THE term “punters’ pal” gets bandied around a lot, whether it’s to describe claret-quaffing racing correspondents, or popular jockeys, but in today’s hard-hearted world, there aren’t many avenues whereby the beleagured bettor can find succour, particularly when feeling hard done by at the hands of the bookmakers.

While customer service was once a central pillar of the industry, and excepting the band of on-course layers who continue to abide by such old-fashioned principles, the terms and conditions which the increasing number of online books seek to impose on unsuspecting customers is becoming a scandal.

Most punters assume that bets will be honoured in much the same way from one firm to another, and that the reams of information which make up each firm’s terms of service is also an industry standard setting out both the rights and responsibilities of both parties.

There aren’t many who would bother to read the small print in what is a heavily regulated industry - if it was unfair or illegal, then it wouldn’t pass the lawyers. Dream on.

If a firm decided to include a clause of prima nocta in their terms, then you’d better lock the doors of your wedding venue. In reality, anything can be included within the terms, including the right to confiscate all funds without giving a reason, as was the case with one major sponsor in the UK until fairly recently.

In truth, where these terms are clearly unfair to the punter, they can be challenged, but the main organ for punter complaints, IBAS, will only rule against a company if they have broken their own terms, no matter how clear a breach of faith those terms might be.

It is up to the Gambling Commission to impose terms which are fair and equitable, but so far that body has been less than proactive.

REAL FRIEND

In such a climate, punters need a real friend, and they have found one in the shape of Paul Fairhead, who has been pursuing cases on behalf of disgruntled punters since himself being the victim of a firm who refused payment on a bet struck in good faith.

Paul started giving ad hoc advice on the much-derided Betfair forum to other punters who had grievances, and soon gained a reputation as the go-to guy for such issues, especially as his methods worked, forcing various firms to climb down from seemingly immovable positions. In recent times, especially with the explosion in the number of online sportsbooks, his workload has grown significantly.

“In the last six years, I’ve helped extract in excess of £100,000 from firms who had stated that they were not paying, and referred the customer to IBAS. I currently receive on average about 10 emails a week with new cases, many of which I decline to get actively involved with.

“As an example, the guy who got 2000/1 on Federer winning a set 6-3 - had he contacted me I would have told him he could pursue it through the Small Claims Court, but that in my opinion it was a clear error, which they were entitled to correct.”

“As more people have followed me on Twitter, I have naturally received more emails, to the point where I now struggle to deal with them all given that this is effectively a hobby for me. In terms of success, I would say around 90% of cases I’ve taken on have been settled in full, mostly after a Letter Before Action has been sent. I have yet to have a case reach court.”

That last sentence is remarkable – in dozens upon dozens of cases, firms have refused to pay customers out on the basis that there was no valid claim, or that the transactions in question were somehow invalidated by a clause in the company’s terms.

If that was the case, then the vast majority of these cases would have gone to court with the result that the betting company were justified in their stance. And yet, not one single case has been defended when push came to shove.

It could be argued that in some cases, it might not be worth going to court over the sums involved, but by the same logic, the firms in question could spare many man-hours in defending them through their so-called customer service departments.

“I would like to see IBAS consider the fairness of T&Cs rather than simply say a firm has acted in accordance with them irrespective of whether they are fair or not (or indeed lawful). Why on earth should someone have to take legal action in order to have a dispute considered fairly - surely that’s what IBAS should be doing?”

Paul is scathing about IBAS, and the fact that his submissions to them are considerably less successful than with the courts tells a story.

If customers are right in the eyes of the law, then they should be vindicated by the industry’s own resolution service. As Paul says, a successful appeal to IBAS merely means that the bookmaker in question cannot understand or apply its own rules.

That sounds ridiculous, but there are a growing number of cases of blatant mis-settlement of bets which are then rejected as errors when referred to customer service.

I’ve witnessed this first hand on numerous occasions, and it seems that the rigour with which firms like Ladbrokes used to apply to training its agents in bet settlement has been lost.

There is barely a firm in existence who can be relied upon to understand rules on balloting, for example, despite those rules being in existence for 130 years.

On the Gambling Commission, he harbours hope for the sea-change needed to render his work redundant.

“In terms of what I’d like to see, it is a regulator which doesn’t continually ignore one of its three objectives - to ensure gambling is conducted in a fair and open manner. They fail to do this spectacularly, although I am optimistic that the constant pressure we are putting them under will bear fruit in the near future.”