Racing: Busy days at a high court for punters

A steady flow of disputes between bookmakers and their customers keeps business brisk at the betting industry's fledgling arbitration service.

ANGER, BITTERNESS, frustration, perhaps a rogue or two trying to spin a yarn, and even an unflattering write-up in The Sun - it is all part of the job for Chris O'Keeffe. He has a perch 19 floors off the ground in Canary Wharf's skyscraper, but O'Keeffe, who runs the Independent Betting Arbitration Service (IBAS), spends his time mining at what he calls "the coalface" of Britain's gambling industry. If you think that a bookie has done you wrong, it is IBAS that will try to sort them out.

It is six months since IBAS was launched, at a press conference which did not go swimmingly. The assembled journalists chewed up and then spat out O'Keeffe's boss, when they heard that the names of IBAS's panel members - who would adjudicate on betting disputes - were to be kept secret. The decision was reversed, but not in time to rescue the coverage in the next day's papers.

In the time since, though, O'Keeffe and his two staff have been quietly working to get the first worthwhile attempt to provide fair, impartial arbitration in betting disputes off the ground. The vast majority of the country's 9,000 betting shops are now registered with IBAS, and displaying its blue logo to advertise the fact. Forms from disgruntled punters, applying for arbitration, arrive at the rate of about 20 each week, and by yesterday, the panel had given a final adjudication on 158 disputes. Of these, 130 were in favour of the bookmaker, and 28 found for the punter.

It has been a slog to get this far, but not everyone has been impressed. When early figures indicated 80 per cent of judgements were coming down in favour of the bookies, The Sun published a denunciation of the service. The fact IBAS is run by Mirror Group Newspapers may have had something to do with the article's tone.

It was a low blow, given that so many punters read The Sun. "We took a lot of calls afterwards," O'Keeffe says, "people saying that they understood now that we're just interested in bookmaker protection. I took it personally because it was an insult to my integrity and that of everyone who works here. We'd be quite happy for anyone to come along and take a look at what we're doing here. That was damaging and cheap."

In fact, it is surprising that even 20 per cent of IBAS's decisions are in favour of punters, since bookmakers are unlikely to go as far as arbitration unless they think they have a very solid case. But regardless of the figures, the important point is that punters, who for so long had no worthwhile consumer protection at all, now have a visible, professionally-run organisation to which they can turn if the need arises.

What went before was little better than anarchy. The Green Seal Service, run by The Sporting Life (now defunct), was an ad-hoc collection of Life journalists, sometimes simply the ones with nothing better to do for an hour. It was anonymous and capricious, and could sometimes pass judgement on a dispute without even contacting the bookie involved.

Now, IBAS makes sure both sides have their say, although as O'Keeffe admits, "it is a unique industry, and there are a lot of primitive practices on both sides".

Bookmakers who apply to register with IBAS, for instance, must submit a copy of their rules. Some, he found, did not actually have any rules of their own. "People say to me, `I operate under William Hill's rules, but what they mean is that they'll operate under Hills' rules when it suits them, and someone else's when it doesn't."

One of the most valuable results of IBAS's work so far is a growing database of betting- related disputes, which offers an intriguing insight into the nature of the British punter. The sheer complexity of some bets is baffling, meticulously- constructed card-castles of hope involving a dozen or more elements.

The traditional mad rush to the betting window just before a race starts also leaves many people disappointed. O'Keeffe spends plenty of time explaining to people that bets placed once the "off-slip" has been through the machine are void. He is also amazed by the number of punters "who have pounds 500 bets but with instructions that are completely ambiguous," but also annoyed that bookies are often too quick to resort to an excuse that a price or bet they have accepted is a "palpable error", which relieves them of the need to pay out.

Problems arise too with football coupons, bets on unnamed favourites, the 49s numbers game, indeed just about anything on which it is possible to risk pounds 10. Eventually, O'Keeffe hopes to head off some disputes before they arise, by showing bookmakers where there are gaps in their rules, or particular problems with the processing of certain bets.

``We're not going to change things overnight, but we will change things," he says. "Bookmakers have got to realise that these people are not just punters, they're consumers. This umbrella, `palpable error', wouldn't be accepted by any other group of consumers. The bookies have got to be ready to compromise more."

IBAS is not perfect. For one thing, its decisions are not legally binding, although a bookie who refuses to abide by a verdict will be struck off their list. But if you think that you're on a winner, and your bookie tells you otherwise, there is now something you can do about the dispute which is far more practical than simply moaning to anyone who will listen down at the pub.