Consultation response
Changes to LCCP on ADR, CI and RET contributions
A summary of the responses to our consultations on changes to LCCP requirements for customer interaction and alternative dispute resolution (ADR) providers.
Contents
- Executive Summary
- Introduction
- Alternative dispute resolution
- Customer interaction
-
- Introduction
- Consultation proposal
- Proposed changes to Social responsibility code 3.4.1 (1a)
- Proposed changes to Social responsibility code 3.4.1 (1c)
- Proposed changes to Social responsibility code 3.4.1 (2)
- Our proposal to remove ordinary code 3.4.2
- Amended Social Responsibility Code 3.4.1 Customer Interaction
- Research, Prevention and Treatment contributions
- Appendix A: Amended social responsibility code of practice 6.1.1 – complaints and disputes
- Appendix B: Amended social responsibility code of practice 3.4.1 – customer interaction
- Appendix C: Amended social responsibility code of practice 3.1.1 – combatting problem gambling
Proposal 3: Clarification of relevant persons
Proposal
Updated paragraph 3.10
In considering operating licence applications the Commission will include assessment of the suitability of those persons considered relevant to the application. The persons considered relevant may vary depending on the information provided in the operating licence application and on company structure, but are likely to exercise a function in connection with, or to have an interest in, the licensed activities. It may also include shadow directors, persons or other entities who are controllers of the applicant and/or those who are its ultimate beneficial owners.
Consultation question
Q7. Do you agree that these examples will assist operators in identifying what is a relevant person and providing necessary information about them to the Commission?
Respondents’ views
The majority of respondents agreed with the proposal and many commented that relevant persons should be subject to scrutiny.
Respondents also commented that:
- further examples and guidance were needed on who could be considered relevant persons
- the limited additional examples appear to give the Commission a significant amount of discretion as to who is considered relevant.
Our position
Whilst the Commission has made a minor amendment to the paragraph following responses, we do not intend to provide further examples because this is a policy statement and not intended to provide exhaustive lists.
The Gambling Act 2005 necessarily gives the Commission discretion as to who are considered relevant persons. It is an applicant’s responsibility to identify who might be relevant, bearing the Policy in mind, but the Commission will, on a case-by-case basis, identify and ask for information about who it considers may be relevant persons not identified by an applicant.
Last updated: 27 January 2026
Show updates to this content
Formatting changes only.