Given the options put forward, it would seem that a massive increase in Gambling Commission fees are on their way. But not definitely. The industry has a compelling case to see the rise reduced, at least, and halted at best. Coinslot offers up 10 reasons why the 30pc rise is unreasonable. All you have to do is make your voice heard and tell the DCMS why the increase is excessive; why are you being asked to pay for the global war on illegal gambling; why you have to pay the local authority to fight illegal gambling and now the GC; and has anyone actually audited the Commission budget proposals.
There are only 9 days left to lodge your views on the DCMS consultation to up your annual Gambling Commission licence fees.
Three options are on the table – all proposing a significant rise in the regulator’s fees – ranging from the GC’s proposal of 30pc, to the government’s alternative of 20pc, and the government’s preferred option of 20pc plus an additional 10pc ringfenced to fight illegal gambling.
The industry’s last say will be on 29 March, with the great GC heist effective from 1 October this year.
So, what about no increase, we hear you say?
Well, there is no option for no increase on the table – officially.
For transparency purposes, this concept was effectively shut down in the Gambling Act Review which noted that the Commission should have the necessary resources to fund its extensive work.
However, rest assured: you can make your view on a no increase option known in the consultation.
According to DCMS sources, whilst there are only three options referenced, the consultation does enable you to take your response in any direction you choose.
How can I say no to a GC fee increase?
For those camped in the no increase lobby, you need to respond to Question 1 with a ‘Neither’/ ‘None of the above’ or a similar answer if you disagree with all three options.
When you continue your consultation response, Questions 2, 3 and 4 also offer opportunities to express other views and fee options – ten of which we identify in our objections panel.
And most importantly, it is Coinslot’s understanding that the DCMS will give the same weighting to the view of those that argue for no increase as they do to all responses received.
Why are we talking about a 30 percent increase and not about status quo?
That’s between the DCMS and the Gambling Commission, until now. The consultation is where the industry gets its say.
But a ‘no fee increase’ alternative has been raised directly, and consistently, with the DCMS by the Gambling Business Group, and Chief Executive Peter Hannibal has been championing the cause.
“It’s a disappointing absence for what is an obvious option,” he told Coinslot recently. “But we understand the framework set out in the GAR. However, the proposed increases are staggering in the current economic climate and certainly out of kilter with every measure of rate increases we see in the sphere of business and politics,” he explained.
“We all understand that the Gambling Act Review made clear that the Commission should be supported by the funds necessary to meet its regulatory responsibilities. But there cannot be many, if any bodies in the government sphere where a fee increase hits regulated businesses by almost one third.”
And he noted with a sense of irony: “By every standard, this simply doesn’t add up – because it certainly doesn’t equate to the refusal to increase stakes and prizes in the industry for over a decade.”
So, it’s no to a Triennial Review rise, but an instant yes to A GC fee increase?
The Triennial Review argument is a powerful one. The DCMS, with clear support from the Commission, has been waving away any prospect of a stakes and prize review since 21 February 2014. And yet the Commission gets a possible 30pc hike at the first time of asking.
How does that work?
Well, the Gambling Commission does need shiny new offices for its massive number of employees and salaries – both of which are rising at a rampant rate.
In its consultation, the DCMS does state: “The Commission has extended its existing office lease until September 2029 but cannot extend its lease beyond this date. If in 2029/30 the Commission is required to move into a government hub, it currently expects its accommodation costs to double. This would require further savings of c.£3.5 million per year from 2030/31 which have not been included in these proposals.”
Is the GC cost breakdown proposing a 30pc rise reasonable?
Virtually all in the industry would argue no, especially the claim concerning its impending office move.
The Commission’s explanation on this point detailed in the consultation will certainly stretch credulity in many circles.
Are we to believe that a move to a government hub will cost the Commission twice as much in rent as it would in private accommodation? And more importantly, given that it has to make every endeavour to reduce costs, that the industry must pay for that increase?
It’s moving to a government hub, it should be cheaper not double the price.
The Commission has so few obligations to its licensees – but among them is to support growth in the industry and reduce the burden of costs. How raising its costs to fund a massive increase in the regulator’s office space somehow doesn’t meet those requirements.
And what about the international black market. Why are we expected to fund that?
The land-based sector is right – the war on the black market is an international war that the Commission has put itself forward to marshal.
Apart from the minor fact that the regulator has failed to take the hundreds of illegal gaming machines for sale daily on EBay and other online sites out of the market since it launched nearly 20 years ago, it’s probably reasonable to say that GamCom might not be the best policing force to tackle a global black market.
Peter Hannibal also has issues with this too. “The industry is extremely concerned with, as you call it, the war on the global black market.”
“I don’t think the GAR had independent single site AGC operators and your local bingo club in mind to fund the operation to tackle illegal online gambling, probably operating out of Russia. As Coinslot has regularly reported, the Commission hasn’t managed to tackle those illegal operators on its own doorstep using fake GC licences. So, whether you believe the Commission has the quality or skill set to fight this war, let alone lead it – this clearly should not be funded by the UK land based sector, but from central government funding – and its international partners.”
It’s a powerful point and one that has to be added to the debate over Gambling Commission fees.
jUST SAY NO
So if you want to say no to a Gambling Commission fee increase, say no.
If you want to suggest areas where you feel the Commission is not spending your licence fees effectively, tell the DCMS.
And if you feel the Commission has taken on work that doesn’t fit with your view on what a gambling regulator should be doing, put it in your consultation response.
But ffs – fill the bloody consultation forms in.
Gambling Commission Fees Increase – 10 Reasons to Object
International Activities: The UK land based sector should not be funding the battle against an international online black market for which it has zero responsibility
Double Costing: The land-based sector already contributes financially to tackling illegal land based gambling through its premises licensing fees to local authorities. The 30 percent increase in GC fees for tackling illegal gambling is a double cost to land based operators.
Rate increase: The percentage increases under consideration are excessive at a time when every government department is being asked to cut its costs
Offices: The Commission office rental is due to double when it moves; it should be seeking rent reductions rather than increases and consideration should be given to a possible move to more deprived areas of the country where costs are far cheaper
Budget audit: The Commission’s budget requires an independent audit. And it should be subject to a critical review on behalf of those it regulates especially as they are being asked to cover the additional costs
Reducing costs: The Commission should be seeking to reduce its salaries, pensions and benefit costs rather than constantly increasing them
Black Market: The Commission has no jurisdiction overseas and therefore no right to use UK funds for its international forays
Competence: The Commission does not have the skill set to engage or lead the battle against the black market. It should be ‘regulating’, not crime fighting – that is the jurisdiction of other government departments
Regulation Audit: An audit of all GC regulations should be conducted and the unnecessary and burdensome requirements removed
Review: An independent review of all GC activities should be conducted against the GC’s core purpose, and all of the unnecessary, additional and unproductive tasks and actions proposed in its budget reviewed
Originally published on Coinslot on March 23, 2026. Republished with permission.