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. Licensing authorities

Guidance

Guidance to licensing authorities

The Gambling Commission's guidance for licensing authorities.

Published
1 April 2021

Last updated
1 May 2024 - Changes

Document actions
Print or save (opens in new tab)

Contents

Proposal 2: Guidance change for licensees on checking a customer's age

Proposals

We sought views on changing the relevant ordinary code (good practice) elements of our licence conditions and codes of practice (LCCP) to say that licensees should have procedures that require their staff to check the age of any customer who appears to be under 25, rather than currently under 21.

Consultation question

To what extent do you agree with the proposed ordinary code change that licensees adopt a ‘Think 25’, rather than a ‘Think 21’ approach to age verification?

Respondents' views

This proposal received a similar response to the first proposal with around half of the total number of respondents agreeing. Out of the rest, a third disagreed and the remainder either had no strong view or did not answer the question. The proposal received a low number of responses from licensees. Of those that responded, the large majority supported it, noting that some licensees were already operating this standard voluntarily, that it was a well-recognised practice in other sectors and would help improve standards in the gambling sector. One disagreed, noting the potential benefits of digital ID technology in this area.

Similar proportions of members of the public agreed and disagreed with the proposal. Reasons for disagreeing were typically variations on the themes of the proposal being excessive or ‘overkill’ to deal with the issue of underage gambling, that the current age of 21 was sufficient or that people who were 21 should be considered responsible for their own actions. Some of those in agreement thought the proposal was a sensible approach, making age verification easier for employees and a way to align the industry with others that sell restricted products. Others agreed, but in the mistaken belief that we had proposed to increase the legal age to gamble to 25.

The proposal was supported by all licensing authorities, professional bodies and trade associations that responded, and by a large majority of charity and/or non-profit respondents, with those respondents generally noting that this proposal would bring the gambling sector into line with the sale of other age-restricted products.

As noted previously, this consultation asked for any comments on implementation issues, timelines and practicalities, and for an estimate of direct costs associated with implementing these proposals. Two larger licensees who responded to this question both suggested the same figure (£10,000) to implement this proposal across their estate, one suggesting that cost would include replacing ‘think 21’ with ‘think 25’ assets in their premises. One other licensee respondent did not provide a cost estimate, but did not anticipate additional costs other than the costs of revising and issuing updated customer communication and signage material across its estate. A trade body suggested that as its members already followed this proposal, there would be no additional cost to them. Another trade body considered there could be additional costs where cameras and remote age verification checks were deployed, as moving the age threshold would increase the number of checks.

Some licensees requested they be given adequate time to implement any necessary changes to aspects such as company policies, training and signage in premises.

Our position

As the consultation noted, pass rates for gambling premises compared favourably with those for the sale of alcohol at supermarkets and convenience stores, but there is still a significant minority of tests, particularly in Adult Gaming Centres (AGC) and bingo premises, where the tester is not challenged at all. While licensees must abide by the relevant Social Responsibility (SR) code requirements around age verification, it is otherwise up to them to decide how they meet the legal requirement to prevent underage gambling. As such, we consider it is appropriate to recognise that ‘think 25’ is a good practice recommendation and would bring gambling into line with other age-controlled sectors.

The government’s white paper noted that some licensees have reported going beyond our previous view of good practice and have voluntarily introduced a ‘Think 25’ approach when it comes to staff deciding when to challenge a customer about their age. There have been calls from both industry and campaign groups to introduce ‘Think 25’ as standard for all gambling in premises. This position was shared by the Advisory Board for Safer Gambling in its 2018 report which pointed to findings from the retail alcohol industry that premises challenging those who appeared to be under 25 were more successful in preventing underage access than those who only challenged those who appeared to be under 21.

We are not able to assess the individual cost estimates provided by licensees in response to this consultation. We recognise that, in order to follow this good practice, customers will need to know to expect to be challenged for ID if they appear to be under 25. As this approach has been adopted in other age-controlled sectors, licensees may be able to benefit from generic communications materials rather than creating something bespoke for their premises.

We note the response regarding cameras and remote age verification checks. We know some licensees use such technology to help control and monitor access to premises. However, there is no requirement from us to use such technology and it is up to licensees to decide how they manage the risk of underage gambling and comply with the requirements of our LCCP and the law.

Based on these factors and taking the respondents views into consideration, we will proceed to implement the change we proposed. Licensees will have three months’ notice for the revised LCCP provisions to come into effect.

Final wording of amended Social Responsibility Codes and Ordinary Codes

These changes will come into effect on 30 August 2024.

3.2.2 Casinos ordinary code

  1. Licensees should put into effect procedures that require their staff to check the age of any customer who appears to them to be under 25.

3.2.4 AGC ordinary code

  1. Licensees should put into effect procedures that require their staff to check the age of any customer who appears to them to be under 25.

3.2.6 Bingo and FEC ordinary code

  1. Licensees should require a person who appears to relevant staff to be under the age of 25 to be asked to produce proof of age, either at the point of entry to the gambling area or as soon as it comes to the attention of staff that they wish to access gambling facilities.

3.2.8 Betting ordinary code

  1. Licensees should put into effect procedures that require their staff to check the age of any customer who appears to them to be under 25.

Changes to associated guidance

We will also make changes to the following guidance documents, so they are consistent with the amended LCCP provisions:

LCCP Information requirements - Other information requirements (test purchase results).

Guidance to operators for age verification test purchasing (non-remote).

Is this page useful?
Back to top