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.
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.
