sharing important information with us or other law enforcement agencies which could ultimately result in consumers not being protected from operators who are unfit or incompetent in their activities. The amount of information released is carefully considered in order to protect the integrity of investigations and individuals or operators from being unfairly associated with unsubstantiated allegations.
Weighing the balance
Given the points considered, disclosure of the information would be damaging to the Commission as a regulatory body which serves to protect the wider public interest. Ultimately, the Commission believes that the interests of the public are better served through maintaining the exemption, therefore we are not in a position to confirm or deny whether we hold any information in relation to your request.
We have, however, some information published on our website which you may find of assistance: Customers knowledge of who they are participating against (gamblingcommission.gov.uk).
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.
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
Victoria Square House
Victoria Square
Birmingham B2 4BP
Internal Review Request
With reference to the FOIA request made on 3 May REDACTED I am writing to request this decision is subject to an internal review.
I would draw your attention to the fact that Tote have made public statements that the PGS is "approved" by the Gambling Commission. A blanket reject of the request is too broad. The Commission can and should release the information that it has on PGS, even if this is narrow in scope. For example, a confirmation that the practice has been reviewed/approved by GC. Or the dates that correspondence took place.
Internal Review Response
I am writing to you further to your Freedom of Information request dated 03/05/2024, in relation to the UK Tote. We responded to this request on 15/05/2024, and your subsequent request for an internal review received on 17/06/2024.
We have now concluded our review and our findings are detailed below.
This internal review was conducted by someone who was not involved in the processing of your original request.
In your initial email you requested the following information:
All information that the Gambling Commission has on the practice of self-seeding of the UK Tote.
In our initial response we advised that the Gambling Commission does not provide comment on any information held regarding specific operators unless it is in the public interest to do so. As such, we were unable to confirm or deny whether we hold any information within the scope of your request and Section 31(3) of the FOIA (Law Enforcement) exemption applies.
In your request for an internal review, you have noted that the Tote have made public statements that the PGS is "approved" by the Gambling Commission. Further to this, you have expressed concerns that a blanket rejection of the request is too broad.
Section 31(3) (“Law Enforcement”) provides that the duty to confirm or deny does not arise if, or to the extent that compliance with section 1(1)(a) would or would be likely to, prejudice any of the matters mentioned in subsection (1).
When reviewing this request, we further considered the public interest test, as detailed below.
Internal Review
As stated in our original response, the Gambling Commission do not provide comment on any individual operators, unless it is in the public interest to do so. As such, we uphold the decision that we are unable to confirm or deny whether we hold any specific information within the scope of your request and that section 31(3) of the FOIA is engaged.
Having acknowledged that the Commission was not able to confirm or deny whether we hold any information within the scope of your request, we considered a public interest test to identify whether there was a wider public interest in fulfilling this request opposed to maintaining the exemption, as is necessary when looking to apply the section 31 FOIA exemption.
We acknowledged that there is a legitimate public interest in promoting the accountability and transparency of the Commission, and that it is important that there is sufficient information in the public domain, so consumers understand the regulatory activity that the Commission is taking to enable them to make informed decisions regarding their choice of operator.
However, to disclose to the public whether we hold this information could impact on the free and frank exchange of information between the Commission, its stakeholders and other regulatory bodies, which could ultimately result in consumers not being protected from organisations who are unfit or incompetent in their activities.
Ultimately, disclosure of the information would be damaging to the Commission as a regulatory body which serves to protect the wider public interest.
Looking at all the circumstances of the case and the nature of the request, there is more than a 50% chance that prejudice to the Commission would be likely to be caused by confirming or denying whether we hold any information falling within the scope of your request.
After reviewing your request and our response, in conclusion, I uphold our original decision to engage the S31(3) exemption.
If you are not content with the outcome of your review, you may apply directly to the Information Commissioner (ICO) for a decision. Generally, the ICO cannot make a decision unless you have exhausted the complaints procedure provided by the Gambling Commission. The ICO can be contacted at: The Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF.