Key Points
- The owner of three adult gaming clubs in Leicester, Holland Park Leisure, was given a fine of £150,000 for failing to adhere to the provisions of Provision 3.5.6 of the Social Responsibility Code.
- The case against the gambling operator was seen as an aggravated one since it involved a previous warning from the Commission, misleading information provided to investigators and failure to comply until the licence was revoked in October 2025.
- The sanction follows the move by PM Andy Burnham to withdraw automatic planning permission for adult gaming centres, with legal experts stating that the change cannot be achieved without legislation.
What are the conditions upon which the Gambling Commission imposes a fine on the operators? In the case of Holland Park Leisure Limited, the conditions were a rule to be mandatory but not being followed, an issued warning not being taken seriously, provision of misleading information to the investigators, and the suspension of the licence. And even after all this, the regulator continued with the imposition of the fine, which is going to be £150,000. On Tuesday, it was confirmed by the Gambling Commission that the fine imposed was on Holland Park, operating three adult gaming centres in Leicester city centre, due to failure to join a multi-operator self-exclusion scheme as per Social Responsibility Code Provision 3.5.6.
Self-exclusion schemes are very easy to understand. A person suffering from his/her gambling problem registers once, and all the venues that are members of the scheme are supposed to deny access to him/her. Participation in the self-exclusion scheme is a licensing requirement, not an option.
Warned, Then Caught Misleading Investigators
Before the Commission opened formal enforcement proceedings, Holland Park had already been put on notice. The regulator had advised the company of its non-compliance and given it the opportunity to fix the problem. Nothing changed. When investigators later examined the case, they found the company had not only failed to act but had also provided misleading information during the enquiry. Both facts were treated as significant aggravating factors when the penalty was calculated.
The operator eventually joined a multi-operator self-exclusion scheme, but only after the Commission suspended its licence in October 2025. The £150,000 fine covers the period of non-compliance before that suspension. Steps taken once the licence review began were noted, but not enough to avoid the penalty. Alongside the fine, Holland Park must now undergo an independent third-party audit examining its policies, procedures, controls, and staff competency.
John Pierce, the Commission’s director of enforcement and intelligence, left little room for ambiguity. “Self-exclusion schemes provide a crucial service for people who feel they are suffering gambling harm. It is important that all operators fully integrate with the scheme and maintain effective safeguards for self-excluded customers.”
His warning to the rest of the sector was just as pointed. “Every operator must ensure that they are fully participating in a recognised multi-operator self-exclusion scheme, that they have effective procedures to identify and prevent self-excluded customers from gambling in any of their premises, and that their staff are trained to manage self-exclusion and direct individuals to relevant support services. These are not optional requirements. They are fundamental licence conditions designed to protect consumers from harm, and operators that fail to meet them can expect regulatory action.”
This Is Not the First Time the Commission Has Had to Force the Issue
Holland Park’s case did not emerge from nowhere. It is part of a sustained enforcement drive against AGCs that has been building since mid-2025. A BBC File on 4 investigation in June 2025 sent the issue into public view when an undercover reporter, who had registered to self-exclude from all AGCs within a 40km radius of Portsmouth, was able to access gaming machines in 13 of the 14 venues he visited. At one point, a Merkur Slots branch sat just 100 metres from the venue that had correctly turned him away, yet allowed him to walk straight in and play. The Commission publicly described the findings as “very concerning” and launched its own investigation.
But the regulator continued its work. After contacting all licensed operators and reminding them of their duties, it turned out that six of these operators still were not members of any officially approved program and had their licenses immediately suspended. For example, Wyke Gaming and Amusement Centre located in Bradford received a similar warning in May 2025, when the Commission noted that the venue had exceeded the legal limit for category B gaming machines. Though most licenses have already been returned, these operators are now under investigation.
In his address during the annual Bacta conference held in Leeds, UKGC CEO Andrew Rhodes admitted that the Commission had “stepped up” its control over AGCs in 2025 and mentioned that some operators still did not see themselves responsible for their duties despite written reminders. But the funds for conducting the inspection are growing too – according to the 25 November budget by Chancellor Rachel Reeves, another £26 million would be provided to the UKGC within three years from the increases in online gambling duty, mostly for combating illegal land-based gambling.
A Fine That Arrives at the Worst Possible Moment for the Sector
The timing of Holland Park’s penalty is hard to miss. Just days before the Commission announced the fine, Prime Minister Andy Burnham declared that the government intends to scrap the long-standing “aim to permit” rule for betting shops and 24-hour slot machine arcades, and require any new AGC to obtain planning permission before opening. Burnham went ahead and described betting shops and gaming centres as “dodgy businesses,” and there were strong reactions from trade bodies.
The Betting and Gaming Council shot down Burnham, pointing out that the number of betting shops has already been reduced by more than one-third since 2019. This involved the closure of about 3,000 shops with over 15,000 people losing their jobs. Betfred has now announced its intention to close 132 UK shops and more than 600 jobs because of the increased Remote Gambling Duty. Evoke closed 200 William Hill shops in April for the same reason.
Why Is Government Reform Harder Than It Sounds?
The “aim to permit” principle requires councils to approve licence applications for gambling premises unless there is a clear reason not to. It is embedded in the 2005 Gambling Act and cannot be removed by a ministerial announcement or a planning policy change alone.
Andrew Lyman, Gibraltar’s Gambling Commissioner and a former director at the UK Gambling Commission, made the point directly to iGB: “A fundamental change to an underlying principle of the Act (one might say the fundamental principle) would need to be changed by primary legislation.”
Louisa Clark, an independent licensing consultant and former Gambling Commission compliance manager, drew the same conclusion. “Aim to permit is written directly into the Gambling Act itself. It can’t be overturned by making a ministerial announcement, changing local policy or Gambling Commission guidance.” On the question of whether the government might trigger a wider overhaul of the Gambling Act, Clark was measured: “We don’t need to assume a new act is the inevitable consequence of what’s going on now. We need to not confuse political rhetoric with what’s been settled legislatively because we just don’t know.”
The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government is expected to run a fast-track consultation, reportedly aiming for implementation by January 2027. Given that the existing Gambling Act took several years from inception to full implementation, many in the industry consider that deadline difficult to meet if primary legislation is genuinely required.
Expert Analysis
What is remarkable about the Holland Park case is that the fine is rather modest in size. Indeed, at just £150,000, it is well below the millions paid by companies such as Entain and William Hill. However, it is the order of things that is important – the warnings not heeded, the deception and non-compliance until a suspension of their license came into play. The Commission’s decision to push ahead with the penalty even after Holland Park took partial steps during the review process sends a clear signal to the rest of the sector, acting only when forced will not erase what came before.
Britain has roughly 1,500 adult gaming centres, many clustered in areas facing economic hardship, the communities where regulators and public health experts say gambling harm is most acute. With stronger enforcement funding, a more assertive Commission, and a government openly positioning AGCs as problem venues, operators in this sector face scrutiny that is only going to tighten. The Holland Park case marks exactly where that pressure is heading.
Explore more:
Share
2 views
