England-based users of Gamban’s gambling blocking software can once again access the service at no cost, following a new allocation from the Gambling Harms Prevention Fund.
The development marks a significant reversal for the organisation, which had been forced to introduce a paid subscription model after statutory levy funding initially bypassed prevention-focused groups.
When the UK’s statutory levy structure was first implemented, contributions were collected and managed by the NHS, which also took the lead on treatment services nationwide.
Responsibility was then divided, with OHID overseeing the distribution of prevention funds and UK Research and Innovation handling the research stream.
That tripartite arrangement left many gambling harm charities and prevention organisations warning they faced closure or severely curtailed services if the selective allocation continued.
Gamban was among those compelled to restructure, introducing a subscription charge for English users rather than absorbing costs it could no longer sustain without dedicated funding.
The organisation had already navigated a similar path in Wales, where free access was restored earlier in 2026 after funding arrangements in that nation were resolved.
England presented a longer wait, but the latest round of OHID disbursements through the Gambling Harms Prevention Fund has now cleared the way for Gamban to drop its fees there too.
Reflecting on the journey, Gamban stated: “Despite our disappointment at the initial decision, which meant Gamban could no longer be free in England, everyone in our company was heartened by the messages of support from other organisations in the gambling harm prevention sector expressing how much they value the work we do and to keep going.”
The statement underlines how sector solidarity helped sustain the organisation through what amounted to a funding gap created by the structure of the levy rollout.
For players seeking help with gambling habits in England, the return to a free model removes a potential financial barrier at precisely the moment they may be most vulnerable.
The wider question of whether the statutory levy’s prevention funding stream will prove reliable enough to keep such services permanently free remains a concern across the sector.
Gamban’s experience illustrates how quickly harm-prevention tools can be affected when funding frameworks prioritise treatment infrastructure over upstream, technology-driven interventions.
