Cookies on the Gambling Commission website

The Gambling Commission website uses cookies to make the site work better for you. Some of these cookies are essential to how the site functions and others are optional. Optional cookies help us remember your settings, measure your use of the site and personalise how we communicate with you. Any data collected is anonymised and we do not set optional cookies unless you consent.

Set cookie preferences

You've accepted all cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

Skip to main content
  1. Home
  2. About us
  3. Summer 2023 consultation – Proposed changes to LCCP and RTS: Consultation Response

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.

Published
1 May 2024

Last updated
13 June 2024 - Changes

Document actions
Print or save (opens in new tab)

Contents

Proposal 2: Presumption that decisions will be made on the papers alone, and the test for convening a hearing

Proposals

We proposed to offer a paper-based process as the default option for a Panel, whereby the Panel would make a decision on the basis of written submissions and without an oral hearing.

We also proposed to make this paper-based approach the default for personal licence decisions, and would therefore change the name of a 'Director’s hearing' to an 'Adjudicator's decision'.

The Gambling Commission or the licensee could request an in-person hearing, and this request would be considered by the Panel. The Panel itself may also decide that a hearing is required.

We proposed that in making their decision on whether a hearing should be granted, the Panel would apply a fairness test. For example, a hearing would likely be convened where there were material and significant disputes of fact, or where an applicant or licensee is unable to effectively communicate their case in writing. This test would be included in the decision-making guidance.

In personal licence cases, the Commission or the licensee and/or applicant could request an in-person hearing, and this request would be considered by the Adjudicator. The Adjudicator could also decide a hearing was required. The test would be the same as for Panel cases.

Whilst the number of cases being heard at Panels has remained low, they are time consuming and expensive, with the Commission and licensees or applicants often instructing legal advisors. This has driven a formalised process and lengthy bundles of papers, which can be difficult for smaller licensees and applicants to navigate. Applicants for personal licences and smaller licensees often prepare for and attend Panel hearings without legal representation and the Commission is mindful of the need to ensure that processes to escalate licensing and regulatory decisions are accessible and easy to navigate for all our licensees and licence applicants.

This proposal has been put forward for two main reasons:

  • to reduce the burden on applicants and/or licensees, particularly those with no legal representation who can find hearings difficult and stressful to navigate. Personal licence applicants and/or holders have also experienced challenges taking time off work for hearings and funding travel to hearings or accessing appropriate technology for online hearings. Licensees and/or applicants who are based outside of the UK have also found it challenging to find a suitable time for a hearing, or have been required to bear the costs of travel
  • to increase the promptness of decision-making, since it is easier to convene a Panel and/or Adjudicator for a paper-based decision process than to get all of the parties to a hearing together at the same time.

Consultation questions

To what extent do you agree with the proposal that Regulatory Panels will take decisions on the papers unless the Panel considers that a hearing is required?
To what extent do you agree with the proposal that personal licence matters will be decided on the papers unless the Adjudicator considers that a hearing is required?
Which decision-making processes from other regulators should the Commission consider in developing our approach?

Respondents’ views

Respondents again raised concerns on impartiality and bias of the Adjudicator and the lack of experience the Adjudicator may have around the gambling industry to make decisions.

The majority of respondents did not agree with a paper-based process as the default. Respondents advised that a licensee or business should be the decision-maker for whether a case is heard on papers only or in person (this includes virtual hearings).

Respondents concluded that the magnitude of outcomes (including revocation of licences) meant that cases should be heard orally and not on papers alone. Respondents also felt that an oral hearing would allow a business or licensee to fully outline their case and address, at the point of any query, any concerns or questions a Panel or Adjudicator may have. Respondents also raised concerns about the level of scrutiny of cases if a paper-based approach was adopted.

Respondents thought that a paper-based hearing would simplify the process but also raised concerns about transparency.

Positive responses agreed that a paper-based process would expedite decision-making. They also commented that this would be a simpler process to follow.

Our position

After consideration of the consultation responses, we have concluded that we will not be implementing this proposal at this time. We remain committed to maintaining robust, cost-effective, and timely regulatory decision-making processes. We note that a papers-only option already exists within our framework and we can achieve similar outcomes by ensuring this option is drawn to the attention of those requesting an escalation to the Panel.

Is this page useful?
Back to top