# 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: - Low level of gambling harm (PGSI 1–2): 7.8% - Earlier recognition of harm across health, education and safeguarding systems. - A workforce that is informed, confident and equipped to respond safely and appropriately. - Sustainable prevention infrastructure embedded in routine policy, training and professional practice. - Long-term reductions in harm and inequality. - People harmed by someone else’s gambling, including children, recognised and supported as harmed in their own right. ## **As serious as other major health conditions** - Moderate level of gambling harm (PGSI 3–7): 3.5% - Severe level of gambling harm (PGSI 8+): 2.4% 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._ - Bringing public health, healthcare, education and safeguarding partners together around a shared understanding of gambling harm - Positioning gambling harm within existing priorities such as inequalities, suicide prevention and child protection - Supporting integration into joint strategic needs assessments and local action plans - Convening and advising regional and local systems as they build their response **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._ - Delivering structured education and workforce training across services - Embedding gambling harm in undergraduate curricula and national professional standards - Building confidence to ask about gambling, respond appropriately and signpost effectively - Providing safeguarding-informed prevention for children and young people **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._ - Creating reusable public-health and training assets that partners can keep using - • Aligning resources with established frameworks such as safeguarding, MECC and professional curricula - Enabling partners to adopt and adapt our tools within their own structures - Reducing reliance on bespoke, externally delivered activity **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** - Founded by lived-experience volunteers. - All Bets Are Off podcast launched, recovery-focused. - Early parliamentary advocacy on gambling-related harm. - First visibility in medical education: Geeky Medics, Osmosis and Imperial. **----- Start of picture text -----**
2021
**----- End of picture text -----**
## **2021 Building influence** - Converted to a Charitable Incorporated Organisation (CIO). - Approved for the LCCP RET list (research, prevention and treatment). - Advocacy to replace “problem gambling” with “gambling harm”. - Published Gambling Explained for the 2005 Gambling Act review. ## **2022 Scaling partnerships** **----- Start of picture text -----**
2022 2022 Scaling partnerships
•
• Systems working established across Essex.
•
2023 2023 Safeguarding & prevention
**----- End of picture text -----**
- John Gilham appointed Chief Executive; renamed to Gambling Harm UK. - Governance and delivery planning strengthened for the next phase. - Gambling Tactics initiative launched, on industry influence and narratives. - GC Regulatory settlement fund closed; fixed-term employment contracts could not be extended. - Requested removal from the RET list after two years, reflecting our independence. **----- Start of picture text -----**
2024 2024 Volunteer-led continuity
**----- End of picture text -----**
- Levy delays meant no paid employees; activity coordinated voluntarily by the Chair. - Medical education expanded using low-burden curriculum routes. - Continued local-authority engagement and national standards work. **----- Start of picture text -----**
2025
**----- End of picture text -----**
## **2025 National reach** - Kishan Patel appointed volunteer CEO to enable recruitment of operational staff. - MECC microlearning video produced; systems pilot in Thurrock. - Safeguarding films produced for child-safeguarding and public-health training. - GMC includes gambling disorder on the MLA from 2026, following our advocacy across its content map review. 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** - Put independent public-health evidence and lived experience in front of decision-makers, as through our APPG submission and GMC advocacy. - Translate complex research into practical tools that health, education and local government systems can adopt. - Help build the scalable prevention infrastructure the statutory levy is intended to fund, including our OHID-funded prevention programme and NHS-funded treatment work. 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** - A predictable outcome of risk exposure - A population-level public health issue - A safeguarding and inequalities issue ## **We consistently challenge** - A systems challenge. - The framing of gambling harm as an isolated individual failing - The invisibility of people harmed by someone else’s gambling: partners, children, parents and communities 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%. - The absence of safeguarding within gambling policy - The failure to recognise gambling as a commercial determinant of health - The normalisation of harm through industry-led narratives 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. - **Listen:** stakeholder insight across public health, NHS and VCSE. - **Map:** current activity and gaps, governance, prevention and regulatory levers, referral and treatment pathways. - **Distil:** six themes for local action and a shared regional view. - **Recommend:** routes for embedding into Health & Wellbeing Boards, safeguarding, licensing and strategies. ## **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 - Safeguarding and child-protection training - Education and youth services - Health visiting and school nursing - Early help and family support teams - Public-health workforce development ## How it can be used - Standalone facilitated discussion - Induction and refresher training - Multi-agency safeguarding sessions - CPD and supervision prompts - Team learning and reflective practice ## System-level intent - Earlier identification of children affected by gambling-related harm. - Embedding gambling-related risk into routine safeguarding assessment and recording. - Supporting consistent responses across settings using existing safeguarding frameworks. - Reducing reliance on crisis response by strengthening prevention infrastructure. 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 - Routine enquiry and brief intervention in everyday settings - Reduced stigma and less uncertainty about “is it appropriate to ask?” - Recognition of harm affecting others, including children and families ## **Where it can sit** - Primary care - Mental health services - Alcohol & drug services - Family support 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. - Safeguarding teams 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** - Gambling disorder is recognised as core medical knowledge - Newly qualified doctors must demonstrate understanding within MLA-assessed domains - Routine enquiry is legitimised within frontline care - Safeguarding awareness becomes structurally reinforced ## **How we support translation into practice** - Lived-experience-led teaching that makes harm understandable - Case-based safeguarding scenarios reflecting real presentations - Curriculum mapping feasible within overloaded programmes - Practical communication strategies for routine enquiry 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** - Three child-safeguarding films for use across safeguarding and public-health training. - The UK's first dedicated gambling-harm MECC microlearning video. - A formal evidence submission to the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Gambling-Related Harm. - Local and regional public health systems working including Thurrock and Cumbria & Lancashire - An independent evaluation of our prevention and education work, underway with the University of Lincoln. - Prepared research ethics applications underpinning our medical education delivery and research publications. - Co-authored two peer-reviewed studies on gambling harm in routinely collected health data (BJPsych Open and npj Digital Medicine). 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: - an Audit & Risk committee - a People & Remuneration committee - a Safeguarding working group - It continues to recruit to broaden trustee membership. ## **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** - Mobilise the OHID-funded national safeguarding and education programme across England. - Deliver our NHS-funded treatment work, embedding lived experience throughout. - Implement the MLA milestone, curriculum templates, lowburden OSCE cases and safeguarding scenarios for the first MLA-tested cohort in 2026. - Strengthen local systems and public health action against gambling harm across England. - Bring gambling harm into public consciousness, developing routine indicators and estimates that make its true scale and human cost visible to commissioners and the public. ## **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: - Accounting and Reporting by Charities – Statement of Recommended Practice (SORP 2005); • and with Accounting Standards; or ü Financial Reporting Standards for Smaller Enterprises (FRSSE); - and with the Charities Act. ## **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: - the accounting records were not kept in accordance with section 130 of the Charities Act; or - the accounts did not accord with the accounting records; or - the accounts did not comply with the applicable requirements concerning the form and content of accounts set out in the Charities (Accounts and Reports) Regulations 2008 other than any requirement that the accounts give a ‘true and fair’ view which is not a matter considered as part of an independent examination. 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