Select Page

Complaints about Gambling Operators

Alternative Dispute Resolution

Thank you for agreeing to consider resolving your complaint through mediation. It is hoped that we can resolve your complaint and the issues between you without the cost and time involved in Court proceedings.

About Us

We are an independent alternative dispute resolution provider certified by the Chartered Trading Standards Institute and the Gambling Commission.

We are the independent ADR body nominated by some Gambling Operators to deal with complaints that cannot be resolved through the internal complaints process under the ADR Regulations 2015

We have been approved to provide ADR to Gambling Commission operators bound by the Licence Conditions of Practice (LCCP) Social Responsibility Code 6.1.1

In accordance with the Gambling Commission’s LCCP the mediation services we provide to Gambling Operators is free to the consumer although Gambling Operators pay a scale of fees for us to deal with the dispute.  Members pay a fee of £100 per dispute and Non-Members pay £150 per dispute.  We are privately funded and do not charge  Gambling Consumers to refer their disputes to us.  Our dispute service is subsidised by the other mediation work we carry out.  Despite this, our ADR officials are completely independent and abide by the EU Code of Conduct for Mediators and the Ombudsman Association six principles of good governance.

Our ADR Officials

We currently have one ADR Official who deals with Gambling Disputes: Peter Causton

Our ADR Officials

Frequently Asked Questions

A list of our frequently asked questions can be found at:


Our Aims and Objectives

Our aims and objectives are through alternative dispute resolution:

  • to help gamblers resolve their disputes with gambling operators
  • to save them time and expense in bringing Court proceedings
  • to improve the practices of gambling operators and fairness in the industry.

We publish our annual reports here.



2021-2022 gambling commission annual report



adr report- 30 september to 30 december copy copy copy 2



2020 annual report

2020 annual report gambling commission

Annual and Biannual Reports


We also conduct an annual review of our processes to ensure compliance with the Gambling Commission’s requirements

The Operators we provide ADR for

We are the named ADR Providers for the following Operators:

  • Members of the The British Racecourse Bookmakers’ Association
  • Maxent Limited t/a Slotty Vegas and Betat Casino
  • Alea
  • Apple Leisure Limited
  • Bet Limited
  • Great Ormond Street Children’s Charity
  • and others.

When a complaint is raised the operator should inform you which ADR entity they use. The UK Gambling Commission also keeps a list.

Most gambling operators pay us an annual fee of between £100 – £500 plus VAT and a fee per case dealt with.  This enables us to offer the process free to the consumer.  We also subsidise this process from the other ADR and mediations that we carry out.

The ADR system is essentially the same as consumer disputes as certified by the Chartered Trading Standards Limited.  However we abide by the Gambling Commission ADR requirements which impose additional requirements as set out in the attached Guidance document:


How to Use the Process

By Email:

You can email us at once you have completed the internal complaints process

File a complaint online using this link:

File A Complaint Form

By Telephone: 02036213908

Ring us to lodge your complaint

By Post:

Write to us at Brow Farm Top Road Frodsham WA6 6SP


We accept cases in any language.


Once you contact us we will:

  • Acknowledge your complaint within 3 days and inform you of your rights.
  • Check that we act as ADR Provider for the Gambling Operator you are complaining about.
  • Check that your complaint does not fall within the Grounds of Refusal and relates to complaints valued at under £10,000.
  • Allocate a mediator, with expertise in dispute resolution and gambling disputes.
  • Check that we do not have a conflict of interest.
  • Contact the operator within 7 days.
  • Obtain the Gambling operator’s response, and request your file for review, negotiate between the parties in good faith by telephone and/or email in order to try to bring the parties to an agreement.  The process is confidential and “without prejudice”
  • Please note that we are not an Ombudsman and do not issue a binding decision, but if an agreement is reached this is binding on the operator if the consumer agrees.
  • We will keep you informed regularly throughout the process, at least every 30 days.
  • Outcome within 90 days.
  • The outcome is binding if the parties agree and if the consumer agrees with it.
  • You can ask us to reconsider the outcome within 3 months.  The reconsideration will be carried out in the same way as previously within the same timescales.

We take customer service extremely seriously and if you have any questions or issues with our service please do not hesitate to contact us. Our complaints procedure is on our website and we encourage users to leave feedback as to their experience of using the service.

If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact us.

Our terms and conditions can be found at:


Gambling Disputes

Mediate your Gambling Dispute

Free of Charge to you

Submit your dispute

In any language by post email telephone or online

We will respond

and acknowledge the referral within 3 days

We will contact the operator

Within 7 days assuming we are their ADR Provider

We allocate a mediator

and check we have no conflict of interest and that no grounds of refusal apply

Keep You Updated

Every 30 days and conclude within 90 days

We negotiate between you and try to resolve your dispute

If it is resolved by agreement, or you agree with the outcome, the outcome is binding on the operator

Dispute Resolved

If not, you are free to take independent advice and take the matter further should you wish to do so

Our Mediators

We only use mediators from our panel of mediators who have expertise in the field of dispute resolution and gambling disputes.

Our ADR Official is as follows:



Peter is a qualified mediator, registered with the Civil Mediation Council.  

Peter Causton

Peter has been dealing with consumer disputes through mediation since the inception of the ADR Regulations and was one of the first ADR officials to be authorised to provide ADR in gambling disputes since the Gambling Commission became a competent authority. He is an award winning mediator and is passionate and knowledgeable  about resolving gambling disputes through mediation. He is a fee paid deputy district judge in the County Court and has over 20 years of litigation experience.

The Ombudsman Association’s six principles of good governance

We abide by The Ombudsman Association (OA)’s six principles of good governance:


1. Ensuring and demonstrating the freedom of the office holder from interference in decision making:

• Freedom from interference in decision making on complaints
• Appropriate and proportionate structure and financial arrangements
• Appointment, re-appointment and remuneration of the office holder consistent with ensuring independence
• Governance arrangements which ensure and safeguard the independence of the office holder and scheme
• Those involved in the governance of the scheme to conduct themselves at all best times in the best interest of the scheme

2. Openness and transparency

Ensuring openness and transparency in order that stakeholders can have confidence in the decision-making and management processes of the scheme:

• Clear explanation of legal constitution, governance and funding arrangements
• Open and clear policies and procedures, and clear criteria for decision making
• Clear and proper recording of decisions and actions
• Free availability of information and publication of decisions, consistent with statute, contract and good practice
• Clear delegation arrangements, including levels of authority
• Register of interests, to apply to the office holder, appropriate staff members and members of any governing body

3. Accountability

Ensuring that all members of the scheme, including the office holder staff members and members of any governing body are seen to be responsible and accountable for their decisions and actions, including the stewardship of funds (with due regard to the independence of the office holder)
• Subject to appropriate public or external scrutiny
• Accountable to stakeholders for the operation of the scheme
• Financial accountability, and appropriate internal controls to demonstrate the highest standards of financial probity
• Robust mechanism for review of service quality • Clear ‘whistle-blowing’ policy

4. Integrity

Ensuring straightforward dealing and completeness, based on honesty, selflessness and objectivity, and ensuring high standards of probity and propriety in the conduct of the scheme’s affairs and complaint decision making.
• Impartiality in all activities
• Identify, declare and deal with conflicts of interest (Including office-holder, staff members and members of any governing body)
• Compliance of all those involved in the governance or operation of the scheme with relevant principles of public conduct
• Arrangements for dealing with conflicts about governance issues

5. Clarity of Purpose

Ensuring that stakeholders know why the scheme exists, what it does, and what to expect from it

• Explanation of the purpose of the scheme and who it serves
• Clear status and mandate of the scheme
• Clarity of extent of jurisdiction
• Governance arrangements which are clear in relation to the office holder’s adjudication role

6. Effectiveness

Ensuring that the scheme delivers quality outcomes efficiently and represents good value for money
• Leadership which defines and promotes the values of the scheme
• Keeping to commitments
• Good internal planning and review processes
• Quality assurance and a process for review of service
• Quality outcomes for complainant, organisation complained about, scheme and all other stakeholders
• Recommendations accepted by bodies in jurisdiction
• Effective risk management controls
• Cost effectiveness for money