UKGC Withholds Safer Gambling Inspection Details
Regulator refuses to release checklists and protocols for land-based venues, citing risk of operators circumventing compliance.
The UK Gambling Commission has refused to release details on how its inspectors verify safer gambling measures in premises like betting shops and casinos. The regulator cited fears that disclosing its 'workbook' and assessment methods would allow operators to circumvent compliance checks.
Article Content
The UK Gambling Commission (UKGC) has refused to disclose the specific procedures its inspectors use to ensure land-based gambling operators are protecting vulnerable customers, a Freedom of Information (FOI) response has revealed.
The request, dated 13 May 2025, asked the regulator to provide its internal checklists, assessment tools, and inspection protocols for enforcing its Customer Interaction guidance (SR Code 3.4.1). The Commission confirmed it holds this information but has withheld it from the public.
The Request for Transparency
The FOI request sought to understand how the UKGC verifies compliance with key safer gambling rules in venues like betting shops, casinos, and arcades. Specifically, it asked for details on how inspectors check that operators are:
- Making "meaningful records of all interactions with customers."
- Using a range of indicators, beyond just financial ones, to spot signs of harm.
- Properly training staff to identify customers at risk.
- Effectively monitoring anonymous play, where customers have no registered account.
These rules are fundamental to the UK's safer gambling framework, which requires operators to identify and interact with customers who may be experiencing harm.
The Commission's Refusal
In its response, the UKGC confirmed that its staff use a "workbook" that guides them through assessing an operator's compliance. However, it refused to release this workbook or any related documents, citing an exemption under Section 31 of the Freedom of Information Act.
The regulator argued that disclosure would "prejudice the regulatory functions of the commission." It stated that releasing the detailed assessment methods would enable operators to "present information in a manner which would avoid further scrutiny" and potentially undermine the entire inspection process.
The UKGC's concern is that operators could use the information to learn which areas receive the most attention and tailor their records to pass assessments, rather than genuinely improving their standards. The Commission stated this would force it to develop new, undisclosed processes to ensure its assessments remain robust.
Significance for Consumers
While the UKGC's position is that secrecy is necessary to conduct effective, unpredictable inspections, the refusal creates a transparency deficit. Without access to these protocols, it is impossible for the public, researchers, or consumer protection groups to independently scrutinise the regulator's methods for enforcing safer gambling rules.
The decision leaves key questions unanswered, particularly regarding anonymous play. It remains unclear what minimum standards the UKGC expects from operators in monitoring customers who can gamble in cash without any form of identification or account tracking.
The Commission balanced the public interest, concluding that the need to maintain a robust and confidential assessment process to protect consumers outweighs the public interest in transparency. It maintains that sufficient information about its principles is already publicly available, but the specific 'how' of its enforcement remains behind closed doors.