Deadlock in London: UK Gambling Ombudsman Delayed for Three Years

The British gambling industry is looking towards Westminster, but there is little movement. Although the government promised the creation of an independent ombudsman in its landmark White Paper more than three years ago, the project remains stuck in bureaucratic channels. The Independent Betting Adjudication Service (IBAS) has voiced sharp criticism of this standstill in its current 2025 annual report. Consumers hoping for a quick and fair resolution to their disputes are being kept waiting while politicians prioritize other matters.

There is palpable frustration among stakeholders. Richard Hayler, Managing Director of IBAS, attributes the delay primarily to a lack of political will. Recently, focus has shifted toward topics like the new statutory levy, while the ombudsman, which was supposed to be operational within a year, was pushed to the back burner. Consequently, players often have no point of contact for conflicts that go beyond purely contractual issues.

Numbers and facts

The scale of the problem is highlighted by IBAS statistics. The organization estimates that it currently handles between 70% and 80% of all consumer complaints in the UK gambling sector. However, the current ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) system reaches its limits as soon as social responsibility and player protection are concerned. The industry had already submitted a comprehensive proposal to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) in early summer 2024, but a substantive response has yet to materialize.

A central point of contention is the legal form. The Gambling Commission (UKGC) maintains that a statutory body is necessary. The government, however, is reluctant to open the parliamentary schedule for new laws. This leads to a paradoxical situation, as Richard Hayler describes:

"We’re not doing this from a point of view of trying to position ourselves to get a competitive advantage. It’s more that all of us are getting ever growing numbers of people writing to us to say, ‘I think you should be looking at this complaint I have about this particular company’, and increasingly what they’re saying in their submissions is the government has said there should be a scheme for this." - Richard Hayler, Managing Director at IBAS

Background

The conflict is exacerbated by the stance of the Ombudsman Association (OA). This body, which grants official status to ombudsman schemes, reportedly refuses to grant the title to a dedicated gambling ombudsman as long as it is not all-encompassing. However, since various ADR providers already exist, merging them without new primary legislation would be legally difficult. The appointment of Ruth Evans as the new chair of the UKGC now raises hopes that a high-profile consumer champion will bring new momentum to the debate.

Critics like Dan Waugh from Regulus Partners complain that the ombudsman's objective was too vaguely defined from the start. There was a lack of clear analysis regarding which specific problems were intended to be solved. Jordan Lea, CEO of the charity Deal Me Out, is more direct, calling on the government to finally use the existing legislative capabilities, as any further delay is unacceptable for player protection.

Why it matters for German players

For German players, the situation in the UK serves as both a warning and a benchmark. In Germany, the State Treaty on Gambling 2021 (GlüStV 2021) regulates the market much more strictly. While the UK is still debating ombudsman schemes, German players already have clear guardrails with providers on the official GGL whitelist. The deposit limit of 1,000 euros per month and the stake limit of 1 euro per spin on virtual slots are already a reality here. The Joint Gambling Authority of the Laender (GGL) also monitors compliance with player protection via systems like LUGAS and OASIS.

Anyone playing with a legal provider in Germany enjoys the protection of German law. Conflicts here are often addressed directly through regulatory authorities or specialized mediation bodies bound by the strict requirements of the GlüStV. A British-style "limbo" is largely excluded by the clear structure of the GGL whitelist. Nevertheless, the British debate shows how complex it is to create an instance that covers both legal and moral aspects of player protection.

What it means for GGL-licensed casinos

German casinos with a GGL license can feel vindicated by the delays in the UK. The German model focuses on preventive control rather than retrospective mediation. For operators, however, this also means high administrative effort to meet LUGAS requirements and strict advertising guidelines. While the industry in the UK is actively submitting proposals for an ombudsman, German providers must primarily ensure that technical interfaces to the GGL function flawlessly to avoid risking their license. The focus here is clearly on compliance before a dispute even arises.