Guidance
Guidance to licensing authorities
The Gambling Commission's guidance for licensing authorities.
Contents
- Changes to the Guidance for Licensing Authorities
- Part 1: General guidance on the role and responsibilities of licensing authorities in gambling regulation
-
- Introduction
- Partnership working between the Commission and licensing authorities – shared regulation
- Co-ordination and contact
- Primary legislation
- Statutory aim to permit gambling
- The licensing objectives
- Codes of practice
- Licensing authority discretion (s.153 of the Act)
- Local risk assessments
- Licensing authority policy statement
- Limits on licensing authority discretion
- Other powers
- Part 2: The licensing framework
- Part 3: The Gambling Commission
- Part 4: Licensing authorities
- Part 5: Principles to be applied by licensing authorities
- Part 6: Licensing authority policy statement
- Part 7: Premises licences
- Part 8: Responsible authorities and interested parties definitions
- Part 9: Premises licence conditions
- Part 10: Review of premises licence by licensing authority
- Part 11: Provisional statements
- Part 12: Rights of appeal and judicial review
- Part 13: Information exchange
- Part 14: Temporary use notices
- Part 15: Occasional use notices
- Part 16: Gaming machines
- Part 17: Casinos
-
- Casino premises
- Casino games
- Protection of children and young persons
- The process for issuing casino premises licences
- Resolutions not to issue casino licences
- Converted casinos (with preserved rights under Schedule 18 of the Act)
- Casino premises licence conditions
- Mandatory conditions – small casino premises licences
- Mandatory conditions – converted casino premises licences
- Default conditions attaching to all casino premises licences
- Self-exclusion
- Part 18: Bingo
- Part 19: Betting premises
- Part 20: Tracks
-
- Definition of a track
- Track premises licences – differences from other premises licences
- Betting on tracks
- Licences and other permissions for the provision of betting facilities
- Betting on event and non-event days
- Social responsibility considerations for tracks
- Gaming machines
- Self-service betting terminals (SSBTs)
- Applications
- Licence conditions and requirements
- Part 21: Adult gaming centres
- Part 22: Licensed family entertainment centres
- Part 23: Introduction to permits
- Part 24: Unlicensed family entertainment centres
- Part 25: Clubs
- Part 26: Premises licensed to sell alcohol
- Part 27: Prize gaming and prize gaming permits
- Part 28: Non-commercial and private gaming, betting and lotteries
- Part 29: Poker
- Part 30: Travelling fairs
- Part 31: Crown immunity and excluded premises
- Part 32: Territorial application of the Gambling Act 2005
- Part 33: Door supervision
- Part 34: Small society lotteries
-
- Small society lotteries
- The status of lotteries under the Act
- Licensing authority guidance
- Social responsibility
- External lottery managers’ licence status
- Lottery tickets
- Prizes
- Specific offences in relation to lotteries
- Application and registration process for small society lotteries
- Administration and returns
- Part 35: Chain gift schemes
- Part 36: Compliance and enforcement matters
- Appendix A: Summary of machine provisions by premises
- Appendix B: Summary of gaming machine categories and entitlements
- Appendix C: Summary of gaming entitlements for clubs and alcohol-licensed premises
- Appendix D: Summary of offences under the Gambling Act 2005
- Appendix E: Summary of statutory application forms and notices
- Appendix F: Inspection powers
- Appendix G: Licensing authority delegations
- Appendix H: Poker games and prizes
- Appendix I: Glossary of terms
Proposal 10: Step 2 (a) - The seriousness of the breach to determine the starting point of the penal element
Under the existing process the Gambling Commission considers a number of factors in determining the seriousness of the breach. Some of these factors are considered at the same time and in concert with factors more associated with mitigating or aggravating factors. Therefore, we proposed to separate Step 2 into 2 distinct stages to avoid the risk of double-counting or duplication, as follows:
- Step 2(a): Determining the seriousness of the breach
- Step 2(b): Determining the starting point of the penal element of the fine.
Under Step 2(a) we proposed setting out a non-exhaustive but detailed list of factors which the Commission may have regard to when assessing seriousness, separate and distinct from the factors which may be considered mitigating or aggravating factors (to be considered under Steps 3 and 4). We also proposed categorising the seriousness of the breach using a 5-point scale.
We sought views on:
- the list of factors proposed under paragraph 2.11 that the Commission would consider in order to determine the seriousness of the breach
- whether consideration of those factors to inform the categorisation of the seriousness of the breach should be done using a 5-point scale
- the list of factors and descriptions proposed at paragraph 2.14 to determine the levels of seriousness of the breach.
We also invited general comments.
Consultation questions
Questions 29 to 32, as detailed in Annex 2, related to this document.
Respondents’ views
The responses to questions 29 to 32 were very mixed.
In relation to question 29, most respondents disagreed with the list of factors proposed under paragraph 2.11 on the basis, generally, that there was a lack of clarity in the way that they were drafted. Many respondents provided suggested alternative wording for which the Commission is grateful.
In relation to questions 30 and 31, most respondents who responded either agreed or neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposed 5-point scale for the categorisation of the seriousness of the breach. In respect of those who disagreed, the accompanying comments suggested that the respondents agreed with the principle of a 5-point scale, but their disagreement was largely in relation to the proposed wording of the factors in the table provided at paragraph 2.14 rather than the factors themselves, and with the proposed methodology for determining the level of seriousness of the breach.
Our position
We have considered the comments raised by stakeholders in the consultation responses and have made the following changes to the wording of paragraphs 2.11, 2.12, 2.13 and 2.14 of the amended Statement of Principles for Determining Financial Penalties (SoPfDFP):
At paragraph 2.11 we included the phrase “(this is not an exhaustive list)” to clarify that the list of circumstances for determining seriousness of the breach is not intended to be finite. In respect of the changes made to the list of circumstances at paragraph 2.11, the following changes have been made:
- we have added the words “and potential impact” after “impact” for circumstance “g” of the amended version of the SoPfDFP and removed the reference to the sum calculated at Step 1 in line with the feedback received
- we have added the words “likely to have been” before “affected” and the words “or potential effect” after “effect” for circumstance “h” of the amended version of the SoPfDFP in line with the feedback received
- we have removed circumstance “l” from the list in line with the feedback received.
We have swapped the order of paragraphs 2.12 and 2.13 of the proposed version of the SoPfDFP in the amended version to improve the clarity of this section.
At paragraph 2.12 of the amended version (previously 2.13 of the proposed version) we have amended the wording to improve the clarity of the paragraph in line with the feedback received.
In respect of the table of factors listed under paragraph 2.14, we have made numerous changes to improve the clarity of the wording in line with the feedback received.
Final wording
This requirement will come into force on 10 October 2025.
Paragraphs 2.11 to 2.14 of the amended SoPfDFP
Step 2: The seriousness of the breach to determine the starting point of the penal element
Step 2(a) Determining the seriousness of the breach
2.11.The Commission will first make an assessment to determine the level of seriousness of the breach(es) taking account of all of the circumstances to the case, which may include consideration of (this is not an exhaustive list):
- the impact on the licensing objectives
- the nature of the breach
- the scale of the breach across the licensed entity and/or group
- the absence of internal controls or procedures intended to prevent the breach
- the duration or frequency of the breach
- whether the breach was carried out deliberately or recklessly
- the impact and potential impact on consumers and the wider public
- the number of consumers likely to have been affected by the failings
- whether the breach had an effect or potential effect on vulnerable consumers, whether intentionally or otherwise
- the level of any potential financial gain, financial gain or intended financial gain from the breach either directly or indirectly
- whether the breach continued after the licensee became aware of it (and prior to the Commission’s point of knowledge)
- the extent of any attempt to conceal the failure or breach
- the involvement of middle and senior management including consideration as to whether they are complicit in the failings or ignorant of them
- the awareness and involvement of company boards including consideration as to whether they conducted the business with integrity.
2.12. The Commission will exercise its judgment to determine the level of seriousness, taking into account all the circumstances of the case and considering all factors it considers to be relevant.
2.13. Based on the Commission’s assessment of the relevant factors a level of seriousness will be assigned. The level of seriousness ranges from Level 1 (least serious) to Level 5 (most serious). Level 5 is reserved for the most serious cases.
2.14. The table below describes the factors the Commission may consider when assessing the level of seriousness. It is not intended to be a prescriptive list, and it is ultimately a matter of judgment for the Commission to consider by reference to the circumstances of a case. It is not necessary for all factors listed to be present in order to determine a breach at a particular level. In some circumstances a minimal number of factors may be sufficient to determine that a breach falls within a particular category of seriousness.
Levels of seriousness 1 to 5 | Factor(s) |
---|---|
Level 1 |
|
Level 2 |
|
Level 3 |
|
Level 4 |
|
Level 5 |
|
Last updated: 10 July 2025
Show updates to this content
No changes to show.