As reported by the Annual Report 2004, punters received over £180,000 from disputes with bookmakers settled after reference to the Independent Betting Arbitration Service in the last year.
During 2004 the service received 2,140 requests for claims, of which 1,343 cases were decided by the arbitration panel, the highest number since the service became operational in 1999.
The increase in numbers is not regarded as evidence of a crisis in customer relations between bookmakers and punters. Rather it is a consequence of IBAS becoming better known and more visible.
The service, funded by Trinity Mirror, publisher of the Racing Post, Satellite Information Services and the Horserace Betting Levy Board, registers bookmakers only if they agree to co-operate with an investigation and comply with the adjudication.
In its 6-year history, IBAS has only de-registered one bookmaker, SSP International, which failed to co-operate during the investigations into a dispute.
IBAS rulings generally favour bookmakers over punters by five to one, with a preponderance of cases where bookmakers rules have been misread or misunderstood.
“In today’s consumer-orientated world there are those who would urge bookmakers to place less reliance on their \’palpable error\’ and \’bets accepted in error\’ rules but it is hard to see how this could be accomplished without a fundamental change in the nature of the betting industry,” said panelist George White.
“Customers agree to be bound by the bookmaker’s rules when placing a bet and no employee is authorised to abrogate them. Our key consideration is what is contained in the rules and our aim is always to produce a decisive opinion which reflects those rules rather than negotiate a compromise.”
“If a customer is given incorrect advice by an employee then that is unfortunate but in our view it is a customer service issue rather than a reason to say that a bet which contravenes the bookmaker’s rules has to be honoured. IBAS is, of course, a disputes-resolution body and not an industry watchdog so issues such as poor customer service, inadequate staffing and other such matters are not part of our remit.”
“We apply the term dispute in the broadest possible sense, to embrace any difficulty over payment. The ruling is always based on objective standards, with the first point of reference being the bookmaker\’s rules and trading conditions. If the bookmaker has no rule governing the situation, IBAS imposes its own rule, based on what is perceives is consistent with the general principle and fair practice,” explained Chief Executive Chris O\’Keeffe, outlining the arbitration system in the report.
During 2004 IBAS has continued to encourage the betting industry to adopt rule convergence particularly in sports betting. The service has assisted bookmakers in redrafting rules where deficiencies or ambiguities have been identified and has hept an ongoing and co-operative dialogue with the Gaming Board’s Gambling Commission Transition Team, the body that will have the mammoth task of establishing a coherent framework of regulation in the industry.
“IBAS has put to the Transition Team that in our opinion there should be provision by the betting industry which allows access for all customers to independent arbitration that should be given statutory force. Although 95% of bookmakers operate within the scheme there are still a significant number of customers unprotected,” said O\’Keeffe
To read the full report, click here.
Calculators
