Review Time
Fails to Meet Basic Standards of Independent Adjudication
I referred a dispute to the IBAS and my concern is not with the outcome, but with the fairness and transparency of the process itself.
The decision appears to rely on evidence that is not fully disclosed to the customer, preventing any meaningful opportunity to review, test, or challenge the material considered. This creates a clear imbalance between the parties and is inconsistent with established principles of procedural fairness, including the expectation of “equality of arms.”
In the context of dispute resolution within the regulated gambling sector, there is a reasonable expectation—aligned with standards overseen by bodies such as the Gambling Commission—that adjudication processes will be transparent, evidence-based, and supported by sufficiently detailed reasoning. Where relevant material is withheld and explanations are limited, those standards are not met.
The position is analogous to a tribunal in which one party is required to answer a case without being permitted to see or respond to the evidence against them. In any credible system of adjudication, such a process would be regarded as fundamentally unfair.
In light of these issues, I do not consider this service to meet even the minimum standards expected of an ombudsman-style body within a regulated sector. The lack of transparency and procedural balance represents a fundamental flaw, and I would not recommend it to those seeking a fair, impartial, and accountable dispute resolution process.
Told me they wont help as William Hill CLAIM i haven't exhausted all procuderes. i sent clear evidence of The FINAL RESPONSE And was sent thisPlease do not send any more details from your communications with William Hill. This will be the final instruction on the below.Refusal of service once shown evidence. Asked 18 times for a different staff member due to my neurological condition was discriminated against for having a ASD condition
I recently went through the IBAS process regarding a dispute with a bookmaker, and the experience has been extremely disappointing.The core issue is not simply the outcome, but the way the decision was reached. In my case, IBAS concluded that a bet was settled correctly at revised odds, yet provided no statistical evidence, pricing model, or market comparison to support what they described as the “correct price.” There was no explanation of the underlying base price, no assessment of the promoted “boosted” price, and no transparent methodology used to justify their conclusion.When I raised this in an appeal, the response was even more concerning. IBAS stated that they are not required to provide detailed evidence or modelling, and instead rely on their own judgment and “industry experience” to determine whether a price is an “obvious error.”This effectively means:No requirement to evidence how a price is calculatedNo obligation to demonstrate what the correct price should have beenNo transparency in how conclusions are reachedIn my case, no supporting evidence was presented by the operator, and IBAS accepted their position without providing independent verification or analysis.In my view, this undermines confidence in the fairness of the process. An independent adjudication service should be able to clearly demonstrate how it reaches its conclusions, especially in disputes involving significant financial outcomes.The process felt one-sided, with heavy reliance on operator assertions and minimal scrutiny of how those positions were supported. Key aspects of the case, including the nature of a promoted “boosted” price and even a goodwill offer made by the operator, were not meaningfully addressed in the final reasoning.If IBAS is to be considered a truly independent adjudicator, greater transparency, accountability, and evidential standards are essential.Very frustrating experience and not what I expected from an independent dispute resolution service.
I raised a case to IBAS on the 26th December 2025It has taken just short of 3 months to finally get a final decision. Sky bet basically banned me after my bet had started from using the acca freeze promotion. The whole bet came in including the team I wanted to freeze who then conceded an equaliser in the 92nd minute. Full return was £2800. IBAS reviewed the case agreed sky bets procedure was wrong and that they should have to communicate to me as soon as I’m banned from using the promotion. 3 months on ive still not been told I am banned. The fact an adjudicator can agree with you but still make a decision in favour of the gambling company is crazy an just proof that IBAS is in the pocket of the gambling company’s. Gimps
James provided an excellent service from start to finish. He helped me take on the might of Betfair with consummate ease and professionalism. He did such a good job that it didn’t even reach the adjudication stage - Betfair paid out before that. Can’t thank him enough!
Limited hassle to report a claim, dealt with professionally and efficiently. Hats off to James for dealing with my case against Betfair. Without IBAS, normal punters like me with a case and a shoddy complaints team at Betfair, we would be screwed.
Not fit for purposeI made a complaint to IBAS because Bet600 would not pay me my winnings after almost a year and having sent them five different forms of ID including personal ID and proof of source of funds.IBAS ruled that if Bet600 were not satisfied with my ID (for whatever spurious reason) then I had broken their terms and therefore Bet600 did not have to pay me.There are three major issues with IBASFirstly, The operator does not have to prove to IBAS that you have broken their terms. Unproven suspicion is enough.Secondly, IBAS make no ruling as to whether the bookmaker terms are fair.Thirdly, IBAS are funded by payments from bookmakers !!The gambling industry is crying out for an independent ombudsman and IBAS have stated that they would be interested in that role.They are unfit for that role----------------------------------------------------IBAS replied to my review, but their response reinforces exactly why they are not fit for purpose.They claim decisions are based on “all evidence from both parties” and the “balance of probabilities.” What they fail to mention is that customers are not given full disclosure of the information submitted by the bookmaker.In my case:I was not told the specific allegations made against meI was not shown the evidence relied uponI was given no meaningful opportunity to challenge the bookmaker’s claimsSo the reality is simple: one side can submit information in private, while the other is expected to defend themselves without seeing it.Calling this a “balance of probabilities” is misleading. A process cannot be balanced when one party is allowed to rely on undisclosed material.IBAS also state they consider whether terms are unfair. However, they continue to enforce bookmaker terms without requiring robust, transparent evidence from the operator. Assertions appear to be enough.The result is a process where:The bookmaker controls what information is sharedThe customer cannot properly respondAnd IBAS accepts one-sided submissions behind closed doorsThat is not independent adjudication. It is a closed process that lacks transparency and accountability.This is not about losing a case — it is about a system where the customer is placed at a structural disadvantage from the outset.Until IBAS require full disclosure and allow customers to properly respond to the case against them, their claim to independence will continue to be open to serious question.
Claim your business profile now and gain access to all features and respond to customer reviews.
The Independent Betting Adjudication Service, founded in 1998, is a third party organisation that settles disputes between gambling establishments registered with IBAS and their customers in the United Kingdom.
goodbyejunk.com.au
womensbeanproject.com
urbanfarmertv.org
www.employmentcrossing.com
savellireligious.com
connect2learn.online
marpu.org
acetechnologies.com
www.ams-samplers.com
apexskillstraining.com
