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.
