MAGAZINE OF THE EUROPEAN LOTTERIES, 2011, SEPTEMBER ...

ways of checking whether or not a ticket is a winner,
which may include details at the Lottery website,
Lottery hotline centre, newspapers published
results, win checkers in agents/retailers.
• Clear advice for players on personalising the ticket
by writing or signing their names on the ticket at
time of purchase not just when it is believed to be a
winner.
• A clear set of guidelines and guidance for retailers/
agents when checking a ticket, paying out a winner
etc.
• A comprehensive training programme for retailers
and staff that includes the payment of prizes and
the checking of tickets.
• A robust sanction process in place for agents who
do not comply with guidance and formal retailer
agreement.
• A system for when a winning ticket is scanned on
a Lottery terminal - an audible fanfare and flashing
light indicating the status of the ticket.
(System cannot be interfered with e.g. turned down
or off etc)
• A customer facing screen that informs players in
real time whether or not the ticket being scanned
is a winner (Must not be able to be disabled by the
retailer).
• At retailers / agents ‘win checkers” machines installed
that enable a player privately to self check a
ticket.
• As part of the retailer agreement an obligation to
give a written record / receipt showing the status of
a ticket when it has been scanned.
• Vigorous and comprehensive vetting of all retailers
and potential retailers to ensure they are suitable
to be operating the Lottery.
• A ‘free’ hot line for ticket checking and the registering
of complaints, advice etc.
• A system / process for monitoring of unusual retailer
activity including excessive cancellations of
tickets, excessive attempts at validations of non
winning tickets and player complaints regarding
allegations of under payment or non payment of
prizes.
• A system to track all prizes over a set reasonable
limit (dependant on local circumstances) to ascertain
whether the claimant is a retailer, a member of
the retailer staff or in any other way involved with
the lottery.
• A system for a terminal to be frozen when a high
tier winning ticket is scanned (Local circumstances
dictate level).
• High tier winners paid out at nominated Lottery
premises and subjected to rigorous checks to ensure
integrity without compromising the winning
experience.
It is not proposed for one moment that any Lottery
would implement all of the above and it is suggested
that a suitable strategy should be a layered (onion
skin) approach. If one preventative measure is compromised
there is another back up action from a different
perspective.
With the above in place a Lottery and regulator needs
EL ACTIVITIES
to be satisfied and sure that the measures in place are
working. How can this be carried out?
Some Lotteries have implemented a ‘mystery shopper’
programme for reviewing procedures at agents/
retailers with strong sanctions in place if it is discovered
that a retailer or member of staff is not complying
with the retailer agreement or operator directives.
The schemes seem to work best when the process is
heavily publicised and the retailer is aware that they
are likely to be visited. They, of course, have no idea
of the exact date and time of any visits.
A number of Lotteries in North America and one in
Europe have taken the mystery shopper concept one
stage further and visit retailers with winning tickets
which the retailer is requested to check. They have
no idea that the request is made by a Lottery employee
and it is very apparent whether or not they
are complying with the agreed process and paying
the correct prize.
Again advanced generic publicity of the scheme is an
important deterrent factor with dishonest retailers
possibly liable to criminal prosecution. For higher
tier winners the cooperation and involvement of
ticket manufactures to work in partnership with the
operator has been a fundamental key to the overall
success of the operation.
A mystery shopper project can be targeted on “suspected”
retailers or, as in Europe cover the whole
retailer estate with over 20,000 visits per year. A massive
undertaking but considered cost effective for the
reassurance, public trust and confidence it gives.
The Lotteries involved can never be accused of ignoring
the possibility of retailer fraud or of not taking
the issue seriously.
Another alternative solution is by a European Lottery
which has a well developed and refined player
registration programme. In this jurisdiction you are
not able to play the lottery unless registered to do so.
This ensures that prizes are paid automatically with
no possibility of retailer fraud and no unclaimed
prizes. However the registration card programme
may not be suitable for every operator.
As far as integrity and security are concerned tremendous
progress has been made over the last few
years, but with the real possibility of a breakdown of
player trust and confidence it is felt that the payment
of prizes and retailer fraud will continue to be a major
concern for Lottery operators. Undoubtedly future
lottery security seminars will have this as a main
presentation session and discussion.
John Branscombe
J2B Security Ltd.
23 NEWS 37 SEPTEMBER 2011