Just how much is £150? Vulnerability checks looming

Just how much is £150? Vulnerability checks looming
Simon Wooldridge
by Simon Wooldridge Last updated:

Financial checks roll-out imminent

28 February 2025 sees phase 2 of the Gambling Commission’s roll-out of financial vulnerability checks. Phase 1, which commenced last summer, had a threshold of £500 net deposits. This is set to change, quite dramatically. In the Commission’s own words:

“Financial vulnerability checks will be required to take place at £150 net deposits in a rolling 30-day period from 28 February 2025.”

How far does £150 go?

£150? In a rolling 30-day period – a month essentially. At Slot Gods we’ve had our say on this a few times in recent months yet still haven’t broken out of our collective state of shock. Everything is relative and £150 a month is no different. To some £150 is small change, to many it’s a nice bit of cash, albeit not a life-changing amount to suddenly come by or lose. To a third group it's a sizable chunk of a month’s disposable income. 

According to the Office of National Statistics (ONS) net average monthly earnings in the UK are £2,297 (or £27,573 a year). And according to the 2024 Nerdwallet Gambling Report the average British gambler spends/loses £11 a week or £49 a month. Ok, so with a financial vulnerability risk threshold of £150 that equates to 3x average gambling spend and approximately 6.5% of average net monthly income. I struggle to regard any of these figures as concerning, although I accept that some people spend less on gambling each month and some considerably more.

Not adding up

So, several questions remain:

  • How many people are actually at risk of a lifestyle upheaval if they spend/lose £150 each month gambling?
  • Why isn’t the Gambling Commission focusing on lower income gamblers where £150 a month makes a significant difference to what they can do, buy or spend in a month?
  • Where did that particular figure of £150 come from?
  • And what did the phase 1 run-out of the £500 threshold tell the UKGC and other stakeholders?
  • Should the Gambling Commission (or any government agency for that matter) get involved with how citizens spend their money? Regardless of whether that spend is a relatively modest £150 a month or considerably more? Is it really their business?
  • How far does £150 go these days?
    • An average car that uses petrol can do about 800 miles on £150 worth of petrol. That’s about 200 miles a week, which isn’t very much.
    • It’ll buy you 20-25 pints of lager at a reasonably-priced city centre pub (Wetherspoons excluded) in most places in the UK. That’s not actually very many and well within the parameters of what many people would spend on beer down the pub in a week, let alone a month.
    • It’ll get you around 39-42 meal deals (Tesco, Sainsbury, Greggs or the Co-op) a month – one for each working day on average. If you have more fancy tastes (Waitrose etc) £150 won’t go anywhere near as far.
    • Let’s not even consider the cost of cigarettes or illicit drugs.
  • And how much will this process cost to operate and administer? It’s a cost that will be borne by casinos and operators and ultimately players.

Ill-conceived

While the idea of financial affordability/health/vulnerability checks is in itself not a bad idea it’s clear this incarnation of the concept is ill-conceived. The £150 threshold is way too low. More importantly it’s chucking all gamblers, online slots players and iGamers into one big amorphous bucket who need watching and monitoring in the same way. Measures such as financial vulnerability checks – if they are required – should focus on where the need actually is. 

And just as a little aside… my memory may be playing tricks on me but weren’t these checks previously described as ‘affordability’ checks? Whether or not that is the case, the use of ‘vulnerability’ is an interesting choice of language which reeks of governmental paternalism (we will protect you, whether you like it or not).

Last words

A vulnerability / affordability threshold of £150 is way too low and will likely irritate and turn off far more people than it helps. Secondly, not only is our government content to take half our earnings, they are now concerning themselves with how we spend what they leave us. And on that point, how much further, and how deep, will government and government agency interference in our daily lives go? If the level that gambling financial vulnerability checks have been set at in phase 2 are anything to go by then we should probably be quite concerned. 

See also:

Light touch financial vulnerability checks: necessary safeguard or overreach?

Affordability checks – a can of worms?

The Good, The Bad and The Uncertain

Support for problem gamblers improving all the time

Simon Wooldridge
by Simon Wooldridge Last updated:

Simon’s fascination with slots started with teasing 40p worth of change through spinning 10p coins into a fruit machine in the last century. This has grown to a solid appreciation for the dazzling artistry, imagination and mechanics of modern online slots. Slots-wise he likes westerns, gangsters, rock music tie-ins and dislikes anything overly complex (like life itself).