[bigboydan]

A gambling addict is suing William Hill for £2million after accusing the bookmaker of not stopping him from placing bets.

Greyhound trainer Graham Calvert said he lost his savings of £500,000 and his marriage after taking out huge losing bets with the bookie.

He tried to ban himself from William Hill but said that, when he was in the grip of his gambling frenzy, he took out huge bets for the 'buzz' and bet more than £400,000 in just one week.

When his wife found out how much he owed last December she decided to leave him, according to a High Court writ.

Now Mr Calvert, of Houghton-le- Spring, Sunderland, faces losing his home, and has been threatened with violence from people he has borrowed money from.

He is suing William Hill for £2,052,972 because he claims the bookmaker breached its duty of care by encouraging him to continue to gamble, although he had asked to be banned as part of the company's self exclusion policy.

Mr Calvert financed betting on two accounts with William Hill by borrowing £1,420,000 from four 'business associates', taking out a £23,500 bank loan, and remortgaging the family home by £100,000. He has repaid £24,113 and owes £1,518,000 to creditors.

Mr Calvert claims to suffer from 'problem gambling', a disorder in which he has an irresistible urge to place bets, and cannot control his impulses.

He said he developed the disorder at the beginning of last year, when he got a taste for placing high stake bets on sports events.

His real problems began when he started opening accounts with bookmakers and was able to place bets over the phone.

William Hill is fighting his claim. The case is set for trial at the High Court in spring 2008.

[BatemanPatrickl]

Well makes sense for someone to sue because they don't want to take responsibility for their own actions. Happens each and every day in America.

[LGBoots]

If he had won the bets Hills would have paid & the Guy would probably be boasting about being a 'smart' gambler

This one should be laughed out of court (If it gets that far)

[jjgold]

He might have a case, I sued a local candy store for not stopping me from betting the numbers 3 years ago. I lost over 17,000, we settled out of court as we pressured this guy so much that charges were going to stick and we would be awarded over 250,000 he gave us 10k back.

[Santo]

I think if he asked to be excluded, and they refused, and it's documented, he might have a case, as it's in contravention of their T&C.

[BatemanPatrickl]

What's next? Drug addicts suing their dealers.

[Santo]

Well that would be a bit stupid as you're admitting committing a crime, this guy isn't, gambling is perfectly legal.

[BatemanPatrickl]

Well that would be a bit stupid as you're admitting committing a crime, this guy isn't, gambling is perfectly legal.

It's not always legal. My point was that people need to take responsibilty for their actions.

[Santo]

Betting with William Hill in this country is about as legal as it gets. And yes he should, but under the new UK guidelines, a bookmaker has a responsibility to honor requests to cut people off.

[BatemanPatrickl]

Betting with William Hill in this country is about as legal as it gets. And yes he should, but under the new UK guidelines, a bookmaker has a responsibility to honor requests to cut people off.

I am not arguing about the legality of gambling in the UK. People who can't control themselves need to accept the positions they put themselves in.

That new guideline is BS.

[WileOut]

edited by WileOut.

[bigboydan]

What's next? Drug addicts suing their dealers.

Class action suite against a drug company over oxycotton just recently that won actually.

As far as the everyday street dealer goes though, Maybe you will know this one Bateman or somebody will. Didn't Carrol O'conner sue his sons drug dealer when he died of an overdose or did he just file charges against him?

[BatemanPatrickl]

Class action suite against a drug company over oxycotton just recently that won actually.

As far as the everyday street dealer goes though, Maybe you will know this one Bateman or somebody will. Didn't Carrol O'conner sue his sons drug dealer when he died of an overdose or did he just file charges against him?

I don't agree with the Oxycontin verdict; people abuse those drugs themselves.

I don't think you can sue a drug dealer

[bigboydan]

I don't think you can sue a drug dealer

I guess he just filed charges against him then. I just remember that one made national headlines though about 5 to 10 years ago.

[BigDog]

What a pus** this guy is! Hill didn't stop him but they didn't force him either.....People like this just needs the shit smacked out of them!

[raiders72002]

Metro News UK

Gambling addict to sue bookmaker

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gambling addict to sue bookmaker
Sunday, July 15, 2007

Metro News UK

A gambling addict is suing William Hill for £2million after accusing the bookmaker of not stopping him from placing bets.

Greyhound trainer Graham Calvert said he lost his savings of £500,000 and his marriage after taking out huge losing bets with the bookie.

He tried to ban himself from William Hill but said that, when he was in the grip of his gambling frenzy, he took out huge bets for the 'buzz' and bet more than £400,000 in just one week.

When his wife found out how much he owed last December she decided to leave him, according to a High Court writ.

Now Mr Calvert, of Houghton-le- Spring, Sunderland, faces losing his home, and has been threatened with violence from people he has borrowed money from.

He is suing William Hill for £2,052,972 because he claims the bookmaker breached its duty of care by encouraging him to continue to gamble, although he had asked to be banned as part of the company's self exclusion policy.

Mr Calvert financed betting on two accounts with William Hill by borrowing £1,420,000 from four 'business associates', taking out a £23,500 bank loan, and remortgaging the family home by £100,000. He has repaid £24,113 and owes £1,518,000 to creditors.

Mr Calvert claims to suffer from 'problem gambling', a disorder in which he has an irresistible urge to place bets, and cannot control his impulses.

He said he developed the disorder at the beginning of last year, when he got a taste for placing high stake bets on sports events.

His real problems began when he started opening accounts with bookmakers and was able to place bets over the phone.

William Hill is fighting his claim. The case is set for trial at the High Court in spring 2008

[Tchocky]

What a loser! He's lucky to be living in a country that takes his action. Be a man and take responsiblity for your actions.

[MrX]

What I find really laughable is that he's a greyhound trainer.

So he makes his living off of gamblers. Then he loses the money he got from other's gambling by gambling it himself. And then he decides to sue.

If by any chance he wins, I'd like to see all losing dog bettors sue him for his take of their loses.

[Santo]

And if he was a footballer, the same would apply?

The sports are totally independent from the gamble.

[MrX]

And if he was a footballer, the same would apply?

The sports are totally independent from the gamble.

Yeah, greyhound racing would be a big hit without the gambling.

C'mon, racing purses are payed to the winning dogs with from funds taken from the gambling pools, right. Without the parimutuel pools, the dog owners and trainers don't get paid.

A footballer is not getting paid with gambling revenue.

[Santo]

That might be the case with parimutuals, in the UK, most gambling is done at fixed odds with on-site bookmakers, not through a tote or similar.

[MrX]

That might be the case with parimutuals, in the UK, most gambling is done at fixed odds with on-site bookmakers, not through a tote or similar.

All I'm saying is if the tracks make the majority of their revenue off of other's gambling losses, it makes this guys plight seem a little less sympathetic.

If greyhound racing in the UK is mostly a spectator sport, and does not revolve around gambling, then I retract my argument.

[Santo]

Somewhere in between I guess ;-)

Tracks (at least the one local to me) charge a decent admission fee, and make most of their money that way. Companies pay to sponsor the races (naming rights), which goes towards the prize fund. Of course the people who pay to get in are there to gamble, but it's not quite as direct as things seem to be in the USA.

I do know quite a few people who like to go to Horse Racing and don't bet though.

[20Four7]

What's next? Drug addicts suing their dealers.

I tried that and got a gun put to my head and a black eye and broken nose...... Not a good thing to do in North America.




BTW I'm just kidding......

[BigBollocks]

I also think this gentleman has a case. I think it's perhaps tough for many here to even envision a scenario where one can file a lawsuit against a domestically legalized online casino as the States are so gung ho about stripping this particular person freedom.

However, the man requested to be banned which is a request that by law is to be obliged. Of course he eventually begged to have it lifted and came back to lose more, but the guilt lies with the book here in my opinion. Certain people just have mental disorders when exposed to alcohol or gambling that they simply cannot shake, and that's just the way it is (as easy as it is for those of us who are sane and productive citizens to pass judgment on them).

As with any legalized entity becoming more strongly defined I think WillHill will have to pay this gentleman some sort of retribution, and the industry there will ultimately be stronger for it. This is actually the kind of thing our government should be examining as I think it is much better to have the ability to monitor one's own and self-regulate the industry than be at the mercy of some renegade entity thousands of miles away. Not to mention there's a little extra coin that could be made as well....

[wrongturn]

Are there any laws that say a bookmaker can't lift the ban when asked by the bettor to do so? Don't know why WillHill is at fault here if this is true.

[Doc JS]

I don't agree with the Oxycontin verdict; people abuse those drugs themselves.

Patrick,
The basis for at least some of the suits was that the drug company knowingly and willfully withheld information from the FDA about how addictive oxycontin was/is as the drug was going through the process of getting FDA approval.

You won't find anyone with less sympathy for perscription drug addicts than me, but in this case the drug company is, at least partially, responsible, as well.

Doc JS

[BatemanPatrickl]

Patrick,
The basis for at least some of the suits was that the drug company knowingly and willfully withheld information from the FDA about how addictive oxycontin was/is as the drug was going through the process of getting FDA approval.

You won't find anyone with less sympathy for perscription drug addicts than me, but in this case the drug company is, at least partially, responsible, as well.

Doc JS

I did not know the details of the case but if Purdue Pharma did withold information, they should be held liable. Thank you for the clarification.

[Doc JS]

I did not know the details of the case but if Purdue Pharma did withold information, they should be held liable. Thank you for the clarification.

Patrick,
Apparently the judge agreed with you.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19877184/

[pitman]

Judgement

William Hill were found to have failed in their duty of care to Calvert. The judge also remarked upon "significant structural weakness in William Hill's internal arrangements."
However, Calvert's claim for the £2,052,972.18 he lost was thrown out on the grounds that he would have ruined himself via another bookmaker. He had continued to gamble with other companies even while his William Hill accounts were closed.
An additional personal injury claim for damages also failed.
[edit]Aftermath

Calvert was jailed for two years in October 2008 on firearms and drugs charges. He, his family and property had been the subject of attacks from loan sharks.
The legality of the disclaimer on William Hill's self-exclusion policy remains untested, since they had not used the policy in the case of Calvert.