Fourth issue in a row where the issue is with Camelot. That’s a record.

Kim Gorny writes: “My shop is a village post office serving the needs of a rural Gloucestershire village plus three small hamlets, and total population is just 600. We are not on any ‘rat-run’ or through route for passing trade, and there is no local industry or major employer; all our trade is to an increasingly aged resident population.”

She got the lottery through the Post Office with no requirement at the time for a minimum turnover. But she adds: “We have now received letters from Camelot saying we are on a Sales Improvement Programme as we are not turning over £800 a week. If we don’t reach this threshold by 12 April, ‘the decision will be to terminate your Retailer Agreement with us and remove your National Lottery terminal.’

“We have made efforts to increase the turnover including more use of the publicity signage and the creation of a village syndicate, which in three weeks has already risen to £60 per week from villagers, showing their commitment to keeping the terminal, but we are still well short of the Camelot figures.”

Kim has done her best for her villagers, including re-siting the shop to provide more services in the village. The business maximises locally-produced goods and tries to cut down the food-miles villagers have to travel wherever possible.

“Taking out the terminal will reverse all we are trying to do,” says Kim.

Before contacting Camelot I asked Kim where the next closest outlet was in terms of miles as I suspected it must be less than that four-mile limit that Camelot recently used to redefine its ‘community status’. Indeed, there was another terminal in a village three miles away.

In view of her good point of trying to reduce mileage for an ageing population I asked Camelot whether there were ever any exceptions.

I’ll say this for them: I got a full response. More than 500 words and all very reasonable, too.

But I’ll have to summarise. No, no exceptions. Their job is to maximise returns. End of.

Topics