Consultation response
Summer 2023 consultation – Proposed changes to LCCP and RTS: Consultation Response
This response sets out our position in relation to the consultation on the proposed changes to LCCP and Remote Gambling and Software Technical Standards.
Contents
- Executive summary
- Summary of topics
- Topic 1 - Improving customer choice on direct marketing: Consultation Response
- Topic 2 - Strengthening age verification in premises: Consultation Response
- Topic 3 - Game design: Consultation Response
- Topic 4 - Financial vulnerability checks: Consultation Response and Financial risk assessments pilot: Consultation Response
- Topic 5 - Personal Management Licence: Consultation Response
- Topic 6 - Changes to Regulatory Panels: Consultation Response
- Evaluating the impact of relevant changes
- Annex
Annex: Questions asked in the Remote gambling: financial vulnerability and financial risk section of the 2023 consultation
These questions were asked in the remote gambling: financial vulnerability and financial risk section 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, which ran between July and October 2023.
Introductory questions
To what extent do you agree with the proposal that gambling operators be required to conduct light touch financial vulnerability checks based on public data when a certain net loss threshold is reached?
If you are a gambling consumer and are responding to this consultation as an individual, do you consider it likely that, if a financial vulnerability check were introduced, you would meet one of the thresholds for a check?
To what extent do you agree with the proposal that gambling operators be required to conduct enhanced financial risk assessments where there are very unusual patterns of loss? The purpose of such an assessment would be to act on the indicator of harm of unusual patterns of loss and assess gambling in the context of a customer's financial circumstances.
If you are a gambling consumer and are responding to this consultation as an individual, do you consider it likely that, if a financial risk assessment were introduced, you would meet one of the thresholds for an assessment?
Issue 1: Setting thresholds
To what extent do you agree with the proposed threshold of a financial vulnerability check based on public data (for example bankruptcy) if a customer has a net loss of £125 in a rolling 30-day period?
To what extent do you agree with the proposed threshold of a financial vulnerability check based on public data (for example bankruptcy) if a customer has a net loss of £500 in a rolling 365-days?
To what extent do you agree with the proposed threshold for a financial risk assessment related to binge activity of more than £1,000 in a relevant period of a rolling 24-hours?
To what extent do you agree with the proposed threshold for an enhanced financial risk assessment related to significant losses over time of more than £2,000 in a rolling 90-day period?
To what extent do you agree with the proposal that thresholds for the enhanced financial risk assessment are lower for those aged under 25 to £500 in a rolling 24-hour period and £1,000 in rolling 90-day period?
Issue 2: Defining net loss for the purposes of thresholds
To what extent do you agree with the proposed definition of net loss for financial risk assessments which is that net loss is the loss of deposited funds with a particular operator such as excluding bonus funds and restaked winnings? In particular, please flag any potential risks and technical difficulties with implementation of this proposed approach.
To what extent do you agree with the proposed approach to enable a recent overall net position to be taken into account when a threshold is met? In particular, please flag any potential risks and technical difficulties with implementation of this proposed approach.
To what extent do you agree with the proposed approach that would set a timeframe whereby recent overall net position could be taken into account for 7-days in relation the binge threshold and 90-days for the losses over time threshold?
To what extent do you agree with the proposed approach that would mean that a bet would only be counted as a loss when it is settled as a loser?
Issue 3: Data to be included in a check or assessment
To what extent do you agree that a financial vulnerability check would include publicly available data relating to an active County Court judgement (CCJ), High Court judgment (HCJ), administration order (AO) or decree, or equivalent?
To what extent do you consider that aggregated data should be included in a financial vulnerability check in relation to postcode?
To what extent do you consider that aggregated data should be included in a financial vulnerability check in relation to a customer’s stated employment status and job title, and cross-referencing to open source data about the average income for that occupation?
To what extent do you agree with the proposed requirements for data that must be included in an enhanced financial risk assessment for credit performance data and income and expenditure data, including current account turnover data?
Please give your reasons for your answer. In particular, are there any other types of information that you think it would be valuable to gather at these thresholds to understand potential financial risk?
In limited circumstances, it may be necessary to obtain information directly from the customer to understand financial risk. In these circumstances, we have proposed that the information must enable assessment of income and expenditure. Should the Commission set out further minimum requirements to ensure the data provided is meaningful but minimised? If so what should these requirements be?
Issue 4: How long data is valid
To what extent do you agree with a 12-month time-frame for the validity of the financial vulnerability check?
To what extent do you agree with a 6-month time-frame for the validity of the financial risk assessment?
Issue 5: Actions pending or following a check or assessment
To what extent do you agree that it is proportionate that deposits and gambling may continue while a financial vulnerability check is taking place?
To what extent do you agree that it is proportionate that gambling may continue while a financial risk assessment is taking place, but that further deposits would be paused?
We have not proposed any set requirements for how quickly a financial vulnerability check must be completed. Do you have any comments on whether such requirements would be necessary?
Issue 6: Data protection considerations
Please provide any views you may have on the best way for gambling operators to inform customers about the potential collection of their financial data for these purposes.
What feedback do you have on the requirement on operators for manual review of the assessment data, together with all of the other information they hold on the customer to make a proportionate decision on any action to be taken?
Does paragraph 7 of the proposed requirement 3.4.5 (enhanced financial risk assessment) which confirms that operators can only use the information collected for the purpose of the assessment, provide sufficient clarity that the information must not be used for any other purpose?
Issue 7: Considerations associated with implementation
What factors should be considered in relation to implementation timeline and piloting?
Do you consider that there should be any specific appropriate record keeping requirements?
Equalities considerations
Do you have any evidence or information which might assist the Commission in considering any equalities impacts, within the meaning of section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, in the context of the proposals set out in this section of the consultation relating to light touch financial vulnerability checks and enhanced financial risk assessments?
Impact assessment
If you have relevant information, please provide an estimate of the direct costs associated with implementing the light touch financial vulnerability check.
If you have relevant information, please provide an estimate of the direct costs associated with implementing the enhanced financial risk assessment.
Do you have any comments on the assumptions underpinning the impact assessment set out in Annex A of the white paper?
Last updated: 1 May 2024
Show updates to this content
No changes to show.