Why Do We Need A New Gambling Ombudsman?

The British gambling industry does have bodies in place that are designed to mediate complaints by parties that feel that they’ve been wronged. The Independent Betting Adjudication Service is one such body, which is given the power to unilaterally decide whether a bookmaker or gambling company has wronged a customer and get them to pay out up to £10,000 without argument from the company concerned. Even so, there are plenty of calls within the industry for a gambling ombudsman role to be created to help settle disputes.

An ombudsman is supposed to offer an independent and impartial service that will provide decisions on complaints. Complaints should be solved quickly and with an appropriate outcome based on the evidence that they have been supplied with. This will usually involve the complainant receiving an apology, an explanation and a practical solution. The question is, does the United Kingdom really need an ombudsman, or are the services already in place good enough?

What An Ombudsman Does

Simply put, an ombudsman is a normal person that looks at both sides of the story and comes up with a solution that would theoretically be suitable for both parties. It comes from the Swedish word meaning ‘representative of the people’. Numerous different industries have ombudsman services, including financial ombudsman, for example. The idea behind them is that they are free to use and fair. The fact that the service is independent means that they won’t take sides without evidence.

Also known as Alternative Dispute Resolution schemes, an ombudsman will get involved in a situation once the complainant has exhausted all internal complaints procedures with the party that they’re complaining about. In this sense, it is very similar to what already happens with the Independent Betting Adjudication Service. Before turning to an ombudsman, it helps to get a ‘letter of deadlock’, which confirms that you’ve done everything you can to resolve your complaint.

How An Ombudsman Can Help

There is no one ombudsman service. Instead, each industry has its own scheme that will cover the practices that it engages in. They act as an alternative to going to court, which would be significantly more expensive than using a free service. The idea is that they will behave like an impartial referee, looking at both sides of a discussion, asking questions and making enquiries in order to ensure that they understand both the complaint and the counter-argument of the company being complained about.

Once they have heard all arguments, an ombudsman will come up with a solution to the situation that they believe is fair for all parties. At the end of the research, a company found guilty of malpractice would be expected to apologise, explain why what happened happened, change its practice in the future to make sure that it doesn’t happen again and pay an amount of compensation. An ombudsman’s decision is final in the private sector, but you can still take the company to court if you wish to.

What Are The Current Complaint Procedures

At the time of writing, the gambling industry requires you to speak to the company that you’ve got a complaint over first and foremost. If you were to get in contact with the Independent Betting Adjudication Service having not done so, they would simply refuse to deal with your complaint until you’d been through the full process. They have been approved by the United Kingdom Gambling Commission and are there to offer ‘informed and impartial’ adjudications.

All of this sounds very similar to what we’ve said is offered by an ombudsman, which really begs the question about why some in the industry feel as though an ombudsman is necessary at all. The Adjudication Panel is made up of people with a specialist knowledge, making their judgement based on the terms and conditions that an operator has in-play and a bettor agrees to when they place a wager. Their judgements are legally non-biding for customers and for operators if they’re asked to pay more than £10,000.

Why Some Feel It’s Needed In The Gambling Industry

Given the extent to which there appears to be something of a link between what an ombudsman would do and the way in which IBAS already operates, why is it that some feel as though one is needed for the gambling industry? The call to bring one in coincides with the government’s current exploration about its own Gambling Act and the ways in which it can be changed and updated. The general feeling at the moment is that the 2005 Act does not accurately reflect the industry as a whole.

There are numerous aspects of the gambling industry that are being explored as part of the government’s review, with the possibility of introducing an ombudsman being part of that. One of the loudest voices calling for the introduction of one is that of Michael Dugher, who is the Chief Executive of the Betting & Gaming Council. He believes that a gambling ombudsman would be ‘a step forward in customer redress’, which, he says, the BGC’s members realise is important.

Given the fact that the BGC represents bookmakers, betting shops and casinos, it is interesting that they are one of the loudest voices in calling for an ombudsman for the gambling industry. As things currently stand, customers that find themselves locked in a dispute with a bookmaker struggle to get the independent help that they need, with IBAS often failing to do what it’s supposed to. It is also the case that the Independent Betting Adjudication Service lacks both visibility and effectiveness.

What Would An Ombudsman Do?

It is all speculation when it comes to what exactly and ombudsman would do for the gambling industry. Given they don’t exist at the moment, all we can do is take instruction from other industries that do boast one and see what they do. The primary aim of an ombudsman, regardless of the industry in which they operate, is to give bettors a direct point of contact for any complaints that they have with a gambling company, acting as a resolution service that both sides would trust.

At the moment, there is a sense that those wishing to make a complaint have to jump through certain hoops in order to do so, which would be diminished if not removed altogether. Given that gambling firms may be allowed to ask for affordability checks of customers in the future, it is vitally important that there is a system in place that allows customers to complain effectively. Should a company decide that a punter is ‘not suitable’, for example, it is right and proper the customer would be able to ask how that judgement was reached.

One thing that the ombudsman would not do is anything to do with the regulatory side of the industry. That would still be the domain of the Gambling Commission, with the ombudsman instead left to improve the complaints process and make it a more consistent one for people complaining. Given that the BGC believes that it should be a legal requirement of all licensed gaming operators and betting establishments to sign up to it and the fact Flutter Entertainment agrees, it would certainly be a powerful body.