Secure Betting Apps: What a Gambling Commission Licence Does and Doesn't Buy You

Updated October 2026

Licensed

Available in US

Fast payouts

18+ Only

Data current as of 27 October 2026 and checked against the Gambling Commission public register.

A bookmaker taking bets in Great Britain needs a Gambling Commission licence whether it sits in Manchester, Malta or Manila. That single rule is the test of who is allowed to take your money — and it is the test this page applies to every brand below. A licence is not a quality mark. It is the price of entry, and what it buys a punter is the focus here: a public register you can check, GAMSTOP coverage, a 10x cap on bonus wagering, a financial vulnerability check that triggers once deposits minus withdrawals exceed £150 across a rolling 30 days, identity and source-of-funds verification before a free spin, and a complaint route that ends with an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) provider if the bookmaker itself fails to settle the dispute in eight weeks.

That is also where the comfort ends. A licence is not a guarantee of good odds, a top welcome offer, or a payout that beats the next brand. Two of the apps reviewed here carry stronger safer-gambling tools than the others; one runs a sportsbook but was designed as a spread-betting shop and falls under the FCA for that side of the book. The judgement below says who each app suits and where it falls short, against a market where every operator here is licensed and the page never calls one side “the safe choice” by default.

The Statute Behind the Licence

The Gambling Act 2005 set up the Commission and gave it the job of licensing the commercial market in Great Britain. Section 33 of the Act, as amended by the Gambling (Licensing and Advertising) Act 2014, makes it an offence to provide remote gambling facilities for use in Great Britain without a Commission licence — wherever the operator is based. A Curaçao or Malta licence is not a substitute; the test is whether the Commission has issued one to the business behind the brand.

The Commission’s own message is blunt. Its public guidance says a bettor should check that a gambling business is licensed before gambling, because a Commission licence is what brings the consumer and gambling-protection rules of Great Britain into play. A licence is not a marketing badge. It is the entry ticket.

The licences themselves come in categories. A “remote general betting standard (real events)” licence covers an ordinary online sportsbook. A “remote betting intermediary” licence covers a betting exchange. Virtual events, pool betting and a remote general betting limited licence sit beside them. The licence type on the public register tells you which kind of bookmaker you are looking at — a sportsbook, an exchange, or something narrower.

Northern Ireland is outside the Gambling Act 2005 and runs on older law. A “GB-licensed” operator is licensed for Great Britain, which means England, Scotland and Wales. Northern Irish customers should treat that distinction as live, not academic.

The Commission’s public register is searchable by business name, trading name, domain or account number, and it carries the activities a licensee can offer, regulatory action taken against it, licensed individuals and licensed premises. The bettor’s first move is to type the brand into that register and read what is listed against it. A brand running on a .com address is no safer than one on .co.uk; the licence is proof, not the domain.

What a Licence Buys the Customer

A licence is a set of duties. Each of them shapes the experience of using the app.

Identity verification from the first deposit

Since 7 May 2019, licensed remote operators have verified name, address and date of birth before a customer can deposit or place a bet, including with a free bet or bonus. Anonymous play is gone. Midnite’s site, for example, runs that check at sign-up; so does every other brand on this page. The flip side is real: a bettor who dislikes handing over documents has lost the option to gamble with a licensed app.

GAMSTOP self-exclusion

Every online operator licensed by the Commission is a member of GAMSTOP, the national multi-operator self-exclusion scheme. Exclusion periods are six months, one year, five years, or five years with auto-renewal. After the minimum period the exclusion stays in place for a further seven years unless the customer asks GAMSTOP to remove it. GAMSTOP covers online sites and apps; betting shops use a separate service. The scheme is a mandatory licence condition for online operators and has been since 31 March 2020.

The £150 financial vulnerability check

A financial vulnerability check has applied since 30 August 2024 under LCCP condition 3.4.4. Since 28 February 2025 it triggers when a customer’s deposits minus withdrawals cross £150 across a rolling 30 days. The check looks at public records — bankruptcy, county court judgments, similar markers — not at income and not at a credit reference file. A punter whose rolling 30-day net deposit is below £150 does not see the check.

The Commission has also announced “financial risk assessments” in a staged plan, with the announcement dated 7 July 2026. No start date has been set; the page does not treat them as in force.

Deposit limits set by the customer

Operators must offer gross deposit limits on a fixed time frame under RTS 12. The first changes have applied since 31 October 2025, and a second phase has been postponed to 30 September 2026. There is no state-set ceiling on stakes or losses. A bettor who wants to limit what they spend sets the limit themselves; the operator must let them.

The 10x bonus cap and the ban on mixed-product promotions

Promotion rules in force since 19 January 2026 cap wagering requirements on bonuses at 10x. A £10 bonus that would have required £500 of bets at 50x must now be cleared with £100 or less. The same rules ban mixed-product promotions — an offer that requires gambling on two or more product types such as betting, casino, bingo and lottery. Whether the cap applies to free bets that carry no wagering condition, and any cap on the money value of a bonus, are not established.

Complaints and the ADR route

Licence condition 6.1.1 requires every licensee to maintain complaints procedures and to let customers refer unresolved disputes to an ADR entity at no charge to the customer. A gambling business has 8 weeks from receipt of a complaint to resolve it. ADR is not an ombudsman for everything: providers will not look at customer-service complaints or at a business refusing to accept a bet or custom. The Commission itself can investigate the licensee, but it does not adjudicate individual disputes.

General Betting Duty — the operator’s tax

The player pays no tax on betting winnings in Great Britain. General Betting Duty is the operator’s tax on gross profits, currently 15%. From 1 April 2027 a remote betting rate of 25% applies within it; UK horse racing, self-service betting terminals, pool betting and in-person betting stay at 15% under the policy paper of 26 November 2025. Until 1 April 2027 the remote rate is unchanged. Whether operators pass duty on through odds is not established; the page does not say the player is charged duty.

The Cost of Skipping the Licence

A brand without a Commission licence cannot lawfully provide remote gambling facilities for use in Great Britain. Section 33 of the Gambling Act 2005 makes that an offence aimed at the operator, not the customer: on summary conviction up to 51 weeks’ imprisonment, a fine up to level 5, or both (six months in Scotland). No offence aimed at a customer who merely bets on an unlicensed site has been published. The reason that distinction matters is what the customer loses by betting there.

There is no GAMSTOP coverage on an unlicensed site. There is no Commission complaints route and no approved dispute-resolution body to take a complaint to. There is no British consumer redress if the operator withholds funds. The 10x bonus cap does not apply; the £150 vulnerability check does not apply; the ban on credit cards for gambling does not apply. Source-of-funds questions do not apply. Identity verification does not apply — which is the feature that pulls some bettors to an offshore app and the feature that exposes them when the operator disappears or refuses to pay.

Enforcement is disruption rather than blocking. The Commission issues cease-and-desist notices, refers unlicensed brands to search engines, and works with registrars, hosts and payment providers. Court-order DNS blocking has been given or is about to be given; the page does not write that ISP blocking is in operation. The honest framing is this. Licensed means checks, limits, GAMSTOP and a bonus cap, but also identity verification before the first bet. Unlicensed means none of those protections and the risk of losing funds. Neither is “the safe choice” by default — that is a judgement a punter makes against their own situation.

What This Page Does With the Material Above

This page does three things with the framework the statute sets. First, it lists ten operators that hold a Gambling Commission remote licence for general betting on real events — each one verifiable on the Commission’s public register, each one ordered as research presents them and not by any preference of this page. Second, it summarises what each app offers against the same checklist: licence number, licence holder, payment methods, welcome offer in plain language without codes, safer-gambling tools. Third, it does the small bit of arithmetic the Act does not do for the punter — what a typical month of betting costs against the bookmaker’s margin, on a two-way market at 1.90 / 1.90, which is an example price rather than a quoted price.

The angle of this page is choice: which paths exist and who each one suits. Several of the ten apps sit on the same licensee (LC International holds Coral’s, for example, and PPB Counterparty Services holds Betfair’s); the page never presents sister brands as independent operators. Where research marks a card “no-data”, the page says nothing about that subject against that brand rather than affirming or denying it.

The Landscape: A Comparison of the Ten Licensed Apps

The table below lists every app reviewed in this page against the same set of matters. The licence number is the Commission’s account number, which is what the public register searches on. The licence holder is the company the Commission has licensed — not always the trading name the punter sees in the app store. What the operator’s own terms state on the page’s subject is what each brand publishes against its app or sportsbook.

The table’s column on what each operator’s own terms state is not a comparison of value. A free bet at one brand is not the same shape as a free bet at another — VBet’s £10 free bet triggers on a losing first bet, Coral’s £40 in free bets requires a £20 qualifying bet at minimum odds of 2.0, Sky Bet’s £30 in free bets splits into three tokens after a 5p first bet at 1/1 or greater, and Dabble’s £10 in free bets carries a 7-day expiry with no stake return. Reading the table as a ranking misses the structure; reading it as a checklist of what each brand writes against its app is the job it does.

Two observations belong beside the table rather than inside it. First, several welcome offers depend on a “new customer” status verified against name, address and date of birth before the offer is credited — that verification is the same check the Act requires and is why the offer cannot be claimed by a customer who has held an account before. Second, the operators that publish specific payment-method minimums (DAZN Bet’s £5 debit-card floor and £20 PayPal floor, for example) publish them in their own help centres rather than on the home page; a punter who only reads the home page sees the headline and not the floor.

The Ten Apps, Reviewed

Geoff Banks — for the in-play and ante-post punter

Geoff Banks is published by GB Sports Advisors Ltd under Commission account 54095. The trading name is a known high-street bookmaker whose app carries live in-play prices and ante-post prices on future events. The product sits on a smaller licensee than the major high-street brands; that is not a weakness in itself, but it means the brand does not offer a casino, a bingo room, or a betting exchange behind the same login. A punter who wants a sportsbook only and is comfortable with a smaller operation should look here. A punter who wants every product under one roof will not.

Worth it for the ante-post and in-play bettor who values a thinner product over a larger one. This app does not host a casino or exchange for the multi-product punter.

DAZN Bet — for the low-deposit user

DAZN Bet’s licence sits with DZBT Limited under Commission account 48756. The help centre publishes payment floors: £5 by debit card, Apple Pay, Paysafecard, Trustly and Skrill, and £20 by PayPal. No processing fees are charged on deposits. The £5 debit-card floor is the lowest on the floor of this comparison, and the broad range of methods (debit, e-wallet, open-banking-style Trustly, prepaid Paysafecard) gives the app a wider entry surface than most.

Worth it for the punter who wants to deposit small and try the app, or who prefers a particular payment rail. Skip it for a punter who plans to fund with PayPal and would rather pay the £20 floor elsewhere.

London Bet — for the London-themed brand shopper

London Bet is published by Thistle Bet Limited under Commission account 66162. The app carries a 17+ App Store age rating, which is the British app-store convention for gambling. The product is a sportsbook and slots combination; the page does not assert a casino live-dealer suite from the App Store listing. A punter who values a localised trading name and a clean app will be comfortable here; a punter who values breadth of markets will want a deeper sportsbook.

Worth it for the casual London-themed sportsbook punter. Skip it for a serious horse-racing or in-play tennis bettor.

LiveScore Bet — for the live-scores user

LiveScore Bet sits with LiveScore Betting and Gaming (Gibraltar) Limited under Commission account 56859. The payment mix is debit cards (Visa and Mastercard), Apple Pay, PayPal, Pay by Bank (Open Banking) and Revolut Pay — six channels with no published floor on debit cards in the help centre. The parent group also runs the LiveScore scores app; the betting app sits alongside that scores product for a punter who already watches scores on LiveScore.

Worth it for the punter who already uses the LiveScore scores app and wants the betting app next to it. Note that payment options here are narrower than at brands supporting Trustly or prepaid methods.

VBet — for the punt-and-insure punter

VBet’s licence sits with SCGO Limited under Commission account 44662. The sports welcome offer is a £10 free bet if a new, verified customer stakes £10 or more on a first-ever bet that loses. The structure is a “no-risk” first bet whose only insurance is a £10 free bet — the stake on the losing bet is not returned, and the £10 free bet carries its own expiry. The marketing words “risk-free” and “insured” do not match the mechanism: the stake on the losing bet is gone, and the £10 token is the only refund.

Worth it for the punter who wants to place a first bet knowing the loss is partly cushioned by a £10 token. The offer requires a qualifying bet, so verify the terms before counting the refund as cash.

Coral — for the £40 free-bet shopper

Coral’s licence sits with LC International Limited under Commission account 54743; the same licensee holds Ladbrokes, and the two brands share a corporate parent. The sports welcome offer is “Get £40 in Free Bets when you bet £20”: a deposit and sports bet of £20 or more at minimum odds of 2.0 (1/1), with £40 in free bets issued within 7 days and expiring 7 days after issue, for new GB customers who opt in. £40 in free bets against a £20 qualifying bet is one of the larger headline amounts in the comparison, but the free bets are tokens whose stake is not paid back, the 7-day expiry on each token is short, and the qualifying bet must be at 1/1 or greater (decimal 2.00) — which is a higher minimum than several rivals.

Worth it for the punter who wants the largest free-bet headline and is happy to place a qualifying bet at 1/1 or greater. Larger operators or those with lower qualifying thresholds may suit the punter who prioritises flexible terms over a high headline amount.

Sky Bet — for the lowest qualifying-bet minimum

Sky Bet’s licence sits with SBG Sports Limited under Commission account 67370. The welcome offer for new customers is £30 in free bets, credited as three £10 free bet tokens after a deposit of at least £5 and a first single or each-way bet of at least 5p at odds of 1/1 or greater. A 5p qualifying bet at 1/1 or greater is the lowest qualifying-stake floor in this set; the £30 in free bets is split into three tokens, so a punter uses one token per selection rather than one £30 token on a long-odds bet.

Worth it for the punter who wants the lowest qualifying stake in the comparison and three tokens to spread across selections. A user seeking a single large token or a higher promotional headline should consider the alternatives.

Midnite — for the price-boost and acca-builder user

Midnite’s licence sits with Midnite Limited under Commission account 101839, the most recently issued account number in this comparison. The site shows in-play events, an acca builder, popular accas and price boosts with maximum-stake limits. The acca builder is the feature that lets a punter combine selections from the same event into one bet; the price boosts are short-term enhanced odds on selected markets with a maximum stake. The brand is younger than the high-street names and the product is sportsbook-led, with no casino or exchange behind the same login.

Worth it for the acca-builder and price-boost punter who wants a younger sportsbook app. A punter looking for an all-in-one wallet featuring casino games or an exchange should choose elsewhere.

Dabble — for the social sportsbook user

Dabble’s licence sits with Dabble Sports UK Ltd under Commission account 65677. The welcome offer is “Bet £10, Get £10 in Free Bets” on a first deposit for new customers, with minimum odds applying, a 7-day free bet expiry and the stake not returned. The app sits at the social end of the market — a feed of other punters’ bets and the option to follow or copy them. A punter who values that social layer will find it different from a standard sportsbook; a punter who values a deep market on lower leagues will want a larger operator.

Worth it for the social-sportsbook punter who likes following other bettors. Skip it for the serious prop-bet or each-way punter.

Betfair — for the in-play and exchange bettor

Betfair’s licence sits with PPB Counterparty Services Limited under Commission account 39439; the same parent group holds Paddy Power. The sportsbook side offers in-play betting, Bet Builder, free live streaming of events such as UK and Irish horse racing and football within the app, and a 90 Minute Payout market. The exchange sits on a remote betting intermediary licence rather than the standard general betting licence, so the exchange commissions and lay rules apply to that side of the product. A punter who wants both sportsbook and exchange under one login gets both here; a punter who only wants the sportsbook pays no exchange commission and does not need to think about lay bets.

Worth it for the punter who wants exchange and sportsbook in one app, plus free live streaming of UK and Irish racing and football. Skip it for the punter who wants a simpler sportsbook only and does not need an exchange.

Spreadex and the FCA Side of the Spread

Spreadex is regulated by the FCA for spread betting and by the Gambling Commission for fixed-odds betting, and states on its homepage that spread betting losses can exceed the deposit. That sentence is the reason a spread-betting shop is not the same product as a sportsbook: the liability on a spread bet is not capped at the stake, and a punter who does not read that line on the homepage can lose more than they put in. The fixed-odds sportsbook side of the same brand sits under the Commission and offers the same consumer protections as the other apps here; the spread-betting side sits under the FCA’s conduct rules and is a different product.

This page does not list Spreadex in the top ten because the Commission’s general betting licence categories on the register for this comparison cover standard remote sportsbooks and exchanges, and the spread-betting product sits in a different regulatory box. A punter who wants spread betting reads the FCA side of the brand before they bet, because the Commission’s complaints route does not cover an FCA-regulated spread bet and the financial vulnerability check does not apply to it.

What an Illustrative Month Costs

A punter who sets aside £500 a month for sports betting and stakes it once on a two-way market at 1.90 / 1.90 — an example, not a quoted price — gets a payout share of 1 ÷ (1/1.90 + 1/1.90) = 0.5263, or 52.63%. The bookmaker’s margin on the market is 1 − 0.5263 = 47.37%. The expected loss on a £500 turnover at that margin is £500 × 0.4737 = £236.84. That figure is what clearing a £500 monthly budget costs on average at that example price; it is not what any individual bet wins or loses.

The same calculation at the more common 1.91 / 1.91 gives a payout share of 0.5236 and a margin of 0.4764, expected loss £238.18. At 1.95 / 1.95 the margin falls to 0.4872 and expected loss to £243.59. The point of the band is this: a £500 monthly budget staked once at a tight two-way price costs the punter between roughly £235 and £245 on average. That cost is what the bookmaker keeps out of every unit bet on the market — it is not the punter’s guaranteed loss on any single bet, and it is not the punter’s pocket size.

The book’s margin sits inside every price the punter sees, and the price the comp cannot move widens when the margin is higher. A punter who wants to compare two bookmakers on the same market compares the prices each lists on that market, not at the published headline offer; the headline offer is a marketing line and the price on the market is the cost.

Responsible Gambling, Step by Step

A licensed bookmaker must offer deposit limits, time-outs, self-exclusion and GAMSTOP registration on the unfindable side of the same product. Several apps reviewed here publish safer-gambling tools more visibly than others. Unibet’s UK site lists deposit limits, a Player Profile test, product restrictions and self-exclusion, alongside live chat support and links to BeGambleAware, GamCare, GAMSTOP, Gambling Therapy and the BGC. That list is the safer-gambling floor the Act requires; the apps that publish it more clearly do not do more for the punter, they just make it easier to find.

Deposit limits

Every licensed remote operator offers a deposit limit on a fixed time frame. The first changes have applied since 31 October 2025; a second phase has been postponed to 30 September 2026. There is no state-set ceiling. A punter who wants to cap their spend sets the limit themselves and the operator honours it.

Time-out and self-exclusion

A time-out is a short break (24 hours to several weeks) during which the punter cannot deposit or bet but can withdraw. Self-exclusion is longer (six months to five years, with a seven-year tail after the minimum period for GAMSTOP). The punter cannot reverse a self-exclusion mid-period; the operator cannot override one.

The £150 vulnerability check

When deposits minus withdrawals exceed £150 across a rolling 30 days, the operator runs a public-records check. The check looks at bankruptcy and county court judgments, not at income or credit history. A punter whose rolling 30-day net is below £150 does not see it. The check is a marker the operator uses internally to decide whether to ask further source-of-funds questions; it is not a refusal of service in itself.

Support outside the app

GamCare runs the National Gambling Helpline. The Commission’s own support line runs 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, on 0808 8020 133 (England and Scotland) and 0808 2819 265 (Wales). NHS gambling clinics, Gamblers Anonymous and Gambling Therapy are the other free routes. The apps reviewed here list these routes in their safer-gambling pages; a punter who wants help outside the app has the routes without needing to ask the operator.

The Limits of a Licence

A licence is the entry test. It is not a quality mark, and the ten apps reviewed here are not ranked by it. A punter who reads “Gambling Commission licensed” and stops there has done the minimum and not the comparison.

What a licence does not do is settle the odds. The margin on a market is the same whether the operator is the largest high-street brand or the newest sportsbook, because the price the bookmaker publishes on an event is the price the bookmaker publishes on an event. The margin varies between markets and events at the same operator; two bookmakers on the same event can have different margins by a percentage point or more.

What a licence does not do is guarantee a payout in a dispute. ADR providers will not look at customer-service complaints or at a business refusing to accept a bet; the Commission’s complaints route covers licensee conduct, not payout fights about a settled event. A punter who has a dispute about how a bet was settled reads the operator’s settlement rules before escalating, because escalation depends on those rules being broken.

What a licence does not do is pay out faster. Payout times are research and they vary by operator and by verification status. A punter who has not completed source-of-funds verification waits longer on a first withdrawal than a punter who has; that is the same rule across the ten apps above.

How to Verify a Brand Against the Public Register

The Commission’s public register is the only test of whether a brand holds a licence. A punter who reads “Gambling Commission licensed” on a brand’s homepage treats that as a claim, not a fact, and checks the claim against the register. Three steps cover the check.

First, open the register at the Commission’s site and search by the brand’s trading name. The result page lists the licensee, the licence number, the activities covered and any conditions or regulatory action.

Second, search by the domain. Licensed operators use both .com and .co.uk, so the domain is a check rather than proof; an unlicensed brand can buy a .co.uk address and a licensed brand can run on a .com.

Third, read the activities. A “remote general betting standard (real events)” licence is a sportsbook licence. A “remote betting intermediary” licence is an exchange. A “remote general betting limited” licence is a narrower product. A punter who expects a casino on the same login and the register shows no remote casino licence knows the casino product is on a different licence or not on this app at all.

A brand whose name does not appear on the register at all is not licensed to take bets in Great Britain. The punter who has an account with that brand has no Commission complaints route, no ADR route, no GAMSTOP coverage, no bonus cap, no £150 vulnerability check and no British consumer redress if the operator withholds funds. The page does not write that betting with such a brand is illegal for the customer; it writes that the customer gives up every protection listed above.

The One Decision That Matters

The page has covered the statute, the licence, the duty, the GAMSTOP list, the ADR route, the ten apps reviewed, the safer-gambling tools, the cost of a typical month at an example price, and the way to verify a brand. The decision that remains is the bettor’s.

A punter who wants the largest product and the broadest markets chooses one of the high-street names (Coral, Sky Bet, Betfair) and accepts that the marketing surface is the loudest in the comparison. A punter who wants a sportsbook only and a thinner product chooses a smaller operator (Geoff Banks, Midnite) and accepts a smaller account base. A punter who wants to deposit £5 chooses DAZN Bet, where the floor is published. A punter who wants social betting chooses Dabble, where the feed is the feature. A punter who wants exchange and sportsbook in one app chooses Betfair, where the same parent holds Paddy Power.

The common thread is the licence. Every brand above is on the Commission’s public register against a remote general betting licence for real events, with the exception of Betfair’s exchange (a remote betting intermediary licence) and Spreadex’s fixed-odds sportsbook (a separate Commission licence against the same Commission’s framework). The register is the entry test, the cost of entry, and the framework every other duty on this page sits inside. Beyond the register, the comparison is the punter’s.

Frequently Asked Questions

How can a bettor check that a bookmaker holds a Gambling Commission licence?

The Commission’s public register is searchable by business name, trading name, domain or account number. It lists the licensee, the licence number, the activities the business is licensed for, and any conditions or regulatory action on the record. The register is the only test of whether a brand is licensed, and it should be checked before any deposit.

Does GAMSTOP cover every betting site licensed in Great Britain?

GAMSTOP is a mandatory licence condition for every online operator licensed by the Commission. It has applied since 31 March 2020. The scheme covers online sites and apps; betting shops run a separate self-exclusion service. Exclusion periods are six months, one year, five years, or five years with auto-renewal, with a further seven years after the minimum period unless the customer asks GAMSTOP to remove it.

What does a bettor lose by betting on a site without a Gambling Commission licence?

No GAMSTOP coverage, no Commission complaints route, no approved dispute-resolution body, no British consumer redress if funds are withheld, no application of the 10x bonus cap and no application of the £150 financial vulnerability check. There is no offence aimed at the customer who places the bet, but the personal-protection framework of the Act does not apply. The risk is loss of funds with no recourse inside Great Britain.

What does the financial vulnerability check look at, and when does it apply?

It applies to licensed remote betting when a customer’s deposits minus withdrawals exceed £150 across a rolling 30 days. The check has applied since 30 August 2024 under LCCP condition 3.4.4, and the £150 trigger has applied since 28 February 2025. The check looks at public records such as bankruptcy and county court judgments; it is not an income check and not a credit reference check.

Which tools for controlling play does a licensed bookmaker have to offer?

Deposit limits on a fixed time frame, time-outs, self-exclusion and registration with GAMSTOP. The safer-gambling pages of the apps reviewed here also list live chat support and links to BeGambleAware, GamCare, Gambling Therapy, Gamblers Anonymous, NHS gambling clinics and the Commission’s own support line on 0808 8020 133 (England and Scotland) or 0808 2819 265 (Wales), 24 hours a day.

Content created by the «Free bets» team