UK gambling reform advocate endorses calls to pause financial risk checks

(AsiaGameHub) –   A senior advisor at the SMF has cautioned that affordability checks are not currently as seamless and proportionate as initially envisioned.

UK.- Dr James Noyes, a prominent advocate for gambling reform, has called on the UK government’s Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) to reconsider the planned implementation of financial risk checks. He has communicated his concerns to DCMS Secretary Lisa Nandy regarding the transparency and efficacy of the Gambling Commission’s pilot scheme.

Noyes, a senior advisor at the Social Market Foundation (SMF), a think tank that supported the recent increase in British gambling taxes, has shifted his stance. While previously supporting affordability checks, he now argues that the current approach risks deviating from the original concept of “frictionless” and proportionate checks, as detailed in the April 2023 Gambling White Paper.

“Contrary to the White Paper’s assertion that financial risk checks would be frictionless, recent reports indicate the opposite is true,” he stated, referencing “growing accounts that the pilot scheme has encountered inconsistent data, unclear results, and unnecessary obstacles.”

He pointed out that there has been no update on the financial risk assessment pilot or its evaluation since May 2025, nearly a year ago. In the meantime, industry feedback has highlighted issues such as different credit reference agencies providing varying results for the same customer and insufficient data for accurate risk assessment.

The British Horseracing Association has echoed these concerns in a recent open letter opposing financial risk checks. Joining The Sun’s Save Our Bets campaign, it also noted public opposition to these checks.

The Gambling Commission commenced testing “light‑touch” vulnerability checks in August 2024, initially for players who deposited £500 or more within a 30-day period. After six months, this threshold was lowered to £150 in February 2025.

In Westminster, opinions are divided. DCMS and Labour representatives maintain that live testing is essential, while critics from various parties view the scheme as an undue intrusion into personal finances. They advocate for regulators to concentrate on targeted interventions for individuals most vulnerable to harm.

Noyes wrote: “While establishing a standardized threshold for triggering checks offered a practical advantage, my 2021 report argued that such a threshold should not automatically dictate a limit on monthly spending. Furthermore, we contended that any threshold should be applied to net losses rather than total stakes – meaning the actual figure would be considerably higher than what the vast majority of gamblers spend.”