UKGC: No Data Held on Staff Mobile Phone Costs
Illustration for UKGC: No Data Held on Staff Mobile Phone Costs

Article Content

UKGC Unable to Provide Data on Staff Mobile Phones

A Freedom of Information (FOI) request has revealed that the UK Gambling Commission (UKGC) does not hold records on the number or cost of mobile phones issued to its staff over the past five years. The regulator was also unable to provide information on devices that were not returned by former employees or any subsequent costs incurred.

Why This Matters

As a non-departmental public body, the UK Gambling Commission is funded primarily through the licence fees it collects from gambling operators. This means its operational budget is indirectly funded by consumers. The responsible management of public assets and funds is a cornerstone of accountability for any public organisation. The inability to track assets like mobile phones raises questions about the robustness of the regulator's internal financial controls and asset management procedures.

Details of the Request

The FOI request, dated 28 February 2025, sought detailed information for the financial years 2019/20 through 2023/24. The applicant asked for specific figures on:

  • The total number of mobile phones issued to staff each year.
  • The number of phones not returned by employees upon leaving the organisation.
  • The number of unreturned phones that remained active on the network.
  • The total cost of handsets that were not returned.
  • The total cost of data and call charges incurred on phones after an employee's departure.

In its official response, the UKGC stated: "The Gambling Commission can confirm that no information is held falling within the scope of your request."

Significance of the Response

The response "information not held" is distinct from a refusal to disclose information. It indicates that the UKGC does not record or collate this data as part of its standard operating procedures.

For a regulator that imposes strict requirements on its licensees regarding data management, financial accountability, and system integrity, this lack of internal record-keeping is significant. It suggests a potential gap in the Commission's own oversight of its resources. Without tracking this data, it is impossible to quantify the potential cost to the public purse from lost, stolen, or misused equipment. This disclosure highlights a need for greater transparency in how the regulator manages its own assets.

M

Written by

Corporate Investigations Editor

ACAMS Certified (Association of Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialists). BSc Criminology, University of Manchester.

Mark has 15 years of experience in financial crime and corporate due diligence, including a role as Intelligence Analyst at the Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) specialising in money laundering through gaming.

Tags

UKGC Freedom of Information FOI regulatory accountability public funds asset management

More Insights