UKGC Withholds BetVictor's UK Address

Article Content

UKGC Cites Regulatory Secrecy in Refusal to Disclose Operator Address

The UK Gambling Commission (UKGC) has refused to provide a UK correspondence address for the operator BetVictor, according to a recently published Freedom of Information (FOI) response. The regulator also withheld specific details relating to a £2 million fine issued to the company and admitted to significant delays in handling the requests, which required intervention from the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).

Context: Why an Address Matters

For consumers, having a valid UK correspondence address for a licensed gambling operator is crucial. It serves as a formal point of contact for disputes, complaints, or legal action. The original FOI requester noted that they believed providing such an address was a condition of the operator's UK licence.

The UKGC's refusal to disclose this information raises questions about the level of transparency consumers can expect when dealing with offshore-based but UK-licensed companies.

Details of the FOI Response

The disclosure reveals that the UKGC failed to respond to two separate requests from the same individual until prompted by the ICO, the UK's data protection and information rights watchdog. The regulator apologised for these "processing errors."

Request 1: UK Correspondence Address

The first request, dated 19 September 2021, asked for the UK correspondence address of Betvictor Limited (licence number 39576). The UKGC refused, stating that while it holds this information, it was provided by the operator with the expectation of confidentiality. The Commission argued that disclosing non-public addresses would:

• Damage the trust and relationship it has with operators.
• Make operators less likely to share information voluntarily in the future.
• Ultimately undermine its regulatory functions.

Request 2: Details of £2m Fine

The second request, dated 7 January 2022, sought further details about a £2 million regulatory settlement with BetVictor for social responsibility and anti-money laundering failures. The requester asked for:

• Details of the notification BetVictor made to the UKGC.
• Information on the divestment of funds to charity.
• Details of the Commission's investigation.

The UKGC confirmed it holds this information but withheld it, citing Section 31 of the FOIA. It argued that disclosure could prejudice its ability to conduct investigations by exposing techniques and deterring sources from sharing information.

In both cases, the Commission conducted a public interest test and concluded that the need to protect its regulatory functions outweighed the public interest in transparency.

Significance: Transparency vs. Regulation

This response highlights a significant tension between the UKGC's duty to protect consumers and its method of regulating the industry. The Commission's position is that maintaining confidential, cooperative relationships with operators is the most effective way to ensure compliance, even if it means withholding information that consumers may deem essential.

However, for consumers seeking basic contact information or accountability on how regulatory fines are actioned, this level of secrecy can be a major roadblock. The admission of procedural failures, requiring ICO intervention just to elicit a response, further complicates the picture of the regulator's administrative effectiveness.