Category: Uncategorised

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).

 

The powers available to implement a local lockdown are contained under the Coronavirus Act 2020 and also under the Public Health Act 1984 in which the government can make new health protection regulations to initiate local lockdowns.

We have seen that Leicester has been subject to a “local lockdown” due to the disproportionate rise in Coronavirus cases in that area. The “local lockdown” restricts movement of people, in particular the restriction of events or gatherings in accordance with Schedule 22 of the Coronavirus Act 2020. Leicester has also seen the delay of reopening of their pubs and non-essential retail have been forced to close again as a result of the “local lockdown”.

The above poses practical questions as to the effect of the “local lockdown” has on organisations and, in particular, how your organisation is affected even if you operate beyond the lockdown area. You may need to consider how your operations could be affected by reliance on  suppliers, employees, customers located in these areas or are there areas which if subject to lockdown could expose your organisation to difficulty in operating there and perhaps nationally.

Enforcement available within the “local lockdown” area is the same as that in which we all faced in March, April and May which was in place across the whole country. Insurance considerations are also important and it would be a good time to review any insurance policies you have that may include cover for such disruption or contingencies.

It is likely that the government will seek to implement further “local lockdown” areas depending on where outbreaks occur in the country and we will be keeping a watchful eye on how this will be enforced and the practical issues that will arise as a result of “local lockdowns”.

It is important that you consider within any contingency planning or risk assessments how a “local lockdown” in the current climate may affect your operations and certainly any employees that may not be able to attend in person where usually the easing of the lockdown restrictions would allow this to happen.

If you have any questions or concerns about how this will affect your operations, then please contact us to discuss your options. You can reach the regulatory team by contacting James or Sarah on james@www.woodswhur.co.uk or sfrow@www.woodswhur.co.uk or alternatively by calling 0113 234 3055.

On 16 July 2019, the Government published a response to its consultation on whether to increase the amount of money that society lotteries can raise for good causes. This was welcome news to the society lottery sector, as some operators were considering applying for a second operating licence, in accordance with the regulations, to increase a potential fundraising ability by way of a lottery product.

Despite the response to the consultation, there was little action  by the Government immediately to allow this to be confirmed in law by way of a Statutory Instrument. This is largely down to Government time being spent mainly on Brexit and then, more recently, the General Election in December 2019.

On 19 December 2019, in anticipation of the changes to the law regarding the financial limits, the Gambling commission opened a consultation into the changes to the financial limits and also social responsibility changes. This consultation was titled ‘society lottery reform’. The consultation closed on 12 March 2020 and the response was published on 30 April 2020.

The response from the consultation confirmed that the Gambling Commission will amend the Licence Conditions and Codes of Practice (LCCP) to come into effect from 29 July 2020.

The amendments to the LCCP include amendments to licence conditions:

• 11.1.1.2;
• 11.2.1.2;
• 11.1.1.5;
• 11.1.1.6; and
• Addition of social responsibility code 4.3.3.

These changes stipulate that a lottery promoted in reliance on the licence may not exceed £5 million and the aggregate of the proceeds of lotteries promoted wholly or partly in a calendar year may not exceed £50 million. These changes will come into effect immediately from 29 July 2020, therefore there is a further licence condition setting out the financial limits applicable for 2020 only. This licence condition reads:

“2b –  In 2020, the aggregate of the proceeds of lotteries promoted wholly or partly in a calendar year may not exceed £31,311,475”.

This will be welcome news to society lotteries that have been edging closer to the previous limit of £10 million aggregate proceeds in one calendar year and considering its long term lottery strategy. The changes to the financial limits mean an increase of £40 million in a calendar year for aggregate proceeds.

In addition to the “main news” relating to the financial limit increase, the consultation resulted in an addition to social responsibility code 4.3.3.  This social responsibility code states:

“1. Licensees must ensure that clear, transparent and easily accessible information is made available to consumers to enable them to make an informed choice prior to participating in a lottery.  This must include, but is not restricted to details of how proceeds are used and the likelihood of winning a prize and how prizes are allocated. 

2. Licensees must take into account the Commission’s guidance on information to lottery players”.

 The Gambling Commission have published a guidance note dated April 2020 that goes into a little more detail regarding how to be transparent and easily accessible for the purposes of meeting this social responsibility code.  It is likely that this guidance will raise further questions to ensure compliance, but it appears to promote transparency, similar to what the Charity Commission requires for registered charities.

Both of the changes mentioned above to the LCCP will be in effect from 29 July 2020 which alongside the ban on credit cards that came into  effect from 14 April 2020, shows that the Gambling Commission are making big changes this year. This is somewhat overshadowed by covid-19 and what operators have had to deal with as a result of this disruption. However, it carries on the line of stricter regulation by the Gambling Commission and an increased focus on protection against gambling harms.

If you would like to discuss the change to the LCCP and how this may affect your operations, then please do not hesitate to contact Sarah Frow (sfrow@www.woodswhur.co.uk) or Andy Woods (andrew@www.woodswhur.co.uk), in the lottery and gaming team.

What’s happened?

The Government have put in place emergency measures as a result of the coronavirus outbreak. Almost every business is affected as all individuals have been advised to work from home unless it is absolutely necessary and essential that they leave their home.

What does this mean?

As a result of this, businesses face unprecedented challenges to continue to operate and ensure employee safety whilst remaining the least disruption to ensure commercial consistency. Government advice appears to be updated and rapidly moving and it is important that businesses check this on a daily basis.

There is currently an emergency legislative bill going through the House of Commons that we expect to receive Royal Assent immediately. This, amongst other emergency measures, sets out amendments to the Statutory Sick Pay (SSP) regime and protection for commercial tenants as follows:

• SSP will be paid from day 1 rather than day 4. This will apply retrospectively from 13 March 2020;
• SSP will be fully reimbursed by the Government to the employer (that employs fewer than 250 employees) for up to two weeks to ensure that individuals are encouraged to stay at home whilst they experience symptoms;
• Commercial tenants who cannot pay their rent because of coronavirus COVID-19 will be protected from eviction. The Government have specifically confirmed this is not a rental holiday and tenants are still liable for rent.

In addition to the bill, there are a number of schemes that have been set up the Government as a result of the restrictions placed on individuals and businesses because of the coronavirus outbreak. To summarise, these are as follows:

• Protection of income for employees under the ‘job retention scheme’. HMRC will reimburse 80% of furloughed workers wage costs, up to a cap of £2,500 per month. This is currently being set up by HMRC and we continue to review any news on this in the near future;
• Schemes regarding grants and loans for businesses;
• VAT and income tax deferral for all businesses;
• Business rates cut for businesses in the retail, hospitality and leisure businesses or small business rate relief/tapered relief businesses.

The full support for businesses guidance is available on the following Government web page: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/guidance-to-employers-and-businesses-about-covid-19/covid-19-support-for-businesses#support-for-businesses-through-the-coronavirus-job-retention-scheme

What’s next?

The Government are providing daily updates and also publish emails to any changes to advice online at the gov.uk/coronavirus webpage. Please keep checking this page for any changes to advice for employers and, if you are unsure about something, contact Woods Whur for further assistance. These are unprecedented times and the details in the guidance provided by the Government is changing daily to ensure clarification and avoid confusion.

In the meantime, businesses may wish to review their insurance cover terms and conditions to ascertain whether this disruption is covered under its relevant commercial insurance.

FAQ’s

• What happens if everyone is working from home and we have to complete our lottery draw on-site?

The lottery must still be operated and run in a fair and open way, in accordance with the licensing conditions and codes of practice. The current restrictions do not waive operators obligations and duties of being a responsible operator in accordance with a licence provided by the Gambling Commission. There has been no announcement as to relaxation of this and therefore if the draw cannot be completed with the relevant people there and in accordance with the games relevant terms and conditions then the draw must be suspended. Communication of this to players and payment must be managed accordingly.

• What if someone is displaying signs of illness and continues to come into the workplace, can we send them home?

Yes. The Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 imposes a duty on employers to take reasonable steps to protect employees health and safety. There is guidance issued by the Government specifically for employers and employees and employers should be asking employees that are displaying symptoms to read that guidance as it may affect others in the household (i.e. if someone else within the house is experiencing symptoms then the household should remain in self-isolation for 2 weeks). Please note the Government advises that no employees should be at work if they are able to work from home, without symptoms.

• How will this affect the Gambling Commission and contact with them?

The Gambling Commission have published a press release and confirm they are now working remotely. The Account manager details you have on your e-services platform will still be the same and, if you need to make contact, you should do so by email or leaving a message on the telephone, which has been in place before the restrictions were put in place.