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

Peter William Turpin

Account number

35374

Location

SOUTHAMPTON


Regulatory actions

Sanction
What is a sanction?

When a licence holder has not followed rules and regulations aimed at ensuring gambling is fair, safe and crime-free, we can take action and impose the following sanctions:

  • Give the licensee a warning
  • Add, remove, or amend a condition to the licence
  • Suspend a licence
  • Revoke a licence
  • Impose a financial penalty

Decision date: 26 November 2020

Outcomes: Warning

Details of action

Following a licence review, the Commission decided to issue Mr Peter William Turpin with a warning under section 117(1)(a) of the Gambling Act 2005.

The reason for this decision was because, as a Personal Management Licence holder whilst employed by Caesars Entertainment UK Limited (CEUK) with oversight of the day to day management of the licensed activities at an identified number of premises licensed under Part 8 of the Act, Mr Turpin failed to take all reasonable steps to ensure:

  • policies, procedures and controls were implemented effectively, kept under review and revised appropriately ensuring they remained effective, taking into account any applicable learning or guidelines published by the Gambling Commission, putting CEUK in breach of licence condition 12.1.1.3
  • CEUK complied with the requirements of social responsibility code provision 3.4.1 (Customer interaction) relevant at the time of the failings. 

In reaching our decision we acknowledge that some of the failings identified at CEUK were not within Mr Turpin’s direct control. In addition, Mr Turpin was not solely accountable for the failings identified within the licensed premises which were systemic within the business.

Mr Turpin has been open and transparent throughout our engagement with him.

Is this page useful?
Back to top