UKGC Can't Track Betting Shop Data
Illustration for UKGC Can't Track Betting Shop Data

Article Content

The UK Gambling Commission (UKGC) has stated it is unable to provide a historical, year-by-year breakdown of licensed betting offices (LBOs) for each operator, citing the excessive cost and time required to extract the information.

The response, issued following a Freedom of Information (FOI) request on 22 September 2023, highlights a significant gap in the regulator's readily available data on the UK's high street betting landscape.

The Request and Response

The request asked for a simple breakdown of the number of licensed betting shops attributed to each gambling operator, on a yearly basis. This data is crucial for tracking the consolidation of the retail market, the decline of independent bookmakers, and the physical footprint of major brands like Entain (Ladbrokes, Coral) and Flutter (Paddy Power).

In its refusal, the Commission confirmed it holds the information but that it is "not stored in an extractable format." The UKGC invoked Section 12 of the Freedom of Information Act, which allows public bodies to refuse requests where the cost of compliance would exceed an £450 limit. This figure is estimated to represent 18 hours of staff time.

The regulator explained that fulfilling the request would require staff to manually check a "high volume of records individually," a task estimated to take well over the 18-hour limit.

Why This Data Matters

For consumers and researchers, having access to historical data on betting shop ownership is vital for understanding the evolution of the UK high street. It allows for independent analysis of:

  • Market Concentration: How many shops are controlled by the top few operators?
  • Industry Trends: Charting the overall decline of retail betting shops over time.
  • Regional Variations: Analysing the density of betting shops in different parts of the country.

Without this data being easily accessible, it becomes more difficult for the public, local authorities, and consumer protection groups to scrutinise the changing face of retail gambling.

Implications for Transparency

The UKGC's response suggests that its data management systems may not be configured to easily analyse historical licensing records on a per-operator basis. While the regulator holds the raw information, its inability to compile it efficiently raises questions about the accessibility of key industry metrics.

The Commission did suggest that a refined request with a narrower scope, such as a shorter time scale, might be fulfilled. However, any such submission would be treated as a new request, subject to its own 20-working-day response time. This places the burden on the public to guess what level of detail the UKGC's systems can handle within the cost limit, hindering effective oversight.

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 foi licensed betting offices lbo data transparency retail gambling

More Insights