Lived Experience Advisory Panel (LEAP) advice on Betting and Gaming Council (BGC) draft industry voluntary code on customer checks

12 April 2024

On 25 March 2024, LEAP were asked to provide any helpful lived experience observations on the BGC draft industry voluntary code on customer checks and documentation requests based on spend.

LEAP have reviewed the code, and our view is that we also agree it can represent an interim workable solution. LEAP agree that this is a positive interim start, but overall, it does not go far enough at this stage.

It should be noted that as a panel of people for whom gambling harm has caused immense suffering, if this code is interim in relation to the changes proposed within the White Paper, then this is still far away from the suggestions of checks for indicators of financial vulnerability and for more detailed checks needed longer term. Any engagement and advice LEAP can offer at the earliest opportunity on pieces of work like this would be more beneficial.

LEAP’s observation is that any additional measures for social responsibility, even in an interim and/or voluntary capacity are welcome. If these interim measures can help even a small amount of people experiencing harm, then this is still progress.

Within LEAP’s response, there are some questions for further clarification as we are a newly formed panel of only a few months. We hope our observational feedback will still prove useful for you to consider.

LEAP’s general opinions and questions on the code:

clarity on timings, including how long the interim measure is likely to be in place, and whether an appeals process for consumers might exist in relation to the code?
who will be the point of contact for questions on the code (BGC or the Gambling Commission)?
the code implies that the industry will be self-regulating and using it should not be voluntary
there should also be an emphasis on time spent gambling, not just on spend, as for those harmed time lost outweighs financial losses
operators will need to be joined up to understand a gamblers journey as consumers can open multiple accounts (for example the need for Single Customer View (SCV))
what similar measures could and/or will there be in place for land-based operators?
is there a fixed end point from the voluntary code being implemented to when the full measures would be in place?
who will be reviewing the code and the operators adhering to it? Will there be a list or advertisement of who has signed up to it, as well as who and how the code will be evaluated?
what safeguarding measures are going to be in place before customer interactions are made?
how much depth and detail will go into checks to ‘sign off’ the gamblers spend and how this would be documented?
how will the code be managed and regulated, for example will the BGC or the Commission conduct spot checks?
what evaluation process will be implemented to understand if the code has been successful, particularly to help with the permanent measure?
what will be considered good practice and will there be a list of operators named to say who has signed up to the code to help gamblers make informed decisions?

Principle 1

The following principles form the code and are set as minimum standards. Any operator can choose to exceed these standards, based on their own assessment of risk. This is a voluntary industry code and intended as an interim measure between now and the full implementation of the White Paper deliverables on financial risk. This code would be recognised by the Commission in its assessment work, for those who have adopted it

LEAP have concerns that the code could create inconsistencies between operators as the code is voluntary. LEAP advised that further clarity on wording should be sought, particularly around ‘exceeding’ and what this would and/or will look like for operators.

LEAP members were also unclear if operators and the Commission would require extra resource to implement and maintain this work.

Principle 2

All of the normal monitoring of markers of harm remain and this code is relevant only where spend is the sole factor under consideration, as no other indicator of risk has been engaged

LEAP did not think the wording for this principle is clear, noting that clarity on markers of harm and the process and order for review would be helpful. They also asked why the code specifically targets spend over other markers of harm and advised that other markers such as speed of play and duration of play (time logged into an account) should be considered.

LEAP advised that 'normal' monitoring markers should be explained and asked if there will be overarching markers that all operators use.

Principle 3

LEAP advised that this principle should be part of the overall narrative at the start of the code and should not be included as a principle of adherence, LEAP felt it is more descriptive of the code’s purpose as opposed to a separate principle.

Principle 4

A £5,000 net deposit threshold will be in place for all consumers, at which point one or more of a suite of potential interaction types will take place

LEAP advised that clarity on the time frame would be helpful and asked if the limit lasts for a specific amount of time, for example a month or a year? This should be made clearer within the interim code.

LEAP advised that a gambler could get around this clause by opening multiple accounts with different operators. They also advised that a net deposit should not be the only marker for interaction and consideration of large wins should count towards a limit.

LEAP agreed that the wording should be clearer on ‘net deposit’ and what this means for the consumer. They agreed that winnings should count towards the threshold amount.

Principle 4i

A safer gambling interaction with the customer, including an understanding of the customer’s income, via two-way live chat or phone

LEAP members were immediately concerned with the risk this poses, particularly with the potential for consumers to provide answers taken by operators purely at face value, and that could not be supported by further evidence of funds, for example joint and/or family income.

LEAP advised that appropriately trained staff need to be employed by operators to carry out the spend conversations to understand markers of harm, or potential markers of harm. The group agreed that an interaction between the operator and a gambler can be subjective depending on who was carrying out the checks and what incentives operator staff have to sign consumers up to the business.

Principle 4ii

A review of the customer’s affordability, including assessing their income (for example, by obtaining their occupation, industry, job title and annual salary, or their wealth)

LEAP repeated their concerns here of the risk of some consumers providing answers that cannot be supported by further evidence, in a bid to be allowed to continue to play.

LEAP advised that a gambler could avoid the checks by signing up to a different operator or specifically, sign up with an operator who has not signed up to the voluntary code to avoid checks being carried out.

LEAP advised that these checks do not go far enough and they would recommend 4i and 4ii be stricter.

LEAP advised that under this code, a gambler could still theoretically sign up to circa 175 operators and ‘spend’ circa £875,000 before being checked. A joined-up approach (SCV) from all operators is needed to understand the whole consumer journey and their gambling habits.

Principle 4iii

A review of open-source information on the customer, such as Companies House filings, public information on the customer’s specific salary or wealth or assets, or previous winnings

LEAP thought that further detail was needed here to explain what would happen to a gambler’s account if they do not comply with affordability checks.

LEAP questioned the purpose and benefit of asking about previous winnings, as a consumer could hide information about winnings or losses.

LEAP questioned if deposits of £5,000 would only be flagged if they were made quickly, but if the deposits were made over a longer period, this may not raise any alarms. The checks could flag to the consumer that it is time to step away from that operator and start gambling with another operator.

LEAP thought that the code should consider flagging spend by household rather than just by the individual, to mitigate any risk of gamblers opening accounts in family members names.

Principle 4iv and 4v

A review of information obtained from the customer; and/or

Financial insights, including an understanding of the customer’s income, from a regulated data provider, such as a Credit Reference Agency

LEAP suggested that a credit check could help to stop gamblers losing more than they can afford.

LEAP asked if operators could be joined up to see if a consumer is moving from operator to operator to avoid checks (SCV).

LEAP agreed that checks should be completed sooner, possibly at the time of signing up to an operator, which would help to eradicate these issues later.

Principle 5

A £2,500 net deposit threshold will be in place for consumers aged 18 to 24

LEAP acknowledged that the lower net deposit limit for 18 to 24 year olds is a good start but noted that the limit still equates to almost 10 percent of the national average salary for that age group in the UK. This risks leading younger adult gamblers to using the unregulated market or markets that accept cryptocurrency.

LEAP advised that even further limits should be considered for 18 to 21 year olds, noting particular concerns around gambling by students.

LEAP asked if the fundamentals of principles 4i to 4v still apply for young gamblers, this should be made more explicit if not, but it was assumed that principle 4 would be in place.

Principle 6

Where a customer does not respond or engage with the interaction, they cannot make any further deposits during that rolling period. If a consumer does not respond to future spend-only interactions in future rolling periods, a hard stop will be in place at £15,000 in net deposits

LEAP advised that further clarity on this principle is required, as the principle in its current form suggests that an individual could ignore calls and engagement with the operator and still be able to deposit and gamble up to £15,000. They also advised that further clarity on payment methods should be provided, to ensure that if a payment method is updated it does not reset the deposit limit.

LEAP asked for clarity on the ‘rolling period’ and advised clearer terminology and descriptions would help, for example, when does the rolling period commence – is this the first interaction of the gambler with the operator or is it from a particular date?

Principle 7

When a consumer has made £25,000 in net deposits in a rolling 12 month period, they will be subject to an enhanced due diligence process, regardless of information gathered at any earlier stage

LEAP members were concerned that the deposit limits have progressed from £5,000 up to £25,000 with minimal interaction, as a gambler could ignore interactions with the operator.

LEAP advised that clarity and an explanation of what the ‘enhanced due diligence process’ is should be included in the code or accompanying information.

Principle 8

Once approved, operators will adopt the code at the earliest opportunity, allowing for system and procedural changes as required

LEAP asked for clarity on the nature of a voluntary code, as this suggests it is mandatory.

The group asked for clarity on what does ‘approve’ mean in relation to the code.

LEAP look forward to hearing from the Commission about the next steps for this work.

Lived Experience Advisory Panel

Cookies on the Gambling Commission website