Consultation response
2023 Consultation on proposed changes related to financial penalties: Consultation Response
This response sets out our position in relation to the consultation on the proposed changes to the Statement of Principles for Determining Financial Penalties.
Contents
- Executive summary
- Introduction
- Summary of responses and our position
-
- Proposal 1: Principles for determining financial penalties
- Proposal 2: The framework of policies and procedures
- Proposal 3: The legal framework
- Proposal 4: The scope of this document
- Proposal 5: Key considerations
- Proposal 6: The purpose of imposing a financial penalty
- Proposal 7: Criteria for the imposition of a financial penalty
- Proposal 8: Criteria for determining the quantum of a financial penalty
- Proposal 9: Step 1 - Detriment to consumers and/or financial gain to the licensee
- Proposal 10: Step 2 (a) - The seriousness of the breach to determine the starting point of the penal element
- Proposal 11: Step 2 (b) - Determining the starting point of the penal element of the fine
- Proposal 12: Step 3 - Mitigating and aggravating factors
- Proposal 13: Step 4 - Adjustment for deterrence
- Proposal 14: Step 5 - Discount for early resolution
- Proposal 15: Step 6 - Affordability
- Proposal 16: Step 7 - Proportionality
- Proposal 17: Procedural matters, payment plans, time limits and payments in lieu of financial penalties
- Proposal 18: Indicative sanctions guidance
- Proposal 19: Impact of the proposals on protected characteristics stated in the Equality Act 2010
- Annex
Introduction
Under section 121 of the Gambling Act 2005 (the Act), the Gambling Commission may require the holder of an operating licence to pay a financial penalty if it thinks that a condition of the Licence has been breached. Our Statement of Principles for Determining Financial Penalties (SoPfDFP) is produced in accordance with section 121(6) of the Act which requires the Commission to, among other things, prepare a statement setting out the principles it will apply in exercising its powers to impose a financial penalty on a holder of an operating Licence or a personal Licence, and to have regard to the statement when exercising a power under this section. The Commission is required to review this statement from time to time and to revise it when necessary.
In our Winter consultation (opens in new tab) on Financial Penalties conducted between 15 December 2023 and 15 March 2024, we set out proposed changes to the SoPfDFP. The proposed revisions to the SoPfDFP included significant changes to the criteria for imposing a financial penalty and the methodology for determining the amount of the penalty as well as general revisions and updates to the existing wording.
In total we received 29 individual responses to the consultation from the following categories of respondents:
- 16 from a ‘person representing a gambling business’
- 6 from a ‘person representing a trade association’
- 5 from a ‘person representing a charity and/or non-profit’
- 1 ‘member of the public'
- 1 from an academic, responding as an individual.
Annex 1 lists the organisations and the individual that consented to the publication of their name when responding to the consultation.
There were 61 questions asked in relation to this consultation. Annex 2 sets out the consultation questions. The first 10 questions are not included in Annex 2 as they were administrative questions regarding the respondent’s information, rather than substantive questions regarding the proposed changes to the SoPfDFP. Generally, the substantive questions were two-fold in that firstly, they sought confirmation from the respondents regarding their level of agreement or disagreement with the proposed changes in the form of the following multiple-choice answers:
- strongly agree
- agree
- neither agree nor disagree
- disagree
- strongly disagree
- prefer not to say.
Secondly, a free text box was provided for the respondents to substantiate their answers and submit written feedback to the question.
The content and structure of this response
The consultation document presented each section of the proposed new SoPfDFP in the order they appear in the full SoPfDFP, with associated questions at the end of each section. Similarly, in this response we have summarised the responses received, and the decisions made by the Commission in respect of each section of the proposed new version of the SoPfDFP as they appear in the full statement, separately.
Due to the number of questions in the consultation, it has not been possible to list every question posed, the responses received and the Commission’s decision in this response. Therefore, we have sought to focus on the significant issues and themes raised through the consultation process which have influenced the changes made to the SoPfDFP.
This response does not detail the statistical breakdown of the answers to the multiple-choice questions, rather we have sought to provide a summary of the respondents’ views based on our consideration of both the answers to the multiple-choice part of the question and any accompanying comments. The reason for doing so is largely due to the fact that, in many instances, the multiple-choice answer did not align with the accompanying comment. This mostly occurred where the respondent selected “disagree” or “strongly disagree” as their answer to the first part of the question.
Example
Question 44 was “To what extent do you agree with the proposal that any adjustment for deterrence should be separate from the process for determining the starting point for the penalty at Step 2?”.
A respondent may have selected “strongly disagree” in response to this question, however the accompanying comment expressed disagreement with the proposed principle of the step, and not that it was an additional step, separate from the process for determining the starting point of the penalty.
As a result, we have avoided presenting the overall levels of agreement or disagreement based solely on the statistical breakdown of the answer to the multiple-choice part of the questions, and we sought to consider these answers in conjunction with the accompanying comments, where made.
In summary, this response sets out:
- a summary of the proposals, along with the views sought from the respondents in the form of the questions as set out in the consultation document
- a summary of the respondents’ views based on our evaluation of both the answers to the multiple-choice part of the question and any accompanying comments and/or feedback, where made
- our position following consideration of the respondents’ views, and our decisions including any resulting changes made to the SoPfDFP.
Executive summary - Changes related to financial penalties consultation response Next section
Summary of responses and our position - Changes related to financial penalties consultation response
Last updated: 10 July 2025
Show updates to this content
No changes to show.