- This topic has 55 replies, 31 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
From the Orange website:
“…A compulsive gambler who lost £2 million is making legal history by heading to court to sue a bookmaker for allowing him to keep betting.
Graham Calvert, 28, who began betting in August 2005 and set up an account with William Hill in May 2006, wants the betting agents to pay back his losses.
Mr Calvert, a respected greyhound trainer from Tyne and Wear who at one stage was earning up to £30,000 a month, initially bet £1,000 to £5,000 a time but this quickly grew to single bets of up to £30,000.
In May 2006, he claims he told William Hill that he wanted his account closed and his ‘self-exclusion’ appeal was taped by the bookmaker. He repeated this request a month later but was allowed to carry on betting until December.
He claims he asked to be barred after betting £3.5 million, of which he lost £2,028,858.
Some days he would place 20 bets at £30,000 a punt. He bet a whopping £7.5 million in 16 months, sometimes bringing bin liners stuffed with £100,000 cash to place his bets.
In 2006, he placed £347,000 on America to win the Ryder Cup but lost. At the time, it was the biggest golf bet in history.
Mr Calvert, whose marriage broke down because of his gambling, said: ‘If I’d known I had the problem and didn’t do anything about it, I would see myself as being 100 per cent responsible.
‘The fact is that I did try to go through the right procedures and I was let down.’
Mr Calvert alleges the betting chain failed in its duty of care and is taking William Hill to the High Court on Monday. The bookmaker vigorously contests the allegations.
© Independent Television News Limited 2008. All rights reserved…“
I understand how desperate people can become due to the effects of gambling addiction, but surely suing William Hill for ‘letting him bet’ is absolutely ludicrous and something I would only ever expect to have seen in the US.
William Hill, whether or not they should have closed his account (though this wouldn’t have stopped him opening another one, which he can’t prove conclusively), didn’t force him to bet such ridiculous amounts and didn’t force him to do so over and over again. As far as I can see this all Mr. Calvert’s doing, and should this swing the way of the complainant I will lose all faith in the justice system in this country.
I would say he has a case. If he asked William Hill not to accept any bets from him as he had a gambling problem and William Hill then ignored that plea and took his money, hats off to him for suing them, he should win as far as I can see.
As long as he can prove he asked them not to accept any bets from him.
As long as he has proof that they told him they would not take his bets in the future.
As long as he didnt open a seperate account in a false name or tried to hide that it was him who was betting with them.Then I cant see how he could lose the case.
I agree LGR,
But the thing is, if he asked to be ‘self excluded’ then he should have been excluded immediately, not months later.
Self Exclusion is for addicts – it’s there for people who can’t stop themselves gambling. So as soon as you press that button, you should be self excluded.
I totally agree that suing William Hill is ridiculous, but I hope they get a slap on the wrist for not closing this guys account when he asked. If he was a £10 punter, he would have been excluded from gambling as soon as he had asked. It is a bit fishy that William Hill, probably knowing he was someone who chased his losses, didn’t close his account immediately when he asked.
You can guarantee that if this guy was winning £2m instead of losing £2m, he would have had his account closed whether he wanted it or not.
Mike
If a drug addict went to the doctors and admitted he had a problem and wanted help and the doctor turned round to him and pulled out a crack pipe and said to the addict have a smoke on this chap would you not feel the doctor was in the wrong?
If a drug addict went to the doctors and admitted he had a problem and wanted help and the doctor turned round to him and pulled out a crack pipe and said to the addict have a smoke on this chap would you not feel the doctor was in the wrong?
thats a crazy point to make Zoso, not only would the doctor be breaking the Law do you honestly believe any doctor would do such a thing??
I think this might be an old story (there most certainly was one very similar about a year ago).
Pre- Gambling Act, Hills wouldn’t even have a case to answer as there were no legal obligations for bookmakers and all procedures like the case mentioned were deemed ‘social responsibility’. As this episode appears to have taken place before September 1st 2007, it would appear that Mr Calvert has practically no chance. However, now bookmakers have a legal duty to ‘protect vulnerable persons from gambling’ (or words to that effect). So any cases like this in the future would carry a lot of clout in a court of law, although I’d imagine the bookmakers will have tightened up their procedures for self-exclusion to prevent any such instances occuring.
Its not a crazy point to make its just designed to appear that way at first glance.
The person in the position of trust has abused the victim who was asking for help.
The doctor giving the drug addict who wanted help crack to smoke. William Hills who gave the gambling addict a platform to bet on after asking them to not allow him to bet as he knew he had a serious problem.Do I really believe that a doctor would give a patient crack to smoke?
A doctor is one of the likliest professions in the world to be a drug addict – thats a fact.
Harold Shipman was a doctor he was also a serial killer.
The Angel of Death was a nurse she killed babies.
Gerald and Kate McCann are doctors – no comment.It is truely unlikely that a doctor would give his personal drugs to a patient I must admit though, as the doctor would be an addict himself and would be unlikely to share the thing that meant the most to him with some random off the street.
Its not a crazy point to make its just designed to appear that way at first glance.
ok it’s not
It is a ridiculous point to make, Zoso, because the doctor would be encouraging the addict and Hills are doing no such thing.
But should the High Court favour Calvert, how many more people will we get suing bookmakers because they think they’ve lost unfairly? Will we then see people suing jockeys because they think they didn’t try hard enough, or trainers because they haven’t produced the horse to win (whether it realistically could or not)?
Just what people will do in this country these days is beyond me at times.
Only in America …
… hang on …
How did the court hearings result from the obese people suing McDonalds? Did they win? There is William Hill’s exhibit A. Case closed.
Did the court hearings result from the obese people suing McDonalds? Did they win?
Did the obese people go to McCdonalds and explain they have a serious problem with Obesity and asked for McCdonalds not to serve them food. No they didnt.
Case reopened.
I think this might be an old story (there most certainly was one very similar about a year ago).
Pre- Gambling Act, Hills wouldn’t even have a case to answer as there were no legal obligations for bookmakers and all procedures like the case mentioned were deemed ‘social responsibility’. As this episode appears to have taken place before September 1st 2007, it would appear that Mr Calvert has practically no chance. However, now bookmakers have a legal duty to ‘protect vulnerable persons from gambling’ (or words to that effect). So any cases like this in the future would carry a lot of clout in a court of law, although I’d imagine the bookmakers will have tightened up their procedures for self-exclusion to prevent any such instances occuring.
It is an old story and Friggo is dead right- as it was pre-gambling Act he has no chance. I know the man involved as there was some controversy about him laying his greyhounds on the BAGS around the same time (nothing proven) His Dad was a genius trainer of dogs and they’re a lovely family- it was all very sad. Hopefully the gambling Act will remove the unfairness of big bookies being able to close winning accounts and stand idly by while people destroy their lives.
Source: William Hill Annual Report & Accounts 2006 page 36
‘William Hill encourages a socially responsible attitude within the betting and gaming industry and within its own organisation and is committed to the Government’s stated objective of protecting children and the vulnerable from being harmed or exploited by gambling. The Group has been actively involved through relevant trade associations in developing industry-wide codes in the area of social responsibility and is committed to listening to the views of relevent stakeholder groups…..
The Group endeavours to provide customers with the tools by which they can chose to control their gambling behaviour. Amongst such tools are:
The ability to self-exclude from the Group’s retail and remote services for a minimum of six months.
In the Retail business, once a customer has taken a decision to proceed with self-exclusion, they sign a written agreement which explains the effect of exclusion, namely that the customer will be refused service in that LBO and at other nominated premises in the locality.’
If this bloke did sign a self-exclusion form this could be an interesting case and not without hope.
I don’t know as that would make much difference, Pompete, especially if such agreements were not in place with other bookmakers in the area (which would show that Calvert wasn’t so concerned with his gambling that he cut off all access to it, there being every chance that he’d have just switched his allegiance to Ladbrokes or Coral).
you have to wonder if he would be sueing hill’s if he had won, fed up with prats that bleat on the" poor me "stand , who placed the bets, he did ,he is responsible, hope hills get awarded legal fees.
Its easy to self exclude on the internet but going into a shop is different is every William Hill and all other bookmakers supposed to know his face and remember who he is. Doncaster has 4 William Hill’s in the town centre alone I wouldn’t expect all the staff to remember me everytime I went in if I was excluded.
If he really wanted to put the bet on he could have gone to another town or bookmakers its stupid to suggest they should take the rap a determined gambler will always find someone to take the bet.
WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED IF HE HAD WON AND WILLIAM HILL HAD SAID SORRY NOT PAYING YOU YOU ARE EXCLUDED. Different scenario but same ending in court Catch 22 for William Hill.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.