Report
Lived experiences of affected others: Qualitative research
Lived experiences of affected others: Qualitative research
Formal tools and operator practices
Affected others’ awareness of formal safer gambling tools tended to emerge reactively, at crisis point, through urgent searching as opposed to planned or early intervention. Common search terms described by participants (such as 'my partner won’t stop gambling' or 'how to block gambling apps') led them to tools like GAMSTOP, deposit and spending limits within gambling apps, blocking and filtering software such as Gamban, and banking or payment card restrictions including limits on withdrawals and certain transaction types.
For a smaller number, awareness came through GP appointments when their own mental health had deteriorated, or through contact with organisations such as GamCare.
The following accounts reflect how affected others experienced and understood formal tools and operator practices. Many participants had limited awareness of how the licensed gambling market operates, or of the regulatory distinctions between licensed and unlicensed operators. This itself is a significant finding, with direct implications for how information about protections reaches affected others. The rest of this section should be read in that context, rather than as accurate descriptions of how tools are designed to function6.
Where tools were used, affected others described a pattern of limitations. Participants understood that self-exclusion and deposit limits required the person gambling to initiate and maintain them, but also felt that they were often easy to bypass through new devices, alternative apps, different browsers, or mobile data. Limits could be increased or reset. Protections frequently applied to one app, device, or network only, rather than operating across the landscape as a whole. Affected others generally had no visibility over whether tools were active or had been bypassed, no alerts, and no mechanism for shared oversight. Among the small number who did have some visibility, the experience was often disheartening where they experienced protections as incomplete, found blocked content was only partially restricted, or that tools had been circumvented altogether.
Imogen and her partner’s experience speaks to this. After a difficult period, her partner self-excluded via GAMSTOP, which Imogen initially saw as a meaningful step. Despite this, gambling advertising continued to reach him, including marketing from operators explicitly positioning themselves outside GAMSTOP's scope. Imogen had no way of knowing that these were most likely to be unlicensed. What she experienced was the sense that a safeguard she had believed in had been undermined before it had a chance to work.
- Female gambler, 27, partner of person gambling
For affected others in this position of watching someone they care about try to stop while gambling advertising continues to pop up, the experience was often one of helplessness compounded by frustration, particularly given that the tools available required the person gambling’s active engagement to work.
For affected others who also gambled themselves, these limitations introduced an additional layer of complexity. Where gambling had been a shared activity, some worried that tools designed to restrict the person gambling’s access might affect their own ability to gamble too, creating an ambivalence about whether to use them at all.
The gap between the protections that exist, and what affected others can access, was particularly significant for Maddie. She had grown up standing outside betting shops as a child, waiting for her father to come out. Decades later, with her father living in assisted accommodation and showing signs of dementia, she found herself back at the same counter. This time, though, she went in.
Maddie visited her father’s regular betting shop of over 30 years to ask them not to let him spend too much. They said no. He came in with cash, they told her. It was his choice. There was nothing they could do, unless he displayed anti-social behaviour, which he never had.
Eventually, Maddie arranged for a withdrawal limit to be placed on her father’s bank account via his bank, preventing him from taking out more than £50 a day.
"But why couldn’t that same control be put in place in the betting shop?"
- Female non-gambler, 43, daughter of person gambling
Despite the limitations described above, it is worth noting that where participants were aware of formal tools, they were generally viewed as well-intentioned and meaningful in principle. One participant acknowledged the range of options available (spending limits, self-exclusion, Gamban, GAMSTOP), noting that “there are loads of things people can do.” And in some cases, tools did work as intended; a participant described asking her husband to self-exclude and him doing so. The frustration expressed was not with these tools in principle, but with their dependence on the person gambling’s willingness to engage with them – and with unlicensed operators who continued to market to those who had self-excluded through the regulated market.
The next section of the main report can be found on the Implications and recommendations page.
References
6 It is worth noting that some of the limitations affected others described reflect the behaviour of illegal or unlicensed operators, who are not subject to the same consumer protections as licensed operators in Great Britain and who may actively target people who have self-excluded. Where advertising continued to reach the person gambling despite GAMSTOP registration, this is likely to reflect the activity of operators outside the licensed market rather than a failure of the scheme itself. Similarly, the requirement for tools such as self-exclusion and deposit limits to be initiated and maintained by the individual is a deliberate design feature that preserves individual agency. These distinctions were not always visible to affected others, many of whom had limited awareness of how the licensed market operates or of the regulatory boundaries between licensed and unlicensed operators. This gap in awareness is a finding in itself, with implications for how information about protections reaches affected others.
Last updated: 25 June 2026
Show updates to this content
No changes to show.