Your Bookmaker Is Licensed. Your Money Might Not Be Safe.

BresBet Ltd and Bet St George Ltd ceased trading in September after the Gambling Commission suspended their licences over suspected anti-money laundering and social responsibility failings. Customers seeking unpaid withdrawals and refunds now face separate insolvency proceedings, while the amount owed and the protection arrangements maintained by either operator remain unestablished.

The two companies share a director, Nicholas James Brereton, but are separate legal entities. Bet St George entered administration in October. HMRC filed a winding-up petition against BresBet, according to filings reported by the Racing Post on 18 October. A Gambling Commission licence does not guarantee that customer money will be recoverable if an operator fails.

Two bookmakers, one common director

The Gambling Commission suspended the licences of BresBet and Bet St George on 28 August, citing suspected breaches of its requirements concerning anti-money laundering and social responsibility. Both operators subsequently surrendered their licences and announced the cessation of trading on 4 September.

Customers were informed that outstanding account balances and refunds would be processed. However, complaints emerged over delayed payments, prompting the regulator to acknowledge difficulties experienced by BresBet customers attempting to recover their money.

On 16 October, the Gambling Commission confirmed that administrators had been appointed to Bet St George and directed customers with outstanding claims to insolvency firm BTG.

BresBet's position was different. According to the Racing Post on 18 October, HMRC had filed a winding-up petition against the company, although no administrator had been formally appointed according to the filings available at that time.

Nicholas James Brereton is listed in Companies House records as a director of both businesses. The companies nevertheless have separate assets, liabilities and creditors. Their shared management does not establish that funds held by one company are available to meet the debts of the other.

Segregation is not insolvency protection

British-licensed online gambling operators are required to keep customer funds separate from money used to finance their day-to-day operations. The requirement is intended to distinguish balances held on behalf of customers from the operator's working capital.

Segregation does not, however, necessarily provide protection against insolvency. Where funds are held without additional legal safeguards, they may remain available to creditors if the operator fails.

The Gambling Commission's customer-funds framework permits three levels of protection, each of which is acceptable under the licensing regime.

At the lowest level, customer money is held separately but is not protected against insolvency. The medium category involves additional arrangements, such as insurance, intended to provide some protection. The highest category generally involves trust arrangements designed to keep customer funds legally separate from the operator's assets.

The Commission's published guidance makes clear that segregation alone does not guarantee recovery. The regulator nevertheless permits operators to adopt the lowest category, provided they comply with the relevant disclosure requirements.

Since 31 October 2025, operators whose customer funds are classified as not protected have been required to issue reminders every six months explaining the risks associated with insolvency.

Customers must acknowledge those warnings before continuing to gamble using funds held in their accounts.

Gambling account balances also fall outside the Financial Services Compensation Scheme. The scheme protects eligible deposits at authorised financial institutions, subject to statutory limits, but does not provide equivalent protection for money held in a betting account.

Why unsettled bets complicate recovery

Under the Gambling Commission's definition of customer funds, money deposited into a betting account and winnings credited to that account are treated differently from stakes already committed to open bets.

Stakes on unsettled bets are not classified as customer funds for the purposes of the Commission's protection framework.

The distinction is particularly relevant to ante-post betting, where wagers may be placed months before the event takes place. A bookmaker that ceases trading before those events occur may have substantial outstanding liabilities associated with bets that have not yet been settled.

Following their closures, BresBet and Bet St George informed customers that outstanding ante-post bets would be voided and the stakes refunded. Some of the subsequent complaints concerned those refunds rather than withdrawals of existing account balances.

The legal treatment of a cancelled bet and any resulting refund obligation depends on the circumstances, including the operator's contractual terms and applicable insolvency arrangements. A promise to refund an unsettled wager does not, by itself, establish that funds have been reserved or remain available to meet the liability.

Questions still unanswered

The protection arrangements maintained by BresBet and Bet St George before closure have not been established in the available reporting. Nor is there a verified total for the customer balances and cancelled-bet refunds outstanding at either company.

Those figures, the legal status of individual claims and the assets available to creditors will determine what customers can recover. Bet St George customers have been directed to its administrators. The reported winding-up petition against BresBet leaves a different process to resolve. No reliable repayment timetable or recovery rate can yet be stated.