Cookies on the Gambling Commission website

The Gambling Commission website uses cookies to make the site work better for you. Some of these cookies are essential to how the site functions and others are optional. Optional cookies help us remember your settings, measure your use of the site and personalise how we communicate with you. Any data collected is anonymised and we do not set optional cookies unless you consent.

Set cookie preferences

You've accepted all cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

Skip to main content
  1. Home
  2. About us
  3. 2023 Consultation on proposed changes related to financial penalties: Consultation Response

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.

Published
10 July 2025

Last updated
10 July 2025 - Changes

Document actions
Print or save (opens in new tab)

Contents

Proposal 7: Criteria for the imposition of a financial penalty

The wording of paragraph 2.2 of the existing Statement of Principles for Determining Financial Penalties (SoPfDFP) remained unchanged in the proposed version as stated in the consultation document, except that this paragraph has been renumbered to 2.3.

In the consultation document it was proposed that the wording of paragraph 2.3 of the existing version of the SoPfDFP (renumbered to paragraph 2.4 in the proposed version) be amended to clearly and transparently set out a range of factors which may be relevant when the Gambling Commission is considering whether a financial penalty would be an appropriate and proportionate outcome. We also sought views on the proposed amended list of factors the Commission may have regard to as set out in paragraph 2.4 of the proposed version.

The wording of paragraph 2.4 of the existing Statement of Principles for Determining Financial Penalties (SoPfDFP) remained unchanged in the proposed version, except that this paragraph has been renumbered to 2.5. We sought views on the extent to which the list of proposed circumstances in which a financial penalty would not normally be imposed is adequate.

Respondents' Views

Most respondents agreed with the list of factors as set out in paragraph 2.4 of the proposed version of the SoPfDFP (previously paragraph 2.3 of the existing SoPfDFP). In respect of those who disagreed, the comments showed that the disagreement was largely in relation to the proposed wording rather than the factors themselves. We have summarised the feedback provided by the respondents as follows:

Minor amendments to the wording for factors numbers a, b, h and i, in summary

In respect of the wording of factor “a”, some respondents suggested that we include the phrase “and whether the licensee has previously been subject to regulatory enforcement action”.

In respect of the wording of factor “b”, some respondents suggested that this be re-phrased to better align with the Commission’s practice around public statements. Other respondents suggested that this factor be removed from the list on the basis that all cases are different and that learning from previous cases involving other licencees is not always possible.

In respect of the wording of factor “h”, some respondents suggested that we include the phrase “and the extend of that impact”.

In respect of the wording of factor “i”, some respondents suggested that we include the phrases “where it could reasonably be concluded that the breach” and “might have damaged confidence in the gambling industry”.

Most respondents indicated disagreement with the list of proposed circumstances in which a financial penalty would not normally be imposed as set out in paragraph 2.5 of the proposed version (previously paragraph 2.4 of the existing version of the SoPfDFP). We have summarised the feedback provided by the respondents as follows.

Suggested inclusion of Society Lotteries, registered charities and Personal Licence (PL) holders in the list

Some of the respondents suggested the inclusion of Society Lotteries; registered charities (or where the beneficiaries are good causes) and PL holders as an additional circumstance where a financial penalty would not normally be imposed, on the basis that imposing a financial penalty on such organisations or categories of people would result in funds being diverted away from the beneficiary or ‘good cause’ or have a disproportionate financial effect.

Further clarification and detail requested

Most of the feedback received from those respondents who indicated disagreement with question 20 suggested that more clarity was required in respect of when the Gambling Commission would not normally impose a financial penalty. Some respondents suggested that it would be helpful for the Commission to provide examples for each of the listed criteria in paragraph 2.5 of the proposed version. Some respondents also requested clarification on the meaning of “minor in nature” and in what circumstances the Commission would consider “other regulatory action [to be] more appropriate”.

Our position

In respect of paragraph 2.4 of the amended version of the SoPfDFP, we have considered the comments raised by stakeholders in the consultation responses and have made changes to the wording of factors “a”; “b”; “h” and “i” in line with the suggestions received.

We have considered the comments raised by stakeholders in the consultation responses and have made the following changes to the wording of paragraph 2.5 of the amended SoPfDFP (previously 2.4 in the existing version).

In response to the feedback received in the consultation, we have changed the word “minor” in paragraph 2.5a) of the amended version of the SoPfDFP to “trivial” and we have added the phrase “in that it does not pose a risk to the Licensing objectives, the interest of consumers and the wider public”. Although these are not substantive changes to the proposed version, it is the Commission’s view that the amended version is sufficiently clear.

We have not included society lotteries, charities or personal licence holders as suggested by some of the respondents as we do not think it is appropriate to do so. The Act affords the Commission the power to consider imposing a financial penalty if we consider it the most appropriate sanction available regardless of the type of licence holder.

Final wording

This requirement will come into force on 10 October 2025.

Paragraphs 2.3 to 2.5 of the amended SoPfDFP

Criteria for the imposition of a financial penalty

2.3. By virtue of section 121(7) of the Act, in considering the imposition of a penalty, the Commission must have regard to:

  1. the seriousness of the breach of condition in respect of which the penalty is proposed.
  2. whether the licensee knew or ought to have known of the breach
  3. the nature of the licensee (including, in particular, the licensee’s financial resources).

2.4. The Commission may also have regard to such matters as it considers relevant including (but not limited to):

  1. whether the breach of a licence condition is an example of repeat behaviour by the licensee and whether the licensee has previously been subject to regulatory enforcement action.
  2. whether the licensee has adequately demonstrated its consideration of previous Commission cases and their published lessons learnt
  3. the timeliness of the licensee’s admissions and remedial actions for licence condition breaches
  4. whether the licence condition breach was intentional or reckless
  5. whether the licensee could have prevented the licence breach
  6. a breach of a licence condition arising from a systemic failure
  7. where the licence condition breach gave rise to financial gain for the licensee
  8. whether the breach of a licence condition caused or had the potential to cause harm to consumers, and if so the extent of any such harm
  9. whether the licence condition breach could reasonably be expected to have undermined public confidence in the gambling industry
  10. whether the licensee was aware of the licence condition breach but did not report it
  11. whether the licensee’s response to licence condition breaches and failures was timely and effective
  12. where a financial penalty is necessary to deter future contraventions or failures and to encourage compliance.

The scope of this document

2.5. A financial penalty will not normally be used in the following circumstances (the list is not exhaustive):

  1. if the breach of a licence condition was trivial in nature, in that it does not pose a risk to the Licensing objectives, the interest of consumers and the wider public
  2. if the breach, or possibility of a breach, of a licence condition would not have been likely to be apparent to a diligent licensee
  3. if the Commission considers that other regulatory action is more appropriate.

Previous section
Proposal 6: The purpose of imposing a financial penalty Next section
Proposal 8: Criteria for determining the quantum of a financial penalty
Is this page useful?
Back to top