Time for change: IBAS makes the case to become Gambling Ombudsman

The Independent Betting Adjudication Service (IBAS) has dealt with punters’ complaints against betting outcomes since 1998, and the types of disputes have changed considerably over the years. Initially set up just to deal with disputes in betting shops, IBAS has evolved to cover all aspects of gambling and receives between 5,000-6,000 complaints a year from players, ranging from complex legal questions to a player’s favourite food not being available at their local bingo hall.

Now IBAS is looking to make its mark in history by putting its name in the hat to become the UK’s first-ever Gambling Ombudsman. This move comes as the sector awaits the publication of the white paper on the Gambling Act 2005 review. The calls for an industry ombudsman have been going on for years, and IBAS hopes, due to it being a dispute resolution service for nearly a quarter of a century, it has the right tools to fit the job.

Speaking to EGR Intel, managing director Richard Hayler details why IBAS has what it takes to pitch for the UK’s first ever Gambling Ombudsman position and what its nearly 25 years’ worth of experience can bring to this new complaint-handling body.

EGR Intel: For our readers unfamiliar with IBAS, can you explain how the organisation works?

Richard Hayler (RH): We were launched by journalists in 1998, and, at the time, there was no opportunity for redress for people who had a complaint about the way their bets had been treated because the Gambling Act was still nine years away from coming into force. Back then, the courts considered bets to be gentlemen’s agreements, so if you didn’t get the money you thought you were owed on a bet, you would have to live with it or take matters into your own hands.

This led to a view among this group of journalists, who used to work for the Sporting Life newspaper, that there was a need for a service that formalised disputes and made their settlement both independent and binding on betting companies. Hence, IBAS was set up. Since then, our remit has grown and expanded, so now we deal with complaints not just about betting but also about casino, bingo and adult gaming centres across all gambling sectors.

EGR Intel: What sort of complaints does IBAS receive and how are they dealt with?

RH: On average, we get about 5,000-6,000 requests per year from consumers to look at their complaints. Our team will then look at the complaint and make an initial judgement about whether we might be able to help or not. Sometimes the complaint is too technical or concerns some kind of legal accusation that we wouldn’t be able to get into. Often the complaints are on the wrong side of trivial. One that comes in regularly is people complaining that they can’t get the food they want at their favourite bingo club – they wanted chicken nuggets for example, but had to settle for scampi.

We can help with about 60% of the complaints we receive. A complainant will speak to a case manager who will ask the person questions to get a picture of what is going on, then, they put a case through to a panel of 15 adjudicators. Those panellists will then ask any further questions of either party and write a decision, which is then checked internally for consistency with previous decisions. If we think it is a complex case, one that might set a precedent or is legally sensitive, we might widen the scope of our panel to include more members to get a broader view. I think there is always room for improvement on any system, but our system works fairly well.

EGR Intel: What are the most common issues people are complaining to IBAS about at the moment?

RH: The most frequent complaint has to be when people disagree with how a particular bet or game has been resolved – so, essentially people whose interpretation of what they were betting on differs from the company’s. It can be as simple as someone in a betting shop having written the number five or six because the loops look similar.

In the last five to 10 years, it has often been the terms and wording of an offer that are at issue. Confusion can arise when an offer says deposit £50 get 50 free spins once you have done X, for example, and some people don’t fully understand what X means. These people come to us and say that they have fulfilled the terms of the offer, but the company hasn’t paid up. The company then says they didn’t pay because the terms clearly state the consumer had to do X, so they are not entitled to the winnings.

There has also been a growing trend in the number of complaints relating to players believing their withdrawals from online accounts have been unfairly stalled by requests for ID documents for checking source of funding. This answer will change again in a few years when technology advances further.

EGR Intel: Because operators fund IBAS through registration fees, do customers often accuse you of siding with the industry and, if so, how have you responded to those accusations?

RH: Some people argue that our funding model makes us non-independent. It’s a difficult problem to address because the regulations governing Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) state that it must be provided free of charge to the consumer. That means we either have to provide the service for free, charge the industry or find some other source of funding. The chances of the government using public funds to cover the cost of gambling ADR are slim, so the likelihood is that as long as there is ADR in gambling, it’s going to be industry-funded.

I would look anyone in the eye and tell them that this has never compromised our assessment of what is fair or unfair in gambling. It is also worth pointing out that almost every ombudsman in the country is funded by the relevant industry it covers.

IBAS’ stand in the responsible gambling area of ICE London 2022

EGR Intel: With the proliferation of player-based and stats-based markets, like shots on target, is this leading to more people coming to IBAS? Would you ideally want to see these subjective, not-always-clearcut markets removed?

RH: There is a lot of interest in these kinds of markets and, if they are to continue, everyone needs to use one definitive source. Some countries, like the US, have successfully achieved this across all major sports. In America, no matter the website or media outlet you go to, all the stats will be the same. If the UK implements a similar system where there is an official stats provider in the stadium, that will end the subjectiveness of this market.

EGR Intel: IBAS received 226 dispute forms through its website regarding people being allowed to gamble even though they had self-excluded. How are you working with the UKGC and Gamstop to reduce this number?

RH: There is only so much IBAS can do to reduce the figure. I know that the Gambling Commission (UKGC), Gamstop, and other agencies are actively working on improving those systems. And we feed a lot of input, data and experience through to the Gambling Commission in that regard.

From our point of view, a lot of it comes down to the UKGC’s requirement for customers to be effectively verified before they can open an account, deposit and gamble. The current system works the way it should, and most cases we see are due to minor misspellings of names or the use of old addresses. If a customer misspelt their name and opened an account where they’ve spelt their name correctly and was self-excluded, then in our view, the company hasn’t correctly verified that customer before they opened the account. That, for us, seems to be a pretty square and straightforward regulatory matter.

We believe there’s a regulatory project on this matter that could reduce that number. We’ve done all we can and we will keep doing that and report those problems, pass through our suggestions and talk to the other agencies. It’s extremely frustrating.

Our biggest concern is whether people are treated fairly when they make duplicate accounts. Even though we acknowledge that anyone who gambles online understands that you can only have one account and it’s against the rules to open a duplicate account, if people do open duplicate accounts, they should still have rights and entitlement to fair treatment.

EGR Intel: IBAS recently unveiled plans to become the UK’s first Gambling Ombudsman. Why does the industry need one?

RH: There are two main reasons. The first is a current gap in the work we do; it’s a gap that’s caused a lot of interest in the media and Westminster. Because, while the gambling industry has begun to consider complaints from customers that it has let down by allowing them to gamble irresponsibly, or however they choose to describe it, there is no external entity to make the same judgement. Therefore, if someone comes to IBAS or any other dispute resolution provider in the sector, they all follow the UKGC’s recommendation to pass those cases on to the Commission as a regulatory complaint.

The problem with that is once it is passed to them, you never get a letter to say your complaint’s been looked into and if you’re right or wrong; all that happens is that it goes into the wider system. The complaint may help with a bigger picture investigation into a particular company, but it doesn’t give an individual outcome. Plus, because lots of companies now have an internal mechanism to deal with complaints, and people are appointing solicitors to take on their cases when they feel they are entitled to a refund, it seems to us there must be an opportunity somewhere in that system for people to use ADR in the same way they can for other types of complaints.

The second reason is that we think, in the context of the Gambling Act 2005 review, the most effective way of addressing legislative and regulatory issues is to create a Gambling Ombudsman with a remit that includes the duty of care responsibility of companies towards their customers and the opportunity for that ombudsman to award redress in situations where companies have acted irresponsibly. So, we’ve suggested the best way to achieve that is for the Gambling Commission to work collaboratively with us and others to draw up a framework of what is expected of companies in the interactions they ought to make and which points they do make.

EGR Intel: How is IBAS equipped to take this role on?

RH: Overall, I think we’re largely equipped to deliver the role well. One of the difficulties we have is that when IBAS was originally set up it was designed to deal with relatively niche cases, and we haven’t increased internal resources proportionately or updated our structure in line with the current gambling landscape. We also need to take on some additional expertise to be able to deliver everything we need and want to be, particularly in terms of looking at questions of whether or not a company has acted responsibly.

We recently published a paper stating there would need to be some funding to make IBAS an effective ombudsman, to be able to provide all of the stats people expect from an ombudsman and to deliver all of the feedback and advice for consumers and businesses that is expected of such an entity. Once we bridge this funding gap and make adjustments, then we can be an effective ombudsman for the gambling industry. We have over 24 years of experience, and we will be able to apply that to the majority of cases  we will be presented with if we were to be appointed as ombudsman.

EGR Intel: Will the creation of an ombudsman be in the long overdue white paper into the Gambling Act 2005 review and if it isn’t, is it a missed opportunity for the newly reformed government?

RH: If it isn’t in the white paper, then I’m fairly sure it won’t happen. Because for a Gambling Ombudsman to become a success, it would need the support of the government, the regulator and the industry, as well as consumers. If it isn’t a requirement in the white paper, then you immediately lack government support and, most probably, regulatory support.

I am confident that a recommendation to create an ombudsman will be there. I think that the only question is how that recommendation is worded. And, from there, what the timescales and processes are involved to create it.