Category: Uncategorised

As usual, we would be really grateful if someone could look into their crystal ball and let us know what is going to happen next with the Gambling Act review….

We’ve had lots of theories passed on to us about the likely outcome of the review, but so far the official position is not much further forward that a year ago when the review was first announced. Apparently the government’s white paper is due in May- so we’ll keep our fingers crossed for some more news soon, but for now this is the current position.

The Review of the Gambling Act 2005 Terms of Reference and Call for Evidence began on 08 December 2020. The Call for Evidence included a number of questions and covered-

Online protections (players and products), Advertising, sponsorship and branding, Gambling Commission’s powers and resources, Consumer Redress, Age limits and verification and Land based gambling.

Any responses to this were due at midnight on Wednesday 31st March 2021. Much muttering between March 2021 and March 2022, but really not a whole lot of news.

On 08 March 2022, Minister Chris Philp’s gave a keynote speech at the Gambling Reform Rally organised by the Gambling Related Harm APPG and Peers for Gambling Reform. In this speech he put a great deal of emphasis on gambling harms and the need to reform in order to protect the vulnerable, referencing a number of high profile incidents in which customers were sadly allowed to gamble beyond their means. Focus was placed on operators and their duties to customers.

Again emphasis is being placed on what more can be done to protect these vulnerable persons, and in particular how technology can be utilised to provide further protections-  or to highlight any malpractice. Hints are given to extending the Commission’s powers to access and analyse data collected by operators. Similarly the speech leans away from self-regulation and towards greater intervention, and power, of the Commission.

It is acknowledged that a reasonable and practicable approach should be taken, with clear guidance and thresholds as to who should be monitored more closely, rather than a blanket system being adopted. It is also acknowledged that individuals are free to gamble, but that operators must do more to prevent any vulnerable persons from being able to gamble.

Within this speech Mr Philp’s stated the White Paper was in the process of being finalised…

The Gambling Commission are committed to responding to this White Paper as soon as it is published, but no time estimate is given.

Also mentioned in Mr Philp’s speech, and recently announced by the Gambling Commission, is a set of new rules which will come into force on 12 September 2022. These rules are aimed at customer protection and are dependant on operator intervention.

They require operators to:

• monitor a specific range of indicators, as a minimum, to identify gambling harm. These indicators must include:
  • customer spend
  • patterns of spend
  • time spent gambling
  • gambling behaviour indicators
  • customer-led contact
  • use of gambling management tools
  • account indicators
• flag indicators of harm and take action in a timely manner
• implement automated processes for strong indicators of harm
• prevent marketing and the take-up of new bonuses for at risk customers
• evaluate their interactions and ensure they interact with consumers at least at the level of problem gambling for the relevant activity
• evidence their customer interaction evaluation to the Gambling Commission during routine casework
• comply with these requirements at all times, this includes ensuring the compliance of third-party provider

Further guidance on this is expected to be issued in June.

These new rules follow closely to the customer interaction and social responsibility guidance already available, and build onto what is becoming a very prescriptive customer experience.

 

If you have any queries on the above please contact Amanda Usher ( Amanda@www.woodswhur.co.uk) or Andy Woods (andrew@www.woodswhur.co.uk).

We have written before about many authority areas suspending their cumulative impact policies as the leisure and entertainment industry fight back from COVID. Some authority areas are steadfast sticking to their cumulative impact policies, whereas many have removed them altogether. What is very clear from my recent experience is that quality applications by quality operators involving significant pre-application liaison with statutory authorities are being well received.

I have recently had licences granted for a new Banyan and a new Manahatta in listed buildings in the centre of Nottingham. These premises are both situated in where the cumulative impact policy used to bite. However, Nottingham have taken an enlightened view and removed their cumulative impact policy, so to allow for quality operators to make applications and liaise with the statutory authorities. Both of the applications in Nottingham were the subject of considerable pre-application and post-application negotiation with the Police and Responsible Authorities. I am certain, knowing the landscape from years of experience in Nottingham, that both of these applications would have been resisted but for the change in the cumulative impact policy. These are two fabulous listed buildings where Arc Inspirations will invest multi-million pounds in bringing the premises back to life and thereafter, contributing to the local economy through the payment of business rates and bringing about of significant local employment. Arc Inspirations have been keen to make a presence in Nottingham, believing that their premises will be well received and will promote the licensing objectives.

One area which has not removed its cumulative impact area is Newcastle. Arc Inspirations had aspired to open a Manahatta in the former Allied Irish bank in Collingwood Street, Newcastle, for over three years. Obviously, their plans were put on hold during the COVID period. Newcastle determined not to remove their cumulative impact policy, and the premises fell within their special stress area. Prior to the application being lodged, we held a number of meetings with the responsible authorities. However, they felt that there was a need to support the cumulative impact policy and representations were made by the Police, the Licensing Authority, Environmental Health, Public Health, ward councillors, residents and local businesses. In the run up to the heavily contested hearing, we maintained a contact with all of these parties and spoke to them in detail about our case, and why we felt that the application was “exceptional” and should be allowed, even though against policy. The matter went to a full hearing in front of the Licensing Sub-Committee, who determined that in all of the circumstances, we had satisfied them, that this was an exception, and that the benefit to Newcastle far outweighed any potential for compromise to the licensing objectives. The pre-application work and Arc’s track record, both in Newcastle and nationally, went a long way towards the licence being granted.

We are also in the process of lodging applications in Liverpool and Bristol, where the cumulative impact policies had been removed, and we have had a fabulous reception in relation to the pre-application negotiations with all of the responsible authorities.

It is very clear that there is a huge amount of square footage available on most high streets due to the significant decline in retail operations. An enlightened view of cumulative impact policies, and their current relevance, is now being seen.

I have long been an opponent of cumulative impact policies. My view has always been that they can create an artificial ceiling where existing operators – in an area that is deemed as being under stress – can have little incentive to improve their offer or reinvest. They are sure and certain that no new licences can come in and drive up quality. I think they can have an adverse effect on an area. If there is no cumulative impact policy – any application can still be judged as to whether it is going to promote the licensing objectives or whether it would have an adverse effect.

It would be interesting to see whether other authority areas follow suit with those that are removing their cumulative impact policies. I am certainly seeing that operators who could really bring a fabulous offer to an area, are picking towns where they know that they will be welcomed. Many are looking to bring about multi-million pound investments, creating jobs but with a limited budget. In all of those circumstances, they are bound to pick areas where they feel they will be well received.

Manchester City Centre has long been a fabulous example of an environment where the lack of a cumulative impact policy shows a significant example of investment from first class operators who promote the licensing objectives.

Long live the enlightened view.

After consultation, the Government has decided that it will be proceeding with a proposal to make a Licensing Hours Order under Section 172 of the Licensing Act 2003. It has been confirmed that the licensing hours in England and Wales (this is not applicable to Scotland) will be relaxed to mark Her Majesty the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee and to celebrate the longest reigning monarch in the United Kingdom.

The order will apply to premises already licensed until 2300hrs for the sale of alcohol for consumption on the premises, for the provision of late-night refreshment (only where there is also the sale of alcohol for consumption on the premises), and for the provision of regulated entertainment in England and Wales. This, therefore, would not apply to takeaways who only had late night refreshment on their premises licence and does not apply at all to premises in Scotland.

The extension of hours will apply to Thursday 2^nd June, Friday 3^rd June and Saturday 4^th June, whereby the terminal hour will be extended from 2300hrs to 0100hrs the following day.

This may alleviate the need for applying for a Temporary Event Notice (“TEN”)for many premises.

Should it be felt that longer hours are required for later than the 0100 extension, then please do reach out to the Woods Whur team in order to submit a Temporary Event Notice for this, or any other period. By way of a reminder, a standard TEN requires 10 working days notice and a late TEN at least 5 working days notice. We would, therefore, urge you to let us have the relevant details should you wish to apply for any TENs.

https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2022-03-21/hcws701

As we enter a new financial year a few operators will be rubbing their heads as they eye up the fines issued by the Gambling Commission over the last few months. One of the more notable, although seemingly not directly relevant for the vast majority of operators, being the £3.15 million levied at Camelot UK Limited for failures relating to its mobile app. Whilst the fine for the soon to be outgoing national lottery operator is both relatively small and not relatable for a number of operators- it is important to look behind the headlines and discover what reasons, or failings, have been identified.

In the case of Camelot, the failings are actually multi-operator relevant. The first two failings relate to technological issues- a warning to operators that the regulator is interested in and will investigate such failures. Remembers changes to gambling facilities will likely be a key event notification.

The third failing is of particular note, the operator failed to prevent marketing messages going out to individuals who had self-excluded. Perhaps even more noteworthy is the fact none of those who had the marketing messages sent to them were then able to participate in the lottery. This goes some way to demonstrate the need for effective systems in place throughout, one failing did not lead to another arguable larger, failing. In the circumstances the Commission decided that whilst there were issues to address, ‘There was no evidence of reckless or negligent behaviour presented and nor was there any attempt to conceal’ in relation to governance and controls.

Sky Betting and Gaming also came under the spotlight this month for issues of self-exclusion, with a number of their own self-excluded customers receiving promotional marketing material. The Commission followed this fine up with a warning to all operators to check their policies and procedures are robust enough to prevent any occurrences of self-excluded customers being contacted in such a way. Such failings are in direct contravention of SRCP 3.5.3(2) which states that Licensees must, as soon as practicable, take all reasonable steps to prevent any marketing material being sent to a self-excluded customer.

Larger fines for wider failings relating to social responsibility and anti-money laundering handed out this month provide some hidden and helpful guidance for operators. With a great deal of anti-money laundering guidance being risk based, any operators seeking more practical guidance may find the news section of the Gambling Commission website of great use.

Take for example the finding of not effectively identifying players at risk of harm because their policies determined financial checks should be carried out after a customer had deposited £40,000. This is a clear steer to amend procedures to carry out such checks before a customer is allowed to play. Similarly the findings provide some useful tips of what is not acceptable in terms of customer interactions. Customer interactions of course vary from operator to operator and venue to venue, with so many factors at play determining how such an interaction is to be carried out. Some ‘what not to do’s’ are useful for staff training as well as updating policies-

• Failing to establish adequate financial limits and spends as triggers
• Not making customers aware of the full range of tools and options available to self-limit
• Not conducting proactive analysis of spend
• An email to customers without any further interaction required.

The most prominent findings in the case against Genesis Global Limited related to ‘meaningful’ customer interactions and only asking questions after the event. Once again a reminder for operators to use the Gambling Commissions guidance on customer interactions (identify-interact-evaluate) and ensure their staff are carrying out thorough interactions with customers. Being proactive is another key theme over the last couple of months, there is a lot of technology available to assist operators which can be explored- but as Camelot has demonstrated be careful not to rely solely on technology, if it fails a backup will be needed.

The need to evidence policies in practice is hammered home again by these findings. It is not enough to have a set of perfectly drafted policies and procedures gathering dust, they must be implemented and operators need to be able to evidence this.

Keep up to date with the latest news by signing up to the Gambling Commissions newsletter on their website and the Woods Whur newsletter by emailing us at info@www.woodswhur.co.uk.

For any gambling related queries please contact your usual Woods Whur contact or amanda@www.woodswhur.co.uk or andrew@www.woodswhur.co.uk.

Through a new Police and Public Health backed scheme, operators in the Leeds City Council designated ‘Red’ Cumulative Impact Zone, may see that their premises are taken out of the Red status.

The Red Cumulative Impact Zones within the City Centre are based on the amount of crime and disorder, anti-social behaviour, public disorder instances and general drunkenness in that area. It is not connected to individual premises, but the area itself.

The Police and operators have been trying to work out ways of reducing the associated issues in the Red areas for many years. Should this be achieved then it would allow them to be taken out of the Red areas.  This would ‘pave the way’ for new applications, applications for extra hours, extra floor space with additional capacity, etc, without automatic objections from West Yorkshire Police and Leeds City Council.

The West Yorkshire Violent Crime Reduction Unit and West Yorkshire Public Health Reducing Violent Crime Network are offering to fund places on a new scheme called ‘Licensing SAVI’ (Licensing Security And Vulnerability Initiative) which is to be offered out free of charge to alcohol led premises in the Red zone of the City Centre. The Licensing SAVI scheme encourages venues to improve their operational security and management practices year on year using an online self-assessment.  This includes all the Police and Council licensing information that venues need to meet statutory licensing requirement for safety and security. Venues can be awarded a star rating, and apply for Licensing SAVI accreditation.

The Police are hopeful that if all alcohol led venues sign up to do these online self-assessments and achieve accreditation, that crime will reduce in the Red areas and ultimately Leeds City Council should be able to do away with the Red areas in the city.

The Police are urging ‘buy-in’ from everyone in the Red areas. It will see a structured way of all operators working together to achieve a common goal that will benefit all.

Those premises that sign up will receive 4 points off their licensing matrix score, plus a further 4 points off should they receive accreditation. All operators who wish to benefit from the scheme should let the West Yorkshire Police Licensing Team have an expression of interest as soon as possible.

If this is introduced and it does, as hoped, lead to a reduction in crime this will be of a real benefit to all, not just the operators of Leeds but also those that frequent the great city.

Further free places will be offered to the rest of the city once the results of the Red Zone pilot scheme have been assessed

Westminster City Council (WCC) were required to review and revise their gambling policy before 30 January 2022 under the Gambling Act 2005. WCC carried out a consultation on two proposals, the first being to make some revisions to the current version of the gambling policy. The second element of the consultation was the proposal to publish a completely new and far lengthier version of the gambling policy in early 2022.

This article relates to the revisions made by WCC. Following that consultation, WCC adopted the revised statement of principles for gambling within Westminster on the 10 November 2021. The revised statement took effect from 31 January 2022 and all subsequent determinations of any gambling applications will be considered under this revised statement.

It is currently unknown when the new lengthier version of the gambling policy will come into force, but it is thought that it will be in the very near future.

Changes in the Revised Gambling Policy

Overall, there appear to be few changes made within the revised policy, however, they are worth bringing to the attention of readers:

Paragraph 3 – Westminster’s Geographical Area

The revised policy sees an update to this section. The previous statement dealt purely with the geographical area.  However, the revised policy now has three paragraphs relating to the gambling industry, including confirmation that the gambling industry contributes significantly to the UK economy. Further paragraphs go on to state that the council recognises that good management of its gambling industry is essential to continued success of central London.  It sets out that it expects licence operators to demonstrate best practice by being responsible, open, inclusive and equal operators. This section also touches on the vulnerable and that Westminster has a mid-level of reported demand and usage of treatment for problem gamblers.

Paragraph 6 – Gambling Risk Assessments

The previous statement had a section that refers readers to the vulnerability maps and access to Geofutures’ map case tool. In the revised version, it states that since the publication of Geofutures’ reports, several other research studies have been undertaken into the impact of gambling on the vulnerable. WCC has revised the Gambling Vulnerability Index devised by Geofutures to take into account new findings and more recent data on the resident population and services within the city that may indicate at risk groups. These findings can now be found within the council’s Local Area Profile, with a new link to this.

The only other minor amendments relate to the removal of images that were linked to the division of premises and access between premises.  In addition there is a different list of bodies consulted for the revised policy in 2021, and indeed an updated responsible authorities list.

These changes are not significant but should be considered by operators who may be attending Licensing Sub-Committee hearings to ensure that the relevant vulnerability indexes are consulted and dealt with accordingly.

Please see link to the revised policy: https://www.westminster.gov.uk/licensing/licensing-policy-and-strategy/statement-principles-gambling-westminster

It might be the increase in working remotely, or the pandemic causing more day dreaming, but once again prize competitions and lotteries are on everyone’s mind.

A lottery requires a licence if there is a requirement to pay to enter and the prizes are awarded wholly on chance. This describes a simple lottery, a complex lottery can follow a series of processes to allocate prizes, with just the first step relying wholly on chance.

If you remove the element of chance, it becomes a prize competition.

Prize competitions require an element of skill and knowledge in order to be exempt from the requirement to hold a licence. The biggest question is therefore what qualifies as skill and knowledge. In order to qualify, it must require enough skill or knowledge so as to prevent a significant portion of those entered from winning a prize, or simply prevent a significant portion of people from entering.

As a rule of thumb anything which is widely known, can be found on the same page as the question or is easily searched won’t qualify. Similarly if it is a multiple choice question for which you can have multiple attempts, that won’t cut it either.

But in an age of google in your pocket, surely anything can be easily searched? The Gambling Commission gives an example of a crossword puzzle on the back of a newspaper as being a good example of a prize competition. On the face of it this is understandable, it requires time and effort to complete a number of difficult questions. But what if the questions are not complicated?

It is clear that the validity of a prize competition will turn on the facts of each individual case. For example a maths questions seems like a good option, but a simple maths question follows the same as the above. If it does not require skill and knowledge which a significant portion of those entering will not possess, it will not qualify.

In the event a prize competition is deemed to be a lottery, it will require a licence and the competition will be halted.

Now, to confuse things, you might be thinking “I’ve definitely seen prize competitions which couldn’t possible qualify!”. Chances are such competitions are actually using the free entry route. If the competition question asks the reader to decide whether 2+2 is a) 3, b) 4, or c) 5… this is clearly not a question of skill or knowledge. However you must next look at how the entry is made. Remember; the requirements for a lottery are that it relies wholly on chance AND there is a requirement to pay. If you have not paid, it is not a lottery.

Such questions frequently have an entry route which costs, for example £5, and entry can be made by text, online or over the phone. However you can also enter by first class post and no further cost will be needed. This qualifies as a free entry route.

There are some intricacies of the free entry route- it must be clearly visible and on a par with the paid entry route, it must still be convenient and the costs must be at a normal rate (first class post- not special delivery). The most important point to note is that people must be able to choose to take part without paying and the prizes must not be allocated with any reliance on how entries were made.

A free entry route can be utilised for commercial purposes.

If any of the above interests or alarms you please feel free to contact Amanda Usher at amanda@www.woodswhur.co.uk or Andrew Woods at andrew@www.woodswhur.co.uk for more information or to discuss a situation.

As we approach the second anniversary of lockdown, when Andy Woods and I wondered whether we would still have a business after COVID, we are starting to see significant green shoots as operators come out of hibernation and fight back.

Even last year when we came out of the lockdowns and tiered system, there were significant difficulties in reopening of premises with the late night sector struggling to get traction with the government to be able to reopen at all.

It appears that we are now in a position where we are “living with COVID.” Surely that has to be the right approach generally, but certainly in relation to the leisure sector. I couldn’t quite understand how I could be going to see Pete Tong and Ibiza Classics at the O2 Arena in London in December whilst there were still talks of entering a further lockdown.

Having just visited France, I have seen how efficient their COVID passport works in getting into restaurants and licensed premises. We never seemed to get to that level of efficiency, but thankfully all of that now seems to be behind us in the UK.

It is unbelievably busy across all of our sectors now. We are seeing quality operators capable of investing in new premises, and receptive licensing authorities, who are even putting their cumulative impact policies on ice whilst they look to generate significant leisure opportunities in their town and city centres.

We are very fortunate in that we act for a number of high quality operators who have engaged in pre-application communications with responsible authorities in a number of town and city centres, and we have received receptive responses from all – even though some applications have still received representations and are going to hearings.

There are significantly large retail units which have come on the market, such as Debenhams units, and other large retailers. We are also fortunate to represent some large competitive socialising operators who need significantly more space to offer everything within their entertainment venues. Again, we have seen some fabulous new instructions in relation to this in Birmingham, Leeds, York and Brighton.

The festival and event space is always a fabulous space to be involved in. We have some major clients in this space, and are currently instructed in relation to new festival and event spaces all over the country, including Leeds, Yorkshire and multiple areas within and around London. These multi-use sites ranging from seasonal to significant events involve huge pre-planning and negotiation with all responsible authorities and regularly through safety advisory group meetings, including applying for road closures, liaising with transport operators and neighbours. They are the most interesting applications to be involved in, and particularly detailed. We are, on the whole, receiving positive responses to the applications that we are currently involved in.

The gambling sector continues to be particularly busy with machine operators picking up lots of the redundant betting sites nationally, and also banks and other spare retail spaces on the High Street. We do receive significant concern and regular objections to these applications, and many go before Committee due to the potential issues with vulnerable people and underage gamblers. It is critically import in all of these applications to ensure that operators understand their duties under the Gambling Act and ancillary regulations, and can take into account the local nuances surrounding their application sites. Again, we do not see this sector slowing down for the rest of the year.

It is also worthy of note, with the current Ukraine crisis, to see how many of our operators have gone public in refusing to sell Russian branded vodka and drinks. This is something that we see as potentially growing moving forward, one operator changing the name of their Moscow Mule to a Kiev Mule.

We have been liaising with the Night Time Industry Association and are looking forward to attending their event in Bristol on 7^th and 8^th April. Michael and his team have been phenomenal proponents and supporters of the night time sector during the most difficult 2 years, and we are excited to be involved. If this is something you are interested in then please register at https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/ntia-night-time-economy-summit-bristol-beacon-7th8th-april-2022-tickets-287899303567

We look forward to seeing you there.

Chris Rees-Gay and Amanda Usher had the pleasure of attending the first in person Institute of Licensing Gambling Conference post Covid on 06 October 2021.

A good turn out in the Grosvenor Casino in Manchester, speakers included representatives from the Gambling Commission, GamCare, a Local Authority and the industry. It was lovely to see everyone together in real life again.

First up GamCare took us through the relatively new Safer Gambling Standard and its pros and cons for both operators and local authorities. An interesting idea, and one which some operators have already invested in, however not one without problems. At the cost of the operator, GamCare will assess the practices and procedures of said operator before deciding whether to give it a seal of approval. A useful marker for local authorities when inspecting premises, however not accredited or approved by the Gambling Commission. Concerns were raised about the potential issues, including the costs involved and the actual benefit to such a sticker in the window.

GamCare do have some extremely useful resources for both operators and local authorities, including statistical data of problem gamblers and self-assessment tools (https://www.safergamblingstandard.org.uk/).

Concerns were also raised as to the financial viability of such a venture for many operators, particularly independents. Between the costs of the assessment itself, and the increased RET contributions, many were worried about operators being marked down for not having the stamp of approval.

A representative from a local authority then provided invaluable insight into their experiences of handling contested gambling premises applications. Faced with an application they felt was inadequate, the local authority discussed the trials and tribulations of what they described as the complexities of gambling applications.

The general feeling in the room from the representatives of various local authorities is that contested gambling application are rare beasts… this is certainly not the experience of Woods Whur!

For this particular application, the council felt under a great deal of pressure due to the lack of information provided by the operator, with no operating schedule (unlike in alcohol licensing), basic plans (in accordance with the legislation) and no pre application engagement from the operator.

The Gambling Commission gave a handy summary of the self-exclusion scheme, as well as stressing the importance of customer interaction. The need for robust and workable policies and procedures is now more important than ever, with the majority of current reviews being based, or at least including, customer interaction and responsible gambling failings. The most useful titbit to come from the Gambling Commission is their current opinion of thresholds for customer interactions, being that they are nearly always too high and intervention is happening too late.

Customer interaction policies and procedures must be outcome based to be effective and they must be adhered to. As always- recording is key and this was reiterated. If in doubt; write it down.

The Gambling Commission is struggling for resources, as the industry is aware, and both local authorities and operators are missing their physical presence across the country. It is hoped the increased application fees will help to alleviate some pressure and provide the Commission with some much needed additional resources.

The Gambling Commission also indicated they will be reviewing and updating the inspection guides (https://bizgateway.org.uk/business-support/business-regulation/gambling-commission/gambling-commission-assessment-templates/).

The open discussion, which included a panel made up of all of the speakers, was of particular interest. The Gambling Act review is of course at the forefront of everyone’s minds, and a great deal of discussion ensued regarding the possibility of a fourth licensing objective, namely public health. First brought up by the Local Authority early on in the day, many felt that input from their public health teams would be valuable, both when dealing with applications and for contested hearings. Also discussed but to no avail was the issue of gambling related training and the Gambling Commission’s reluctance to accredit, approve or indeed acknowledge any training courses. The operators are left to fend for themselves, which is particularly pertinent given the recent treatment of the PML holders at Caesars.

A legal round up was provided with particular focus on affordability and the upcoming review. It is always interesting to note what sort of problems are felt across the board, and at the moment the biggest problem for everyone is the issue of affordability. It was pointed out that if affordability becomes any more of an issue, gambling will be the only leisure activity for which a regulator can dictate how much a customer is allowed to spend.

The Gambling Act review is naturally capturing the industry’s imagination at the moment, with questions being posed as to which direction it might go in. A complete overhaul? Some tweaks here and there? Almost unanimously the room felt the addition of a definition of ‘vulnerability’ would go a long way to clearing up confusion surrounding the third licensing objection- the protection of children and vulnerable persons. The biggest dividing feature of the current Gambling Act, and consequently its place in any review, are the words ‘aim to permit’ in section 153… no guesses for who comes down on which side!

A major casino operator provided the context for the day. With clear and concise explanations of their business, the day to day struggles of a casino operator and where the big problems lie for operators in current times, it presented much needed balance for the day. The practical application of the rules and regulations is of most importance to operators, and the difficulties surrounding affordability were highlighted, in particular the difficulty in obtaining documents from customers. Many individuals are insulted, and quite often nervous, when asked to supply personal documents of a confidential nature.

The day was rounded off with a tour of the Casino- I don’t think anyone had a flutter but you never know!

If you have any queries on the above or any other gambling related matter please contact Chris Rees-Gay (Chris@www.woodswhur.co.uk)  or Amanda Usher (Amanda@www.woodswhur.co.uk).