OpenCharities

This text was generated using OCR and may contain errors. Check the original PDF to see the document submitted to the regulator.

2025-11-30-accounts

Trustees' Annual Report

Preventing gambling harm as a public health issue Independent of industry. Led by lived experience.

Registered charity 1196538 86–90 Paul Street, London EC2A 4NE For the year ended 30 November 2025

----- Start of picture text -----
2024–25
----- End of picture text -----

Trustees' foreword

SYSTEMS CHANGE / CHANGING THE STATUS QUO

Changing the status quo on gambling harm

Gambling harm remains one of the most underrecognised public health issues in the UK. Despite its widespread impact on individuals, families and children, it is too often treated as marginal or exceptional.

During 2024-25, Gambling Harm UK continued to change that position by strengthening connectivity across systems, building capability, and creating the lasting capacity and public health infrastructure that prevention depends on. This year marked a period of consolidation and transition: we strengthened governance, expanded systems-level work with local authorities and public health partners, and made significant progress in embedding gambling harm in medical education and professional standards.

~~We frst wrote to the GMC in 2021 and contributed to both phases of its 2024 to 2025 content map review. Gambling disorder is included in the Medical Licensing Assessment from 2026. A structural change reaching every newly UK-trained doctor.~~

We remain independent of gambling-industry funding. This independence underpins our credibility, allows us to challenge harmful narratives, and ensures that lived experience and evidence remain at the heart of everything we do.

The board has been deliberate this year about strengthening the foundations on which the next phase of growth will be built: refreshing trustee expertise across communications and therapeutic practice, sharpening risk and safeguarding oversight, and supporting the transition from volunteer-led delivery towards a sustainable operational team.

This year also brought important changes to the board. In May 2025, Kishan Patel stepped down as Chair and Trustee to take on the operational lead role as volunteer CEO, ensuring continuity while paid operational staff were recruited, and continuing to take no salary to avoid any perceived conflict of interest. John Gilham was formally appointed as Trustee in June 2025, continuing his unsalaried role as systems lead. Ben Jones joined as Operations Director in May 2025, the charity’s first senior operational appointment.

On behalf of the trustees, we thank our volunteers, our lived-experience community, and our partners across health, education and local government. We also thank all of our team, whose energy and rigour this year ran through every area of our work. The progress in this report is theirs as much as ours, the result of patient and principled work.

The Board of Trustees, Gambling Harm UK

Our charitable objects

Gambling Harm UK’s objects, as set out in our constitution, are the relief of those who are in need as a result of a gambling addiction or gambling related harm and their families, through: a) improving and providing education towards matters relating to gambling harm and addictions by using an evidence based public health approach, with a focus on discussions on recovery of those suffering harm; b) improving the health of those suffering from gambling harm by promoting addiction recovery, the mitigation of harm, and preventing harm in the first place through the development and dissemination of insights, advice and support; c) by engaging with and/or conducting evidence based research that helps to further understand gambling harm and addictions.

2

Who we are, and how we work 01 A public-health charity tackling gambling harm at the level of systems.

3

About us: why we exist

Gambling Harm UK exists to address a gap in how gambling harm is understood and responded to, and to ensure public systems can prevent harm, identify risk earlier, and respond safely.

~~Gambling harm is not an individual failing. It is a predictable, population-level public health issue, shaped by environments, products and policy decisions.~~

What We Do

We embed prevention, early identification and safeguarding within everyday professional practice. We work across health, education, local government and the voluntary sector. We translate evidence into practical resources that systems can adopt and use.

What We Work Towards

How we understand gambling harm

For too long, gambling harm has been framed as an individual problem, rooted in personal responsibility or pathology. We understand it differently. It is a predictable, population-level public health issue, and it falls in comparable measure on two groups: people who gamble, and people harmed by someone else’s gambling.

People who gamble. 13.6% of adults in Great Britain report experiencing some indicators of gambling harm (PGSI 1+) from their gambling in the past year.

Most of it sits below the severe clinical threshold:

As serious as other major health conditions

Health loss arises across the whole distribution, not only at the severe end. In GHUK’s UK modelling around half of the health loss among people who gamble falls below PGSI 8+, and the Australian analysis that first established the pattern puts it at 85%. This is the prevention paradox: a modest per-person effect across a large group produces a large share of the population total.

People harmed by someone else’s gambling. 9.0% of adults report harm from someone else’s gambling, and this is likely an under count. Their per-person burden is comparable to, and at moderate levels of harm exceeds, that of the person gambling. Partners, parents and children live with the debt, stress and instability that gambling harm creates, and children affected by an adult’s gambling are harmed in their own right.

The whole population. Counted together and adjusted for overlap, around one in six people in the UK experience gambling-related harm in a year. This is GHUK modelled synthesis rather than a survey estimate.

Disability weights show the loss to health and quality of life, from 0 (full health) to 1 (death). At its most severe band, gambling harm (0.45) sits alongside conditions such as drug dependence and major depression.

Source: Tulloch et al., Addictive Behaviors 2026

Footnote. PGSI bands and the affected-adults rate from the Gambling Survey for Great Britain, Year 3 (2025), which covers Great Britain. Per-person severity from Tulloch, Browne, Russell & Rockloff, Addictive Behaviors 2026, and Browne et al. 2017. The whole-population figure is our own modelled synthesis, de-duplicated, set out in our Health Needs Assessment (Part A, 2026).

4

Our approach: the three pillars

Most responses to gambling harm are short-lived: a campaign, a training day, a project that ends when the funding does. Lasting prevention is different. It comes from changing how systems work, so that recognising and responding to gambling harm becomes part of everyday practice. Our approach rests on three principles, each addressing a different reason prevention usually fails to stick.

Creating connectivity

Gambling harm cuts across health, education, safeguarding, housing and community services, but it rarely belongs to any one of them, so responsibility falls between the gaps.

Connectivity makes it shared, core business: we build the relationships between these services so gambling harm is owned collectively. When the right people are connected, harm surfaces earlier, referrals flow, and prevention no longer depends on a few committed individuals.

Developing capability

Even where people care, awareness alone does not change outcomes; professionals need to know what to look for and feel able to act.

Capability is the knowledge, skills and confidence to ask about gambling, recognise harm, respond appropriately and signpost safely. Built into education, workforce training and professional standards, it turns good intentions into consistent, safe practice that does not rely on individual interest.

Maximising capacity

Projects end, but infrastructure lasts. Capacity is what a system can own, sustain and scale for itself: reusable resources, embedded processes and governance that outlive any single grant or partner.

We design our work to be handed over, so partners can keep using and adapting it without us. It is the difference between delivering an intervention and leaving behind a permanent capability, so prevention continues long after our involvement ends.

From research to action

Together these principles form a single pathway. We are building prevention architecture: our framework runs from Research and Data, to Knowledge, to Action: evidence becomes professional competence, and competence becomes lasting, system-owned prevention.

5

The pillars in practice

Gambling harm is often addressed through isolated projects or short-term awareness campaigns. Our three pillars ensure activity strengthens the systems that shape everyday practice, enabling earlier identification, safer responses, and prevention that can be sustained locally over time.

1 · Creating connectivity

Connecting the parts of a system that rarely discuss gambling harm.

The result: gambling harm is recognised earlier and acted on sooner, across a connected system.

2 · Developing capability

Equipping professionals to ask, recognise and respond.

The result: professionals ask, recognise and respond with confidence, and know how to signpost safely.

3 · Maximising capacity

Leaving systems with tools they own and can sustain.

The result: prevention that continues without relying on us to keep delivering.

~~From relationships, to skills, to systems that last, moving our work beyond awareness to lasting, system-level change.~~

6

Independence

Our independence is structural. It is what allows us to name the causes of gambling harm clearly, and to work with systems to prevent harm upstream.

Free of industry money

We do not accept funds from the gambling industry. Our volunteer CEO led unsalaried throughout the period, and our work is delivered free from any relationship with industry. This is a position we have acted on rather than only stated: in 2023, after two years on the industry-funded RET list, we asked to be removed, to protect our credibility and our freedom to speak plainly.

Independence has a cost

Independence in language

Independence is not free. We operated for years on donated time and minimal cash, and our capacity was constrained as a result: work took longer and much depended on volunteers. The statutory levy and independent public-health funding now let us build capacity without that compromise.

Industry influence is not only financial; it also shapes the words the debate uses. “Responsible gambling” and “problem gambling” place harm on the individual and draw attention away from product design, and the “black market” argument is used to resist regulation. We do not use this language, and we name it for what it is: framing that serves the industry rather than the public.

Independence in action

We put that independence to work through the standards we hold ourselves to. Our language and framing criteria set out how gambling harm should be described: as a population health issue, structural rather than individual, with affected others and children counted as harmed in their own right. Held to those same criteria, the gambling industry and its body, the Betting and Gaming Council, sit at the opposite end, framing harm as personal responsibility and promoting “responsible gambling”.

Our Gambling Explained report brings the evidence together: the population burden and economic cost of gambling, the harm to affected others, safeguarding risks to children and young people, legacy and lifetime harm, and the inequalities that concentrate harm in the most deprived communities and in some minority ethnic groups. Our Gambling Tactics project sets out the industry’s own words and the methods it uses to shift responsibility onto individuals and normalise its products.

Funding while in transition

Our largest funder this year was GambleAware, which provided £113,559, being 61% of our income. This was because the regulatory settlement fund had closed and funds had been directed to GambleAware for redistribution. The System Stabilisation Funding (SSF) was to allow previously funded activity to continue. It did not allow new initiatives to be developed or previously unfunded work to be funded. SSF funding allowed us to deliver prevention and safeguarding workshops for young people.

GambleAware's System Stabilisation Funding was awarded in three consecutive tranches (SSF1–SSF3) supporting one continuous programme. The trustees have accounted for them as a single restricted fund: a residual SSF2 balance of £6,368.41 was carried into SSF3, and a net overspend of £989.07 across the combined programme has been met from unrestricted funds. No amount is returnable to GambleAware.

No operator or industry actor has any in f uence over what we say, what we publish or what we recommend.

The statutory levy now replaces that system, and from 2026, our core funding comes from OHID and the NHS.

7

Our timeline

Key milestones and advocacy across our first six years.

----- Start of picture text -----
2020
----- End of picture text -----

Early foundations

----- Start of picture text -----
2021
----- End of picture text -----

2021 Building influence

2022 Scaling partnerships

----- Start of picture text -----
2022 2022 Scaling partnerships
•
• Systems working established across Essex.
•
2023 2023 Safeguarding & prevention
----- End of picture text -----

----- Start of picture text -----
2024 2024 Volunteer-led continuity
----- End of picture text -----

----- Start of picture text -----
2025
----- End of picture text -----

2025 National reach

8

Evidence and advocacy 02 Making the public-health case for proportionate, structural action, to Parliament.

9

Epidemiology and economics

SUBMISSION TO THE APPG ON GAMBLING-RELATED HARM, SEPTEMBER 2025

In September 2025 we submitted formal evidence to the All-Party Parliamentary Group inquiry, positioning gambling harm as a top-five modifiable risk to population health and setting out what proportionate implementation requires. The submission challenged a central weakness in the UK response: acknowledgement without implementation.

1 in 6

13.6%

Adults in the UK are harmed by gambling.

of adults are already experiencing some level of gambling harm (PGSI 1+).

including those harmed by someone else’s gambling.

Past-year and self-reported. GSGB 2024

4.8 million

A leading

adults harmed by someone else’s gambling, around 9% of adults

modifiable risk to health, comparable to alcohol misuse and depression.

Past-year and self-reported. GSGB 2024

GHUK analysis vs Global Burden of Disease; Tulloch et al. 2026

Past-year prevalence figures do not capture cumulative or legacy harm (Langham et al., 2016).

What the submission demonstrated

The economic case

Gambling harm should be treated as a top-tier modifiable risk, comparable to other major public health priorities. Those affected by someone else’s gambling, including children, account for a substantial share of harm. Most harm sits below the clinical threshold, among lowerscoring groups (the prevention paradox). The UK lacks routine coding and official burden estimates, limiting implementation and evaluation.

The economic and social costs of gambling harm far exceed the tax the sector generates, yet the UK has never fully measured them. The true cost should be quantified, and prevention and treatment resourced in proportion to it.

Even conservative modelling puts annual health losses in the billions and exceeding tax revenue benefits.

Measure the cost, then resource the response to match it.

10

Proportionate action, grounded in evidence

The submission moved beyond critique to practical recommendations, aligning international evidence with the UK policy moment of NICE guidance and statutory levy reform.

£22bn to £ 32 bn, estimated annual health-related quality-of-life losses from gambling harm.

The UK has no full-method estimate of gambling’s social cost. The only official England figure (OHID: £1.05 to £1.77bn a year) comes to 0.4 to 0.7 times the tax the sector generates, and it leaves out those harmed by someone else’s gambling, children, legacy harms and the health-related quality-of-life losses that make up most of the true burden. GHUK’s QALY modelling values those losses separately at £22bn to £ 32 bn a year. In Victoria, Australia, the annual social cost is around A$14bn, including roughly A$1.6bn in harm to those affected by someone else’s gambling. (Browne, Tulloch et al., 2025).

Statutory levy

Health-system integration

Scaled to population burden, independently allocated, with transparent evaluation.

Routine screening and coding, workforce training, and connected referral pathways.

Advertising restrictions

Regulatory realignment

Comprehensive restrictions across sport, broadcast and digital, applying the tobacco model; partial bans are ineffective.

Strategic oversight within the Department of Health and Social Care, resourced regulators, and clear operator duties and redress.

Product safety standards

Public-health communication

Risk-based limits on speed and stake, mandatory breaks, and removal of features such as nearmisses and losses-disguised-as-wins.

National harm-prevention campaigns, riskbased framing, and critical gambling-harm and advertising literacy in schools.

Statutory duty of care

A statutory duty of care should rest on enforceable thresholds, with clear operator obligations, independent oversight and accountability for harm.

What this positions us to do

11

Changing the narrative

For too long, gambling has been framed as an issue of individual responsibility. A narrative of individual responsibility suggests a small minority making poor choices, obscuring product design, marketing exposure, regulatory gaps and commercial incentives.

We reframe gambling harm as

We consistently challenge

On every basis and every scenario, people harmed by someone else’s gambling carry at least a substantial minority of the modelled health loss, and their share rises as the gambling-prevalence estimate falls. On the GSGB base that share is 18% to 42%.

These harms to partners, children and wider family, are too often excluded from duty-of-care frameworks, safeguarding risk assessments and support pathways. We argue they must be brought into them.

~~Harm does not begin at diagnosis. It exists on a spectrum. It accumulates. It afects families. It shapes communities.~~

12

Our work in practice 03 Our work combines systems leadership with direct, face-to-face, lived-experience-led delivery.

13

Local and regional public health

SYSTEMS WORK IN CUMBRIA & LANCASHIRE

During 2024–25 we were co-commissioned to support regional public-health work with the Cumbria & Lancashire Public Health Collaborative, operating as a systems advisor within statutory public-health structures. Gambling harm is a national public-health priority; this work shows how it can be embedded within regional systems.

In many areas activity remains fragmented, dependent on individual champions rather than coordinated governance. New NICE guidance and the forthcoming statutory levy have created momentum for local authorities to strengthen their response. The purpose of this work was to support a more structured, aligned and sustainable approach, helping the region move from dispersed activity to coordinated infrastructure.

Through this work we are helping the region turn shared ambition into a coordinated, funded plan, with gambling harm embedded in local strategies and everyday practice.

The approach is designed to be replicable: a model other regions can adopt as the statutory levy and NICE guidance take effect.

What we did

We drew on established public-health and inequalities frameworks (whole-system approaches and populationoutcome models) and conducted structured stakeholder insight across public health, NHS and voluntary-sector partners. The work moved from listening, to mapping, to distilling shared themes, to identifying routes to embed them.

Six themes for local action

Strategic leadership & partnerships

Clear ownership, shared priorities and cross-system alignment.

Prevention & regulation

Embedding harm within licensing, regulation and upstream levers.

Community engagement & inclusion

Equitable, accessible approaches shaped by local insight.

Population insights & improvement

Data to understand exposure and continuously improve response.

Integrated treatment & support

Connecting pathways across mental health, addictions and wider services.

Operational partnerships

Practical collaboration that turns strategy into day-today practice.

14

Safeguarding films

PUTTING THE SPOTLIGHT ON CHILD SAFEGUARDING

Gambling-related harm to children is widely experienced, but rarely named. We created these films to make everyday, cumulative harm visible within safeguarding practice, without blaming parents or relying on stereotypes. Not all harm looks like crisis: these films show the quieter realities professionals told us they struggle to recognise until too late.

912,805

children in England living with an adult who gambles who might require treatment or support (OHID, 2023).

1,580,175

adults in England who gamble who may benefit from some type of treatment or support (OHID, 2023).

The gap we saw

To our knowledge, there are no comparable child-centred safeguarding resources of this kind in the UK tools that show gambling-related harm in realistic home settings and help practitioners translate recognition into response. There was little to support professionals to identify non-crisis, cumulative harm; few materials that fit existing safeguarding training and assessment frameworks; and limited focus on children already being harmed now.

15

From production to system use

The films were developed as safeguarding learning tools, designed to embed within existing training structures. Safeguarding systems cannot respond to what they are not trained to see.

How we made it

Where it fits

How it can be used

System-level intent

16

MECC microlearning

EMBEDDING GAMBLING HARM INTO EVERYDAY PRACTICE

Frontline professionals want to respond to gambling harm, but existing training may not fit busy services. We created a microlearning resource designed for scale: short, practical, and easy to adopt through existing routes.

~5 min

1st

microlearning video built to slot into induction, safeguarding and refresher training.

The first dedicated gambling-harm resource of its kind in the UK (to our knowledge)

The simple pathway

Publications and research

Ask (routinely): Non-judgemental language. “Is gambling ever causing you any stress?” Make it normal to ask.

Notice (risk & impact): Financial strain, mental-health stress, relationship conflict, and impact on children and affected others.

Support (signpost): Offer brief advice and clear options. Make the next step easy and specific.

What the video enables

Where it can sit

Gambling is rarely recorded in electronic health records, so the UK lacks the data capability to study gambling harm the way it studies other conditions. This year GHUK contributed to two peer-reviewed studies that expose that gap and what it costs.

Using thirty years of linked NHS records in Wales, Jones, Boering, Patel, Leightley and Dymond (BJPsych Open, 2025) found that a recorded gambling diagnosis was strongly associated with death by suicide. Because gambling is so seldom coded, the estimate rests on very few cases and is large but imprecise (odds ratio 30.94, 95% CI 3.57 to 268.28): the signal is clear, but the data are too thin to pin it down.

A scoping review by Boering, Jones, Patel, Leightley and Dymond (npj Digital Medicine, 2025) confirmed the pattern: gambling is largely absent from the routinely collected, linked data that underpins epidemiology, with most such research coming from countries that record it better.

The fix is practical. Routine identification, coding and linked-data studies would turn these signals into precise, reliable estimates of harm, serving prevention and research at once. Until then, gambling stays invisible to the clinicians who could intervene and the researchers who could measure it.

A five-minute resource can unlock earlier conversations, and earlier help. Built to travel through existing training routes.

17

GMC advocacy & the MLA milestone

DEVELOPING CAPABILITY AT NATIONAL SCALE

For four years we made the case that gambling harm could not remain absent from national medical standards. Medical students could graduate without ever being expected to recognise gambling harm, understand its safeguarding implications, or ask about it safely. We argued this was not simply a curriculum gap, it was a structural omission in the system that shapes clinical practice.

What changes now

How we support translation into practice

This is a structural change that lasts. Once a topic sits in the Medical Licensing Assessment, every UK medical school must prepare students for it and every new doctor must demonstrate they understand it, year after year. Recognition becomes routine, and the responsibility to ask about gambling harm and respond safely is built into the profession rather than left to individual interest.

This is lasting infrastructure: it will shape clinical practice for generations, supporting earlier identification across primary care, psychiatry and emergency departments, and reducing stigma through normalisation within health frameworks.

18

Our work in numbers

2024–25 was a year of consolidation and structural change. We sustained direct delivery to those most exposed to harm, and made our most significant gains in the systems that will shape practice for years to come.

What we delivered

~6,000

young people reached through prevention and safeguarding workshops (GambleAware SSF2 & SSF3).

250+

medical students taught directly through livedexperience-led teaching.

33+

community organisations partnered with to reach them, across 40+ sessions.

1st

The first epidemiological and cost report of gambling harm, authored by GHUK.

~8%

of the young people we reached self-reported an indicator of gambling harm.

~9,000

newly qualified UK doctors a year will now learn about gambling disorder.

~~We frst wrote to the GMC in 2021 and contributed to both phases of its 2024 to 2025 content map review → gambling disorder was included in the updated MLA from 2026.~~

What we built and influenced this year

19

Governance, finances & the year ahead 04

How we are run, how we are funded, and where we are going next.

20

Board of trustees

Gambling Harm UK is governed by a board that combines lived experience with professional expertise, ensuring decisions are evidence-informed, safeguarding-aware and aligned to public benefit.

Co-founder & trustee appointed 4 November 2021

Christopher Gilham

Trustee appointed 12 July 2022

Lesley Buckland

A co-founder of Gambling Harm UK and the All Bets Are Off podcast (2020); a mental-health advocate and peer supporter, including work with Ripple Suicide Prevention. Brings lived experience of alcohol and gambling harm, and of neurodivergence.

Senior HR and governance leader across industry, higher education and the NHS; former senior leader at LSBU’s Faculty of Health, with extensive audit and governance experience.

Trustee & System Lead appointed 18 June 2025

John Gilham

Trustee appointed 27 October 2025

Michael Tarrega

Senior healthcare leader with Chief Executive and Non-Executive experience, including chairing Audit, Finance, Quality and Risk committees; previously Chief Executive of GHUK, now Trustee and System Lead. Brings lived experience as an affected other.

Head of Communications on major UK infrastructure programmes, with senior strategic-communications and stakeholder-engagement expertise. Brings lived experience of gambling harm.

Chair (from March 2026) & Trustee appointed 27 October 2025

Paul Dent

Trauma, addiction and relationship therapist; has led global gambling support services and delivered international presentations on gambling-related harm, recovery and therapeutic practice.

21

Changes during the year & governance

The board changed significantly this year as the charity moved from volunteer-led operation toward a paid, staffed model. In May 2025 Kishan Patel stepped down as Chair and Trustee to take on the operational lead role as volunteer CEO, continuing to take no salary. John Gilham was appointed Trustee in June 2025. Craig Spencer stepped down in July 2025. Michael Tarrega and Paul Dent joined as Trustees in October 2025. With no Chair in post during the year, this report is signed by a trustee on behalf of the board.

The board thanks Craig Spencer and Andrew Nicol for their service and their contribution to the charity.

Since the year-end, under the new Chair, the board has established:

Financial review

Income

£185,970

Expenditure £84,287

Surplus £101,683

Free reserves

£162,683

Fixed assets £29,152

Restricted funds £90,605

Total funds £282,440. Unrestricted funds £191,835 = free reserves plus fixed assets.

Income rose to £185,970 while expenditure fell to £84,287, giving a surplus of £101,683, most of it restricted grant funding carried forward for delivery in 2026. The charity recognises the value of donated professional time as income, with a matching charge to expenditure. That donated time fell from £89,810 in 2023–24 to £10,250 this year, as paid and funded delivery replaced volunteer effort. Cash income nearly doubled (from £89,975 to £175,720) and cash expenditure more than doubled (from £36,050 to £74,037). This was a year of substantially increased delivery.

Restricted grant funding of £163,559 came from two funders. GambleAware provided £113,559 across the SSF2 and SSF3 programmes, and Thurrock Council provided £50,000 to support workforce training, public awareness and pathway development. The charity accepts no funding from the gambling industry.

Reserves policy and position

The trustees aim to hold unrestricted reserves equivalent to three to six months of core delivery costs. At the year end unrestricted funds were £191,835, of which £29,152 is held in fixed assets that cannot be spent to cover running costs. Free reserves were therefore £162,683. This is above the target at the current cost base, reflecting a deliberate strengthening of reserves ahead of the move to a staffed operation; the trustees will review the target as the cost base grows under the OHID and NHS programmes.

Going concern

After making appropriate enquiries, the trustees have a reasonable expectation that the charity has adequate resources to continue for the foreseeable future, and adopt the going-concern basis. Since the year-end it has secured multi-year OHID (2026 to 2028) and NHS funding, alongside named-partner research roles.

Public benefit

The trustees confirm they have had regard to the Charity Commission’s public-benefit guidance in setting the charity’s objectives and activities.

Principal risks

The principal risks relate to managing growth and transition: diversifying income as funding moves to the statutory levy (Funding concentration this year: GambleAware provided £113,559 this year, 61% of total income), building a paid team, safeguarding, and protecting independence from gambling-industry funding.

These are managed through secured multi-year funding, recruitment of paid staff, and safeguarding and conflict-ofinterest controls.

22

Looking ahead

2025–26 AND BEYOND

Five years on, the policy environment we set out to change is finally beginning to shift. As we closed the year on 30 November 2025, the statutory levy was replacing voluntary RET; OHID had, nine days before our year-end, published the Expression of Interest for its first independent, public-health-led grant route; and gambling harm had secured a place on the MLA from 2026.

At the close of the period we were actively engaging with the new statutory funding architecture, attending OHID’s VCSE applicant briefings, beginning our Expression of Interest, and preparing bids across England, Scotland and the UK research councils, diversifying away from the short-term project grants that have constrained us for years.

Since the year end the funding position has changed substantially. In March 2026 we learned that our bid to the OHID Gambling Harms Prevention VCSE Fund had been successful, and the grant agreement for 2026 to 2028 was signed in April 2026. This underpins our national safeguarding and education infrastructure. We also secured NHS treatment funding in England, the first NHS funding Gambling Harm UK has received. We are named partner on five successful UKRI bids supporting evidence and evaluation. A three-year bid to Public Health Scotland was unsuccessful, and delivery has been reprioritised to where statutory funding is now in place.

Our strategic priorities

How we will measure success

We measure system change: reach and equity in priority areas; system adoption (partners embedding gambling harm in JSNAs and commissioning); workforce confidence and routine-enquiry intent; curriculum alignment against MLA expectations; delivery against the OHID and NHS grants; and concrete progress on routine coding and published burden estimates.

~~Our task is to create the conditions for prevention to become routine and sustainable, long after our direct delivery ends.~~

23

Reference and administrative details

Charity name — Gambling Harm UK Registered charity number — 1196538 Legal form — Charitable Incorporated Organisation (foundation model) Governing document — CIO constitution registered 12 November 2021, amended 31 January 2022 and 9 December 2022

Date registered — 12 November 2021 Area of operation — England and Wales Principal address — 86–90 Paul Street, London EC2A 4NE Independent examiner — Paul Dearsley FCCA, Aston Ley Limited, The Mill House, Street Farm, The Street, Stoke By Clare, Suffolk CO10 8HR Bankers — The Co-operative Bank plc

How we are governed

Gambling Harm UK is a Charitable Incorporated Organisation on the foundation model, registered with the Charity Commission for England and Wales on 12 November 2021.

Under the foundation model the trustees are the charity's only members, so the board appoints and removes its own trustees. The board recruits against identified skill gaps: during the year it ran an open recruitment round, shortlisting four

candidates in October 2025 and appointing two, bringing communications and therapeutic practice expertise to the board.

New trustees are added to the conflicts of interest register on appointment, and the register is reviewed at every board meeting.

Trustees

The following served as trustees during the year and up to the date this report was approved.

24

Trustees’ declaration

The trustees confirm that this report accurately reflects the charity’s activities and performance during the year ended 30 November 2025.

Signed on behalf of the Board of Trustees:

Christopher Gilham

Trustee, on behalf of the Board · Date : 28 August 2026

Registered charity 1196538 · 86–90 Paul Street, London EC2A 4NE hello@gamblingharm.com · gamblingharm.com

We do not accept funds from the gambling industry.

26

GAMBLING HARM UK GAMBLING HARM UK GAMBLING HARM UK Charity No (if
any)
1196538		 CC17a
Annual accounts for the period
Period start date 01/12/2024 To Period end date 30/11/2025
Section A Statement of financial activities
Recommended
categories by activity
Details of own
analysis
Note
Incoming resources (Note 3)
Incoming resources from
generated funds
Voluntary income
3
Activities for generating funds
3
Investment income
3
Incoming resources from
charitable activities
3
Other incoming resources
3
Resources expended (Notes 4-8)
Costs of Generating Funds
Costs of generating voluntary income
Fundraising trading costs
Investment management costs
Charitable activities
4
Governance costs
Other resources expended
4
13
13
Total funds carried forward
Total funds brought forward
Net movement in funds
Net incoming/(outgoing) resources before
transfers
Gains and losses on investment assets
Gains and losses on revaluation of fixed assets
for the charity’s own use
Other recognised gains/(losses)
Net incoming/(outgoing) resources before other
recognised gains/(losses)
Gross transfers between funds
Total resources expended
Total incoming resources		 Unrestricted
funds
Restricted
income
funds
Endowment
funds
Total this
year
Total last
year
£
£
£
£
£
F01
F02
F03
F04
F05
- - - - -
11,036 - - 11,036 90,090
10,200 - - 10,200 300
1,175 - - 1,175 1,258
- 163,559 - 163,559 88,137
- - - - -
22,411 163,559 - 185,970 179,785
- - - - -
- - - - -
- - - - -
- - - - -
1,352 82,935 - 84,287 125,860
- - - - -
- - - - -
1,352 82,935 - 84,287 125,860
21,059 80,624 - 101,683 53,925
- - - - -
21,059 80,624 - 101,683 53,925
- - - - -
- - - - -
21,059 80,624 - 101,683 53,925
170,776 9,981 - 180,757 126,832
191,835 90,605 - 282,440 180,757

1

Section B Balance sheet

Fixed assets
Tangible assets (Note 9)
Investments (Note 10)
Total fixed assets
Current assets
Stock and work in progress
Debtors (Note 11)
Short term investments
Cash at bank and in hand
Total current assets
Creditors: amounts falling due within
one year (Note 12)
Net current assets/(liabilities)
Total assets less current liabilities
Creditors: amounts falling due after one
year (Note 12)
Provisions for liabilities and charges
Net assets
Funds of the Charity
Unrestricted funds
Restricted income funds (Note 13)
Endowment funds(Note 13)
Total funds
Signed on behalf of all the trustees		 Note
9
11
12		 Unrestricted
funds
£
F01		 Restricted
income
funds
£
F02		 Endowment
funds
£
F03		 Total this
year
Total last
year
£
£
F04
F05		 Total this
year
Total last
year
£
£
F04
F05
29,152 - - 29,152 43
- - - - -
- - - - -
29,152 - - 29,152 43
- - - - -
343 41,349 - 41,692 75,788
- - - - -
172,340 58,117 - 230,457 139,608
172,683 99,466 - 272,149 215,396
10,000 8,861 - 18,861 34,682
162,683 90,605 - 253,288 180,714
191,835 90,605 - 282,440 180,757
- - - - -
- - - - -
191,835 90,605 - 282,440 180,757
191,835 191,835 170,776
- - -
90,605 90,605 9,981
- - -
191,835 90,605 - 282,440 180,757
Signature Print Name Date of
approval
Christopher Gilham
Trustee		 8/4/2026

2

Section C Notes to the accounts

Note 1 Basis of preparation

1.1 Basis of accounting

These accounts have been prepared on the basis of historic cost (except that investments are shown at market value) in accordance with:

• and with Accounting Standards; or ü Financial Reporting Standards for Smaller Enterprises (FRSSE);

1.2 Change in basis of accounting

There has been no change to the accounting policies (valuation rules and methods of accounting) since last year.

1.3 Changes to previous accounts

No changes have been made to accounts for previous years.

3

Section C Notes to the accounts (cont)

Note 2 Accounting policies

INCOMING RESOURCES

Recognition of incoming These are included in the Statement of Financial Activities (SoFA) when:
resources • the charity becomes entitled to the resources;
• the trustees are virtually certain they will receive the resources; and
• the monetary value can be measured with sufficient reliability.
Incoming resources with Where incoming resources have related expenditure (as with fundraising or contract income) the
related expenditure incoming resources and related expenditure are reported gross in the SoFA.
Grants and donations Grants and donations are only included in the SoFA when the charity has unconditional
entitlement to the resources.
Tax reclaims on donations and Incoming resources from tax reclaims are included in the SoFA at the same time as the gift to
gifts which they relate.
Contractual income and This is only included in the SoFA once the related goods or services have been delivered.
performance related grants
Gifts in kind Gifts in kind are accounted for at a reasonable estimate of their value to the charity or the amount
actually realised.
Gifts in kind for sale or distribution are included in the accounts as gifts only when sold or
distributed by the charity.
Gifts in kind for use by the charity are included in the SoFA as incoming resources when
receivable.
Donated services and facilities These are only included in incoming resources (with an equivalent amount in resources expended)
where the benefit to the charity is reasonably quantifiable, measurable and material_._The value
placed on these resources is the estimated value to the charity of the service or facility received.
Volunteer help The value of any voluntary help received is not included in the accounts but is described in the
trustees’ annual report.
Investment income This is included in the accounts when receivable.
Investment gains and losses This includes any gain or loss on the sale of investments and any gain or loss resulting from
revaluing investments to market value at the end of the year.
EXPENDITURE AND LIABILITIES
Liability recognition Liabilities are recognised as soon as there is a legal or constructive obligation committing the
charity to pay out resources.
Governance costs Include costs of the preparation and examination of statutory accounts, the costs of trustee
meetings and cost of any legal advice to trustees on governance or constitutional matters.
Grants with performance Where the charity gives a grant with conditions for its payment being a specific level of service or
conditions output to be provided, such grants are only recognised in the SoFA once the recipient of the grant
has provided the specified service or output.
Grants payable without These are only recognised in the accounts when a commitment has been made and there are no
performance conditions conditions to be met relating to the grant which remain in the control of the charity.
Support Costs Support costs include central functions and have been allocated to activity cost categories on a
basis consistent with the use of resources, eg allocating property costs by floor areas, or per
capita, staff costs by the time spent and other costs by their usage.
ASSETS
Tangible fixed assets for use These are capitalised if they can be used for more than one year, and cost at least £500. They
by charity are valued at cost or a reasonable value on receipt.
Investments Investments quoted on a recognised stock exchange are valued at market value at the year end.
Other investment assets are included at trustees' best estimate of market value.
Stocks and work in progress These are valued at the lower of cost or market value.

4

Section C Notes to the accounts (cont)

Note 3 Analysis of incoming resources

Activities for generating funds
Investment income
Incoming resources from
charitable activities
Voluntary income		 Analysis This year
Last year
£
£		 This year
Last year
£
£
Donations 786 280
Grant income - -
Donated time 10,250 89,810
- -
- -
**Total ** 11,036 90,090
Fee income for trainingservices 10,200 300
- -
- -
- -
- -
**Total ** 10,200 300
Interest receivable 1,175 1,258
- -
- -
- -
- -
**Total ** 1,175 1,258
Return surplus / Grant - GREO Leaf Programme - - 10,441
Return surplus - Bolton CVS - - 9,976
Grant - Gambleware SSF1 - 21,220
Grant - Gambleware SSF2 9,704 87,334
Grant - Gambleware SSF3 103,855 -
Grant - Thurrock Council 50,000 -
**Total ** 163,559 88,137

5

Section C Notes to the accounts (cont)

Note 4 Analysis of resources expended

Governance costs
Charitable activities
Investment
management costs
Costs of generating
voluntary income
Fundraising trading
costs		 Analysis This year
Last year
£
£		 This year
Last year
£
£
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
Total - -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
Total - -
- -
- -
- -
Total - -
Staff costs 27,109 -726
Depreciation 1,425 482
Donated time 10,250 89,810
Other costs 45,503 36,294
- -
Total 84,287 125,860
- -
- -
- -
Total - -

6

Section C Notes to the accounts (cont)

Note 5 Support Costs

Support cost type Fundraising activity
£		 Charitable Activity
£		 Governance Activity
£		 Total Cost
£
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
**Total ** - - - -

Note 6 Details of certain items of expenditure

6.1 Trustee expenses

6.1 Trustee expenses
Number of trustees who were paid expenses
Nature of the expenses
Total amount paid		 This year Last year
0 0
n/a n/a
£0 £0

6.2 Fees for examination or audit of the accounts

Preparation of the accounts
Independent examiner’s fee for reporting on the accounts		 This year
£		 Last year
£
1,250 1,200
950 900

7

Section C Notes to the accounts (cont)

Note 7 Paid employees

7.1 Staff Costs

7.1 Staff Costs 7.1 Staff Costs
Fundraising
Charitable Activities
Governance
Other
Total
Gross wages, salaries and benefits in kind
The parts of the charity in which the
employees work
7.2 Average number of full-time equivalent employees in the year
Employer’s National Insurance costs
Pension costs
Total staff costs		 This year
£		 Last year
£
26,400 - 760
- -
709 34
27,109 - 726
This year
Number		 Last year
Number
Fundraising - -
Charitable Activities 1 1
Governance - -
Other - -
Total 1 1

7.3 Defined contribution pension scheme

The amount of any contributions outstanding at
Brief details of the scheme
The amount of any contributions prepaid at the
The costs of the scheme to the charity for the y		 The Charity operates a defined contribution pension scheme. The assets of
the scheme are held separately from those of the charity in an independently
administered fund.		 The Charity operates a defined contribution pension scheme. The assets of
the scheme are held separately from those of the charity in an independently
administered fund.		 The Charity operates a defined contribution pension scheme. The assets of
the scheme are held separately from those of the charity in an independently
administered fund.
the year end
year end
ear
This year
£		 Last year
£
709 34
557 -
- -

8

Section C Notes to the accounts (cont)

Note 8 Grantmaking

Please complete this note if the charity made any grants or donations which in aggregate form a material part of the charitable activities undertaken.

8.1 Total value of grants

Purpose for which grants made Grants to
institutions
Total amount £		 Grants to
individuals
Total amount £
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
Total - -

8.1 Grantmaking costs

If the charity’s accounts are prepared on the “activity basis” please give details of any support cost associated with grantmaking. Please enter “Nil” if the charity does not identify and/or allocate support costs.

Support costs of grantmaking

£

8.3 Grants made to institutions

If the charity has made grants to particular institutions that are material in the context of its grantmaking please give details of the institution supported, purpose of the grant and total paid to each institution listed. Sufficient information should be given to provide a reasonable understanding of the range of institutions supported.

Names of institutions
 Purpose
 Total amount of
grantspaid £
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Total grants to institutions -

9

Section C Notes to the accounts (cont)

Note 9 Tangible fixed assets

9.1 Cost or valuation

Freehold land
& buildings
Website and
awareness
videos
Plant,
machinery and
motor vehicles
Fixtures,
fittings and
equipment
Payments on
account and
assets under
construction
Total
£
£
£
£
£
£
Balance brought
forward
- - - 1,739 - 1,739
Additions
- 28,480 - 2,054 - 30,534
Revaluations
- - - - - -
Disposals
- - - - - -
Transfers
- - - - - -
Balance carried forward - 28,480 - 3,793 - 32,273
Basis
Straight line
Straight line
Rate
33%
33%
Balance brought
forward
- - - 1,696 - 1,696
Depreciation charge for
year
- 1,077 - 348 - 1,425
Impairment provisions
- - - - - -
Revaluations
- - - - - -
Disposals
- - - - - -
Transfers
- - - - - -
Balance carried forward - 1,077 - 2,044 - 3,121
Brought forward
- - - 43 - 43
Carried forward
- 27,403 - 1,749 - 29,152
9.3 Net book value
9.2 Accumulated depreciation and impairment provisions		 Freehold land
& buildings
£		 Website and
awareness
videos
£		 Plant,
machinery and
motor vehicles
£		 Fixtures,
fittings and
equipment
£		 Payments on
account and
assets under
construction
£		 Total
£
- - - 1,739 - 1,739
- 28,480 - 2,054 - 30,534
- - - - - -
- - - - - -
- - - - - -
- 28,480 - 3,793 - 32,273
- - - 1,696 - 1,696
- 1,077 - 348 - 1,425
- - - - - -
- - - - - -
- - - - - -
- - - - - -
- 1,077 - 2,044 - 3,121
- - - 43 - 43
- 27,403 - 1,749 - 29,152

9.4 Revaluation

All fixed assets are recognised at cost.

10

Section C Notes to the accounts (cont)

Note 10 Investment assets

10.1 Fixed assets investments

£ Carrying (market) value at beginning of year - Add: additions to investments at cost - Less: disposals at carrying value - Add/(deduct): net gain/(loss) on revaluation - Carrying (market) value at end of year -

Other investments
Total
Investment properties
Securities not listed on a recognised Stock Exchange
Cash held as part of the investment portfolio
Investments listed on a recognised stock exchange or held in common investment
funds, open ended investment companies, unit trusts or other collective
investment schemes
Investments in subsidiary or connected undertakings and companies
Analysis of investments		 10.2
Market value at
year end
£		 10.3
Income from
investments for
the year
£
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -

10.4 Material investment holdings

If any single investment is material in terms of its value (for example represents more than 5 per cent of the value of the charity’s total investments) please provide details.

Investment held

Market Value

11

Section C Notes to the accounts (cont)

Note 11 Debtors and prepayments

Analysis of debtors
Trade debtors
Due between restricted and unrestricted fund
Other debtors
Prepayments and accrued income
**Total **		 Amounts falling due within
oneyear		 Amounts falling due within
oneyear		 Amounts falling due after
more than oneyear		 Amounts falling due after
more than oneyear
This year
£		 Last year This year
£		 Last year
£ £
40,958 43,667 - -
- 31,691 - -
343 - -
751 430 - -
42,052 75,788 - -

Note 12 Creditors and accruals

12.1 Analysis of creditors

Loans and overdrafts
Trade creditors
Due between restricted and unrestricted fund
Other taxation and social security
Other creditors
Accruals and deferred income
**Total **		 Amounts falling due within
oneyear		 Amounts falling due within
oneyear		 Amounts falling due after
more than oneyear		 Amounts falling due after
more than oneyear
This year
£		 Last year This year
£		 Last year
£ £
- - - -
14,467 1,103 - -
- 31,691
2,475 -131 - -
-81 -81 - -
2,000 2,100 - -
18,861 34,682 - -

12.2 Security over assets

None

CC17a (Excel)

04/08/2026

12

Section C Notes to the accounts (cont)

Note 13 Endowment and restricted income funds

13.1 Funds held

Fund Name Type PE, EE
or R		 Purpose and Restrictions
GambleAware SSF2 & SSF3 Restricted Young People in Diverse Communities Gambling Harm Prevention Workshops
(14–24-year-olds in Greater London and Home Counties)
Thurrock Council Restricted Respond to gambling-related harms through workforce training, public
awareness campaigns,and the development ofpathways

13.2 Movements of major funds

Fund names Fund
balances
brought
forward
£		 Incoming
resources
£		 Outgoing
resources
£		 Transfers
£		 Gains and
losses
£		 Fund
balances
carried
forward
£
GambleAware SSF2 9,981 9,704 - 13,317 - 6,368 - -
GambleAware SSF3 - 103,855 - 68,320 6,368 - 41,903
Thurrock Council - 50,000 - 1,298 - - 48,702
**Total Funds ** 9,981 163,559 - 82,935 - - 90,605

13.3 Transfers between funds

From Fund(Name) To Fund(Name) Reason Amount
GambleAware SSF2 GambleAware SSF3 As agreed with funder 6,368

13

Section C Notes to the accounts (cont)

Note 14 Transactions with related parties

14.1 Remuneration and benefits

Please give the amount of, and legal authority for, any remuneration or other benefits paid to a trustee or other related parties by the charity or any institution or company connected with it.

Name of trustee or connected party Legal authority (eg order,
governing document)		 Amounts paid or benefit value Amounts paid or benefit value
This year
£		 Last year
£
None None

14.2 Loans

Due to trustees and
related parties
Due from trustees and
related parties		 Name of trustee or
connected party		 Legal authority Amount owing Amount owing
This year
£		 Last year
£
None None
None None

14.3 Other transaction(s) with trustees or related parties

Name of the trustee or
related party		 Relationship to charity Description of the
transaction(s)		 This year
£		 Last year
£
None None

14

Independent examiner's report on the accounts

Section A Independent Examiner’s Report

Report to the trustees
On accounts for the year
ended
Set out on pages		 GAMBLING HARM UK GAMBLING HARM UK GAMBLING HARM UK
30 NOVEMBER 2025 Charity
number		 1196538
1 to 14
(remember to include the page numbers of additional sheets)

I report to the trustees on my examination of the accounts of the above charity (“the Trust”) for the year ended 30 November 2025.

Responsibilities and As the charity's trustees, you are responsible for the preparation of the accounts basis of report in accordance with the requirements of the Charities Act 2011 (“the Act”).

I report in respect of my examination of the Trust’s accounts carried out under section 145 of the 2011 Act and in carrying out my examination, I have followed all the applicable Directions given by the Charity Commission under section 145(5)(b) of the Act.

Independent examiner's I have completed my examination. I confirm that no material matters have statement come to my attention in connection with the examination which gives me cause to believe that in, any material respect:

I have no concerns and have come across no other matters in connection with the examination to which attention should be drawn in this report in order to enable a proper understanding of the accounts to be reached.

Signed:
Name:
Relevant professional
qualification(s) or body (if
any):
Address:

 4 August 2026
Paul DearsleyFCCA
Chartered Certified Accountant
Aston Ley Limited
The Mill House, Street Farm, The Street,
Stoke By Clare, Suffolk CO10 8HR

1

Section B Disclosure

Only complete if the examiner needs to highlight material matters of concern (see CC32, Independent examination of charity accounts: directions and guidance for examiners).

Give here brief details of any items that the examiner wishes to disclose .

2