Author: Woods Whur

It has taken some time but we are on the verge of seeing the Gambling Act reforms for land based casinos finally about to become effective. It has been a long wait since the White Paper suggested reforms have come to practical effect.

Representing Casinos operators we have been trying to ready ourselves to make the necessary applications for them to vary their 1968 converted casino premises licences which will allow them to gain the advantage in the increased machine offer.

A reminder of what the new permissions are, and the space criteria needed to increase the number of machines can be found in the Gambling Commission legislative changes guidance and the link below will take you to it:

https://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/licensees-and-businesses/guide/non-remote-casino-sector-legislative-changes-guidance

It hasn’t been the simplest of tasks getting from the proposed changes back in 2023 to now. Frustratingly, the run up to the introduction of the changes has been just as slow and the lack of clear and timely guidance as to the procedure seems to replicate all of the changes in legislation I have been involved in whilst I have been a licensing lawyer.

We now move into the practicalities of the process of application. The Statutory Instruments below come into effect on 22nd July 2025 which means we are about to submit a raft of applications.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2025/503/made
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2009/1970/contents/made

We have had plans prepared in readiness for the applications we are about to lodge. Of course they need public notices on the premises and in the newspaper. This is a pre-consulted change to the primary legislation which could have been undertaken without the need for a variation application to premises licences… but we are where we are. The consultation has concluded and the DCMS have formed the view that these changes can happen in such a regulated and well run environment. We are sure that Responsible Authorities will check the layout plans and be content that these applications can be permitted without additional interaction. The concern is if members of the public misunderstand that these changes have already been accepted by Government ,if space permits, and there would be no potential risk to the licensing objectives being compromised. It would be very frustrating if these changes are held up due to public representations on an individual basis.

What is interesting is the number of “parked” premises licenses this will lead to across the casino sector. With the potential increase to a maximum of 80 machines per casino there will not be the need for some of the multiple premises licensed sites we currently see. It is hope that these licences will be viable to use in the future and of course operators will want to retain them for this potential future use. To that effect the licences will be mothballed for the time being until we see future changes to the regulatory framework for casinos.

It will be a busy week for us ensuring these applications are timely lodged with the Licensing Authorities.

Some Clarity on Gambling Commission Fine Levels – Finally

The Gambling Commission’s method of calculating financial penalties has always felt like a dark art, with the lack of clear guidelines and starting figures making it nearly impossible to predict or negotiate the level of a fine levied at an operator. The introduction of a seven step process, with promised transparency, will therefore be a welcomed improvement for most operators.

The levels of fines in recent years has only increased, and it shows no signs of slowing down. The latest fines include £170,000 levied at Taichi Tech Limited, for terms and conditions which ‘may’ lead to unfair outcomes for consumers, along with the typical comments on customer interaction and money laundering policies. Spreadex received a £2,000,000 fine for AML failings and SR failings; another £375,000 to Football Pools Limited, which runs 4 online sites; and £686,070 to Corbett Bookmakers, a family owned betting operator based in Wales. All within the last 5 months.

As a quick reminder – don’t forget to use these decisions to help tailor future policies. Whilst not all of them contain a great deal information as to the actual breaches, there are some helpful and practical comments – for example within the public statement for Football Pools Limited.

Moving forwards, the following will be in force:

• providing a clear and distinct seven step process the Commission will follow when assessing and imposing a financial penalty
• providing transparency on how the Commission will determine the level of seriousness of the breach, and the introduction of five levels of seriousness
• determining the starting point for the penal element of the penalty by reference to the seriousness of the breach and a percentage of Gross Gambling Yield (GGY) or equivalent income generated during the period of the breach
• making adjustments to the penalty for aggravating and mitigating factors, deterrence and early resolution.

This is welcomed clarity, particularly against a landscape of ever increasing fines. However there is some skepticism in the industry so far as to whether ‘clarity and transparency’ will yield, we will have to wait and see.

Lottery Limits remain limited, but Prize Competitions will face increased regulation

A recent statement made by Baroness Twycross, the Minister for Gambling and Heritage, contained two crucial announcements for the world of prize led fundraising.

Firstly, despite vocal opposition from a number of major lottery operators, the decision has been made to retain the current annual lottery limit of £50,000,000. The reason for this decision appears to be predominantly to protect the National Lottery, with concerns that allowing society lotteries the ability to increase their fundraising potential for good causes would negatively affect the National Lottery.

This seems somewhat counterintuitive when the Report, commissioned by the government, opens with-

The knock-on impact on good causes funding is estimated to decrease National Lottery contributions by between £5 million and £30 million, whereas it would increase contributions from PPL by between £17 million and £157 million. Overall, this would lead to a net increase in returns to good causes of between £16 million and £132 million – up by between 0.8% and 6.5% on current returns to good causes.

In 2023/2024 the National Lottery donated 20% of its income, a total of £1,572million, to its good causes. Society Lotteries raised £462million, 44% of its income, for its good causes within the same time period.
A key difference between the two is of course the tax paid by each; the National Lottery paid £937million in Lottery Duty in 2023/2024, whereas Society Lotteries do not pay Lottery Duty.

The full report can be found here – https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/research-report-assessing-the-impacts-of-changes-to-the-society-lotteries-sales-limit

A new Voluntary Code will be introduced for Prize Draws, often referred to as ‘free draws’ or ‘prize competitions’. These draws are not currently regulated under the Gambling Commission, despite the prize draw market currently being worth £1.3billion annually.

The Voluntary Code is due to be released later this year and is aiming to increase player protection, transparency of play and the accountability of the operators. This will be a very decisive time for the prize draw industry, it is clear from the statement that this is being seen as a first step towards regulation, with the potential for further regulation to come if the code does not have the desired effect.

The full report on prize draws and competitions can be found here – https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/research-report-online-prize-draws-and-competitions-market-study-assessment-of-harm-and-review-of-potential-interventions

For more information on the above please contact Amanda Usher on amanda@woodswhur.co.uk, or your usual Woods Whur contact.

The enactment of the Gambling Regulation Act 2024 signified a major development in Ireland’s approach to gambling legislation. Replacing nearly a century’s worth of fragmented, piecemeal legislation, the Act introduces a streamlined framework aimed at protecting consumers against gambling harm, consolidating compliance standards, and bringing the necessary clarity to Ireland’s gambling landscape.

Signed into law on 23 October 2024 after two years of legislative development, the Act repeals prior statutes, such as the Totalisator Act 1929 and the Betting Act 1931. It facilitates a modern regime governed by the newly established Gambling Regulatory Authority of Ireland (GRAI). Operational since March 2025, the GRAI serves as the sole licensing and regulatory body for all gambling activities across Ireland, both online and offline.

A Streamlined Licensing Regime

The Act introduced three distinct licence categories:

1. Business-to-Consumer (B2C) licences are required for any operator offering gambling services directly to Irish customers. This includes betting, lotteries and gaming, both in-person and remote.
2. Business-to-Business (B2B) licences are mandatory for suppliers offering gambling-related services or products, including software providers, hosting platforms and those providing odds.
3. Charitable and philanthropic licences are tailored to non-profit organisations conducting gambling activities for fundraising purposes. Such licences benefit from exemptions to advertising restrictions and stake limits.

The Act provides strict limitations on stakes and winnings. For example, casino games are subject to a €10 maximum stake and a €3,000 winnings cap, with separate thresholds for lotteries.
Transitional provisions under Part 10 of the Act allow existing licence holders to continue operating until their current licences expire, at which point they must reapply under the new regime. Remote operators with no physical presence in Ireland will also be required to obtain Irish licences if they are targeting Irish consumers.

Advertising & Social Responsibility
One of the Act’s most notable reforms lies in its regulation of gambling advertising. A broadcast watershed prohibits gambling advertisements between 05:30 – 21:00, and advertisements must not target children or mislead consumers with promises of financial gain. Restrictions extend to digital marketing and sponsorship as well as individual consent and opt-out mechanisms now required for electronic marketing communications. The Act also bans targeted inducements based on demographics or interests (e.g. VIP schemes aimed at sports fans), though broad promotional incentives are still permitted.

Another significant development was the establishment of a National Gambling Exclusion Register, which permits users to voluntarily self-exclude from gambling platforms, with operators required to check the register in real time or else suspend services.

Financial Duties & Enforcement

Currently, licence fees start at €10,000 and, depending on turnover, renewals can reach up to €200,000. However, the GRAI are set to prescribe these rates definitively as part of their new regulations. Licensees are also required to contribute annually to a Social Impact Fund, which finances education, training and research related to problem gambling. Eventually, the GRAI will be funded by regulated licensee fees after an initial three-year period of government funding.
Crucially, the GRAI has been granted extensive enforcement powers. Non-compliance may result in administrative fines of up to €20 million or 10% of a licensee’s annual turnover, whichever is greater, as well as the risk of criminal sanctions (including up to eight years’ imprisonment) for serious breaches such as unlawful gambling operations or allowing child participation.

Looking Ahead

As Ireland remains in the midst of reforming its gambling legislation on a phased basis under the executive powers of the GRAI, we can expect the role of this authority to evolve as it facilitates an efficient transition from the current licensing regime to new processes. The GRAI currently intends to gradually implement the guidelines for licence applications, starting with betting licences in December 2025 and progressing to gaming licences in 2026.

Whilst such regulatory details are still developing, it is clear that Ireland is committed to building a more transparent and socially responsible gambling environment. Legal professionals and stakeholders should closely monitor upcoming GRAI consultations and regulation changes to remain compliant and proactive under the new regime.

The Data (Use and Access) Act received Royal Assent on 19 June 2025. For those who have been following the Bill through Parliament, the granting of the Bill will mean significant changes for both alcohol and gambling operators. The Act, for the first time, will allow Digital ID to be used for age verification purposes, rather than the standard physical forms of ID such as a driving licence or passport. Although the Act has been granted, the ICO have reported that the Act will come into effect in phases, with different phases expected to commence at two, six and twelve months after Royal Assent.

How it will work
The Act creates a legislative foundation for Digital Verification Services (DVS). Standards, governance and oversight of digital identity services in the UK are therefore now grounded in law, ensuring they are trusted and secure. The DVS will receive a ‘Trust Mark’ similar to a ‘Kite Mark’. Similar to the GOV.UKID App, it is believed that when operators check customers’ digital ID, it will be done by way of QR codes, and so will be simple and timely for both parties.

It should be noted that accepting Digital ID is not compulsory for operators. However, in this modern day and age where everything is on a ‘smartphone’ it would be odd that operators would not embrace this and possibly alienate customers if they didn’t use digital verification. As with current age verification, it will be for the operator to ensure that they check the digital ID against the customer providing it.

Premises Licence Conditions
Operators will need to check their premises licences, as some stipulate the specific types of ID that can be accepted. Obviously, Digital ID will not be listed. Therefore, should an operator wish to accept Digital ID, they may need to submit a minor variation application or it may be dealt with in secondary legislation.

We will keep you updated as the different phases commence.

Should you want any further information on this, please email Chris@woodswhur.co.uk , or your normal Woods Whur contact.

A successful gambler should not be deprived of the fruits of his bet, but equally in my judgment a losing gambler should not be able to escape the consequences of his decisions. (Paragraph 181, Mr Lee Gibson v TSE Malta LP (t/a Betfair))

In a landmark decision earlier this month, the High Court has confirmed that operators do not generally owe their customers a duty of care under any of the multiple mechanisms tested out in this case.

Mr Lee Gibson v TSE Malta LP (t/a Betfair) [2024] EWHC 2900 (Comm)).

Mr Gibson issued a claim against Betfair, a betting exchange platform, for his losses of up to £1.4 million. His case was predicated on the fact he was a problem gambler and, as Betfair was and is a Gambling Commission licensed operator, they breached the terms of their licence by allowing him to gamble.

HHJ Bird made a number of interesting comments in the Judgment, with a focus on the operations of Betfair and whether they did enough to satisfy the conditions on their licence. A number of serious legal questions were also asked, which I will come to later.

This is a very fact specific case, however several of its elements are applicable to a number of operators and it is well worth a read.

Social Responsibility and the Defendant

Crucially, the Judgment begins by stating ‘If he was not a problem gambler, or if Betfair cannot be taken to have been aware that he was a problem gambler, then most of his claim will fail.’ (paragraph 4).

All good operators have in place extensive customer protection measures, from policies and procedures to staff training and customer supervision, to ensure they are able to protect their customers and uphold the third licensing objective. Social Responsibility policies covering self-exclusion and customer interaction are not dusty documents sitting on shelves anymore. They are, or at least should be, proactive and robust documents which are designed to protect those who are at risk of gambling harms.

This case is a good demonstration of how important it is to ensure that an operator’s procedures are truly effective.

There were therefore two key factors at play here. Firstly, that Betfair was deemed to be a responsible operator. They were found to have credible witnesses, who took their roles seriously and were experienced individuals, and to have ‘live’ documentation, with policies and procedures which evolved with the landscape of the industry and an increasingly involved regulator. Further, their procedures were clearly being actioned and were not simply a tick box exercise.

As an interesting aside, the Operations Director at BETDAQ (a competitor of Betfair) gave evidence, the thrust of which was that ‘Mr Gibson could have placed large bets with BETDAQ on the betting exchange in the same way he had placed bets with Betfair‘ (paragraph 76).

Problem Gambling and the Claimant

Secondly, if a customer deliberately conceals their problem gambling, it is extremely difficult for anyone (operator or medical expert) to determine whether they have, or the level of, a gambling problem.

This raised another interesting point that the shear level of losses was not enough to conclude a gambling problem. In fact, Mr Gibson was the subject of several detailed and intrusive AML and RG checks from Betfair – each time answering questions and providing the documentation requested. On this point the Judge noted ‘Although [the losses] were very large, they appeared to be sustainable.’ (paragraph 15)

He attended football matches as a VIP guest and behaved convivially with all, showing no signs of distress… all of his financial information was sent for forensic checks with the AML team, questions were asked of the Claimant and he made several assurances to Betfair that he was gambling within his means, and was happy with his level of gambling. To further Betfair’s defence, even when faced with threats of lawyers and refusals to co-operate towards the end of the business relationship, they did not back down on any requests and ultimately made the decision to terminate the relationship.

Similar to a reasonable versus best endeavours debate, the Judge commented that ‘Betfair was under no regulatory (or other) obligation to implement the very best or most efficient system to identify problem gamblers. Its obligation was to have appropriate policies in place. In my judgment it did that.’ (paragraph 130)

Consequently, it was found that whilst the Claimant did have a gambling problem, the Defendant was not aware and did not ought to know.

Legal Position

This case has explored a number of complex legal arguments surrounding contractual relationships and the nature of any duty arising in a gambling agreement. There were three legal arguments tested:

• A breach of an implied contractual term under common law
• A breach of an implied contractual term under statute
• A claim of negligence and an alleged common law duty

All of these failed. However, the judge went on to make a number of comments regarding the usual tests in law which would have followed any of these being successful, as well as causation, which are worth a read.

The final legal argument to be tested was that of illegality under section 33 of the Gambling Act 2005 (General Offences; Provision of Facilities for Gambling). Again, this argument failed, with the Judge setting out that section 33 merely had the intention of imposing a penalty on one party. There is no mechanism within this section to render the contract void should the operator breach its licence terms (a big relief for operators…).

The only legal argument which came close to succeeding was the potential duty under common law by way of assumed responsibility. On this point, the Judge commented that ‘If Mr Gibson had asked to be excluded from Betfair or had asked that some formal restriction be placed on his gambling, I think it very likely that Betfair would have become responsible to honour those requests.’ (paragraph 164).

Conclusions

The Judge ultimately concluded that Betfair did not breach their licence terms, that they did not know or ought to have known that the Claimant was a problem gambler, and that even if they had there was no duty arising out of the relationship in any event.

Whilst there are some chaotic elements to this case… with allegations of destroyed Whatsapp evidence, jokes apparently being made at the Claimant’s expense and the fact he had made his problem with gambling known to ‘an unnamed tall man at Betfair’s hospitality box at Old Trafford and the landlord of his local pub in Leeds’ (paragraph 131) It has some very serious underlying themes, and is a very important case for operators.

The full Judgment can be found here-

https://3vb.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/LM-2021-000010-Lee-v.-TSE-Malta-LP-t.a-Betfair-FINAL.-docx.pdf

For more information, or for any other gambling queries, please contact Amanda Usher (amanda@woodswhur.co.uk), or your usual Woods Whur contact.

Edited 03 December 2024.

In this article Andy Woods looks at some important changes that will impact on all gambling operators in Great Britain having recently been introduced by the Gambling Commission, as well as looking at the DCMS conclusions regarding key proposals set out in the white paper.

 

A) 16^th May 2024

On the 16^th May 2024 DCMS published its conclusions on certain proposals which will impact on land based operators which can be summarised as follows:-

1. 1968 Act converted casinos will be allowed to increase total gaming machine entitlement proportionate to their size and non-gambling area, with the maximum number of category B gaming machines permitted increasing from 20 to 80 if they meet the size requirements in 2005 Act casinos.
2. This will only be implemented in casinos with a maximum gaming machine to table ratio of 5 : 1 for 1968 Act casinos and small 2005 Act casinos.
3. Permitting all casino premises to provide betting services which were previously restricted to 2005 Act casinos.
4. Adult Gaming Centres and bingo halls to be allowed a ratio of 2:1 category B to category C and D gaming machines where devices are of a comparable size.
5. Removing the prohibition on the direct use of debit card payments on gaming machines subject to the introduction of appropriate play protection measures.
6. Introduction of a legal age limit of 18 for low stake cash out category D style gaming machines.
7. Raising the current fee cap that Licensing Authorities may charge for Premises Licence in England and Wales by 15%.

 

It is likely that DCMS will implement all changes through Parliament, except those related to cashless payments, this year.

 

B) 3^rd June 2024

The Gambling Commission announced  as part of its summer 2023 consultations that the requirement to hold a PML is expanding to include any roles involving AML and counter terrorism, as well as any individuals who hold positions such as Chair of the Board or CEO. This will take effect from 29 November 2024, however applications can take several weeks to be determined.

 

C) From 1^st July 2024

From the 1^st July 2024 the LCCP will be amended to require all licensees to submit regulatory returns on a quarterly basis, within 28 days of the end of each quarterly period, and further information is available on the Gambling Commission website.  The Gambling Commission state that in order to make this transition work for all operators, the end date of all regulatory returns with a period which currently contains the 30^th June 2024 will be changed to end on the 30^th June 2024, so that the new reporting period starts on the 1^st June 2024.  Log in to e-services – operator to ensure that returns are submitted.

 

D) Reminder of other changes announced in Early May

• Financial vulnerability checks being rolled out at £500 from 30 August 2024 and £150 from 28 Feb 2025
• Frictionless financial risk assessments being piloted
• Remote game design being altered to reduce the speed and intensity
• Direct marketing choices being updated – from 17 Jan 2025- to a more granular, opt in approach (type of gambling and specific product) (remote only, does not include lotteries)
• Age verification being tightened for non-remote (test purchasing mandatory, challenge 25 recommended) from 30 August 2024
• Extension of PML holders (people on the board, anyone dealing with AML/POCA etc)
• The proposed changes to regulatory panels wont be coming in! Summer 2023 consultation – Proposed changes to LCCP and RTS: Consultation Response – Summary – Changes to Regulatory Panels consultation (gamblingcommission.gov.uk)

 

Comments

The above two changes which are being implemented immediately highlight the importance of all operators keeping up to date with Gambling Commission communications. There is no doubt that the Commission will be checking whether those holding management positions set out in the link above have obtained PML’s and it goes without saying that the importance of submitting correct regulatory returns on time cannot be overstated.  I will keep everybody updated with the implementation date for the changes to machine entitlement as well as other incoming measures.

I am now getting clients asking me what the impact of Martyn’s Law will be and what are the timescales. It is very difficult to be precise at the moment as we are waiting clarification on the detail. This is very frustrating as the impact could be significant, particularly for larger capacity venues, and we need the detail as early as possible to properly advise and for operators to properly plan.

It is worth keeping an eye on the Home Office blog. This was last updated this month and appears to be updated relatively frequently.

https://homeofficemedia.blog.gov.uk/2022/12/19/martyns-law-factsheet/

The full title of the bill is The Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill and it featured in the latest King’s Speech in November. A recent consultation on the Standard Tier provisions was billed as “to ensure the Bill strikes the right balance between public protection and avoiding undue burden on smaller premises, such as village halls and other community venues.”

What do we know so far….

To be in scope of the provisions:

• Premises and events must be accessible to the public.
• Premises must be used for a purpose listed in the Bill (e.g. entertainment and leisure, retail, food and drink).
• Have a capacity of 100 or more individuals.
• Premises may be a building or outdoor locations which have a readily identifiable physical boundary and access by express permission.
• Provision is made in the Bill for temporary events such as festivals that have express permission to enter and a capacity of 800 or more individuals.

How will it work?

The Bill will establish a tiered model, linked to the activity that takes place at a premise or event and its capacity:

Enhanced Tier – this tier will see additional requirements placed on high-capacity venues in recognition of the potential catastrophic consequences of a successful attack. This will apply to premises and events with a capacity of 800 or more individuals, for example, live music premises or events, theatres, and department stores. Those responsible for an enhanced duty premises or qualifying public events must:

• notify the Regulator of their premise or event;
• take ‘reasonably practicable’ measures that will reduce the risk of a terrorist attack occurring or physical harm being caused. The reasonably practicable test is utilised in other regulatory regimes e.g., Health and Safety, and will enable organisations to tailor their approach to the nature of the premises, and their activities and resources;
• keep and maintain a security document, aided by an assessment of the terrorism risk, which must also be provided to the Regulator; and
• if the responsible person is a body corporate, they must appoint an individual as the designated senior individual for the premise or event.

Standard Tier –

In summary, those responsible for Standard Tier premises must:

• Notify the Regulator that they are, or have become, responsible for premises within scope of the Bill (and so subject to the relevant requirements). This remains broadly in line with previous requirements.
• Have in place procedural measures that could be expected to reduce, so far as reasonably practicable, the risk of physical harm to individuals at the premises in the event of an attack. These relate only to the procedures to be followed by people working at the premises in the event of an attack occurring or being suspected as about to occur. As the procedural measures are about procedures for responding to an attack or suspected attack, it is not expected or required that physical alterations be undertaken or additional equipment purchased for Standard Tier premises.
• In contrast to the published draft Bill, there is no requirement to complete a specified form (the ‘Standard Terrorism Evaluation’) for Standard Tier premises or ensure that people working at the premises are given any specific training. However, as part of putting in place the procedural measures, workers will need to be sufficiently instructed or trained to carry them out effectively.

 

Worryingly, not having the detail yet, it suggest the Regulator will monitor compliance and advise premises within scope. The Regulator will have the tools to address non-compliance, including investigatory powers and monetary sanctions. I very much want to see the detail around this.

What strikes fear into advisors is the phrase “Dedicated guidance and support will be provided for Martyn’s Law, to ensure that those in scope have the required information on what to do and how best to do it. As part of this approach, we will expand the support available to those responsible for delivering security in public venues.” We all remember from Covid Regulations how we had very little time to get to grips with the Guidance documents, let’s hope that Government has learned a lesson from that.

 The conclusion is that we are lacking in detail to fully advise, however it is coming and the leisure sector needs to factor this on the horizon. We will continue to keep up with developments and report accordingly.

 

 

As promised in the long-awaited White Paper; the consultations have begun. These have marked the start of the process of implementing some much needed changes across the Gambling sector, and they show no signs of slowing down.

 

Current Gambling Commission Consultations

At the moment there is only one Gambling Commission consultations still open, relating to proposed changes to financial penalties and financial key event reporting. These are relatively straightforward; potential changes to criteria and methodology for the calculation of financial penalties and proposals to help larger companies handle share fluctuations by allowing some licensees to report ownerships over a more appropriate level (for example 5% ownership rather than 3%).

On the face of it; sensible suggestions. In reality; an 86 page consultation document.

The proposed methodology for the financial penalties looks remarkably like sentencing guidelines, and overall would give the GC more power to determine the level of fine it deems appropriate – plus a potential disgorgement element allowing them to raise the fine even further.

During the two-year period between August 2021 to July 2023 £38 million was paid by way of financial penalties, and £44 million was paid  as part of regulatory settlement processes. It doesn’t look like we can expect these figures to decrease over the coming years.

This consultation closes on 15 March – 2023 Consultation on proposed changes related to financial penalties and financial key event reporting – The Gambling Commission – Citizen Space

 

Recently Concluded GC Consultations

A separate consultation closed on 21 February and included proposals to limit incentives, more customer tools to limit gambling, making operators ‘remind’ customers that their funds are not protected and a request that all regulatory returns are submitted quarterly. And removing the soon to be obsolete Research, Education and Treatment contributions.

A similar consultation closed in 2023, relating to yet more changes to the LCCP and RTS. This one contained proposals for suicide notifications, opt-in marketing preferences, remote game design, strengthening age verification procedures, changes to regulatory panels and extending PML requirements.

All in all, a lot of proposals. Some very straightforward, arguably superfluous. Some with some interesting quirks….

Lotteries in particular have been watching these consultations with growing frustration. From the requirement to report suicides leading to potential double counting (with ELMs and society lotteries sharing customers), the statutory levy being 0.1% when they donate 20% to charity (and again… double counting of ELMs and society lotteries) and finally the opt-in marketing proposals which are likely to severely limit how lotteries have always marketed their fundraising efforts.

 

Personal Management Licence Holders

The proposed extensions to PML holders is particularly interesting, demonstrating the GC’s ever increasing need to keep control of the industry. More PML holders means more personal accountability. Some of the new roles which will require PMLs include the CEO (as overall controller), the Chairman of the Board, the MLRO, the Nominated Officer and potentially even directors of a parent company. It looks likely that most companies will no longer have a single PML holder in each key management role.

PMLs have an application fee (£370), maintenance required every 5 years and come with personal accountability including criminal consequences. They are also in-depth applications, with financial, personal and criminal information being declared about an individual.

 

Regulatory Panels – more or less independent?

The proposed changes to the regulatory panels have caused some controversy. The changes propose that the panel be comprised of a legally qualified Adjudicator (as chair), one Commissioner and one member of senior Commission staff, rather than two or three Commissioners with the Chair of the Commission presiding over all panels. The second proposal is that decisions by the Panel be paper-based as the default.

There has always been some confusion about the role of regulatory panels, with many questioning how they can be independent, or the appropriate place for an ‘appeal’, when they are effectively still part of the Gambling Commission. The Commission have always tried to make it clear that their regulatory panels are not an appeal process, that appeals go to the First Tier Tribunal, and that their regulatory panels are simply an internal escalation process.

Unfortunately these proposal seem to have made matters worse. The adjudicator role has yet to be defined in terms of sector experience, questions are being asked as to the impartiality (or influence being exerted on) members of the commission sitting on the panel, and the true nature of these panels has not been definitively defined.

 

The DCMS and their Consultations

The DCMS haven’t missed out on the action either, with several major consultations released since the white paper.

The first proposed a stake limit of between £2 and £15 per spin and slot-specific measures to give greater protections for 18 to 24-year-olds. The second related to a series of interesting measures to be introduced for the land based sector. Between a relaxation of casino rules and a potential change to the 80/20 rule for gaming machines, this could be a game changer for the land based operators.

These consultations closed back in October and we’re all waiting with baited breath to see what the responses will be… Some sources are suggesting the response on the proposed stake limit might even be released this week.

The final consultation, applying to all operators, concerns the statutory levy. This looks to be implemented towards the end of this year and generally requires between 0.1-1% from all operators. Funds will go towards research, prevention and treatment – not dissimilar to the previous system which oddly enough is the subject of a separate GC consultation proposing its revocation.

 

Overall these consultations tell us a lot about the general direction the Commission is moving in, with a lot of focus on the protection of customers from gambling harms and a tightening on all general regulatory powers. Until we start to see more responses coming in we won’t know just how much of these will be implemented, but we can expect there to be an awful lot of changes to come for both the land based and online sectors in the coming months.

It is advisable for all operators to start to review their internal procedures over the coming months to ensure they are ready to handle these changes, particularly any social responsibility and customer interaction procedures and internal management structures.

For further information on any of the ongoing or closed consultations contact amanda@www.woodswhur.co.uk or your usual Woods Whur contact.

The Government is consulting on whether to allow digital identities and technology to play a role in age verification for alcohol sales, as well as whether to amend legislation in order to specify that for sales of alcohol that do not take place face to face, age verification should take place at the point of delivery as well as sale.

The Government are considering whether the Licensing Act (the Act) adequately covers transactions that do not take place face to face. Currently the Act only sets out a requirement to verify age at the point of sale or appropriation to a contract, not at the point of delivery. They are therefore reviewing whether this is still right and whether there should additionally be checks at the point of delivery and / or service.

The options also consider checks to establish that an individual is not already intoxicated, and checks that a sale is not a proxy sale must take place at the point of sale/appropriation to a contract and also at the point of delivery/service.

In terms of technology, it is not just digital ID that is being considered, but also age estimation technology, that could be used to establish if an individual is of an age that allows them to legally purchase particular products.

These particular concerns have arisen due to the huge rise of delivery services, not only with door step services from supermarkets but also take away food delivery services.  The key driver is the protection of children from harm, meaning that alcohol must not be sold to someone under 18.  All must be done to ensure that alcohol does not fall into the wrong hands.

To have your say,  the full consultation document and please follow the link:

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/alcohol-licensing-age-verification/alcohol-licensing-age-verification

The consultation closes at 23:59 on 30 March 2024. Please do reach out to Chris Rees-Gay or your usual contact in the Woods Whur team, should you wish to discuss this further.

At our final solicitors meeting of the year we were looking at topics for end of year newsletter. I said I would do a review of 2023 looking forward at the same time to 2024. I am sure we say it every year but as we approach 2024 we all said that the year has flown by so quickly, and we have seen some significant changes. As I am finalising this I have just seen that it is 9 years today since the first review hearing for fabric. What a journey that was with a successful appeal, summary review and then settling the next appeal by consent order. fabric has gone on from strength to strength and survived Covid lockdowns and uncertainty. We went from a space where the Police were desperate to close the premises, to a safe environment where people can express themselves and young musical talent can flourish. Thank goodness we were able to persuade Islington of the importance of the venue.

It is interesting to look back at this as we analyse what 2023 has seen. There seems to be a greater swing towards enforcement again. It goes without saying that some enforcement is necessary, if there are rogue operators who are creating issues by not promoting the licensing objectives, then they can expect nothing more than being looked at closely. What we need to see is a graduated response so that operators who have built up years of goodwill can put right any issues which may have slipped. Enforcement proceedings in Leeds for example are significantly higher than we have seen for years with a large operation attacking off-licences in the her Harehills area of Leeds. We are instructed in some of these reviews and it’s going to be interesting to see how they are dealt with by the licensing sub-committee.

One of the areas that we have seen huge increases in this year is the number of appeals. I currently have appeals in Leeds, Swindon, Bristol, Hackney and several at Thames magistrates Court. There appears to be a significantly larger number of Licensing Act appeals than I have seen for a number of years. This is where we are in difficulties as some Magistrates Courts have an inability to deal with these appeals in a reasonable timescale. Some courts are clearly struggling and are not processing Licensing matters as quickly as they should because they are deemed to be non-urgent matters.

Another of the areas where we are seeing increased appeals is arising out of noise abatement notices. They appear to be a tool that are being used much more frequently than previously. I have a current set of circumstances were an abatement notice was served. We lodged an appeal against that and prior to the case management hearing we agreed a course of action with the authority in such a way that the appeal was settled by a consent order. Rather surprisingly after one further noise complaint another abatement notice was issued which is now the subject of the second appeal. I do feel in those particular circumstances a mediated approach, which my clients are keen to offer, would have saved everybody a significant amount of time. This is at a time when some operators are fighting for survival and many local authorities struggling to offer the services they want to due to reduced budgets.

One area that I have seen a willingness to assist responsible operators in is the relaxation of the controls of cumulative impact policies/stress areas in some key locations. This has led to the development of a brand-new £2.5 million award-winning premises in Nottingham which probably would not have been granted prior to the parking of he cumulative impact policy. The same operator has managed to secure a new licence in Newcastle in the stress area and against significant opposition and is now opened having spent £2.5 million pounds on the refit of refurbishment of another listed building. It is hoped that a sensible approach will continue to be taken to support the leisure industry which is still struggling having had all of the pressures of Covid lockdowns, train strikes and the fact that people have less disposable income at their fingertips currently.

It is good news that in August of this year the pavement licensing relaxations were granted an additional 12-month extension, valid until 30 September 2024. This was about as swift an about-turn as we have ever seen and the trade will be hoping that policymakers see the light and grant a permanent extension to the rigid regime prior to 30 September 2024 cut-off date.

Changes in the gambling sector have been frustratingly slow. We waited for what seemed like forever for the white paper to be announced highlighting the potential for changes to the Gambling Act. There was a flurry of activity amongst operators as we started to look at the potential implications of the changes suggested. However, we have now been slowed down by the number of consultations that are taking place and a lack of drive to get to the finish line. Operators that I deal with are becoming frustrated at the amount of time it is taking to get certainty. Some of the consultations still have time to run and if you want assistance in putting in your views then please contact me.

One of the areas which may impact in to all premises next year is “Martyn’s Law”, more officially known as the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill. This featured in the King’s Speech and forms part of the Government’s legislative programme for the coming Parliamentary year. The Draft Bill aims to place a duty on qualifying public premises or events to take certain steps to reduce the threat of terrorism to the public. I have to say that I hadn’t paid enough attention to this until I listened to a presentation at the IOL National conference. It has the potential to make a huge impact and needs to be carefully followed, it is something that needs to be monitored as it goes through Parliament.

Finally, the Section 182 Guidance has recently been amended to include information regarding spiking, the full Revised Guidance can be found here –

Revised Guidance issued under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 (publishing.service.gov.uk)

With the mix of potential changes for next year we are sure that 2024 will be an interesting year to be involved in the licensing world. All at Woods Whur wish you a very Happy Christmas and for a great New Year.