General Chat

not as innocent as he tries to make out?(allegedly)

A compulsive gambler who is suing William Hill for more than £2 million in the High Court is on bail for firearms and drugs charges.

Greyhound trainer Graham Calvert, 28, from Tyne and Wear, claims the bookmakers allowed him to place bets when he had twice asked them to close his account - a process known as "self-exclusion" - as he battled with gambling addiction.

A spokeswoman for Northumbria Police said Mr Calvert is currently on bail awaiting trial.

"Graham Calvert, 28, of Sedgeletch Road, Sedgeletch, in Houghton has been charged with firearms offences and associated drugs offences and is scheduled to appear at Newcastle Crown Court on a date to be fixed," she said.

Mr Calvert wants William Hill to pay back the £2.1 million in losses he accrued between June and December 2006 on the grounds that they failed in their "duty of care".

During that period he alleges the bookies allowed him to open two new accounts and to make bets totalling around £3.5 million.

He lost around £347,000 on one bet alone when he backed the USA to win the 2006 Ryder Cup.

His solicitors, Newcastle-based Ward Hadaway, say the case is a crucial test of the betting industry's social responsibility policies.

"It goes to the issue of how bookmakers treat people who have gambling problems via their self-exclusion policy and whether they can be held responsible when they advertise themselves as offering self exclusion and promoting socially-responsible gambling," said lawyer Peter Hornsey.

William Hill will defend the case "vigorously".

IF this goes to trial, and IF he wins.......

will people convicted for speeding be able to sue the car manufacturers for making their car go TOO fast?

are drug takers going to be able to sue the drug manufacturers?

****NOTE*** in the light of a later posting, I did not think of Accidental misdemeanors with prescribed drugs.....I meant the self inflicted addictable types.


will shoplifters be able to sue shops for having the goods too easy to take away?

I think not

Bob

This sue everyone every time you make a mistake has got to stop.....................how ridiculous to blame anyone for his own habit.

xx

In my opinion they do have a duty of care to their customer, the same as any other industry!

Drugs companies have been sued for the damage the have caused with their drugs.... think prescription drug "Thalidamide" (sp???)

Cigarette companies have been sued for the damage they failed to alert their customers too!

So why shouldn't a betting shop be sued when this chap told them that he self excluded himself?

I worked for Willy Hills a couple of years ago, you would be instantly dissmissed if you took a bet from someone who was on a self exclusion, But it dosen't stop the customer going along the road and putting a bet on in another WH shop....Its ok if the customer is a regular in your allocated shop but when you go to other areas to cover shops its really hard to know if someone is excluded or not.

Rosi - even worse for WH then if they already have this policy in place and yet they allowed this chap to open further accounts!

Bout time the bookmaker lost! LOL!!

Diana, He may of opened them up in another shop in a different area, there is nothing to stop him doing that..the self exclusion would only apply to his regular shop.

Ahhhhh..... ok!

;o)

Like all addicts he will always blame everyone else for his downfall, but to sue them ?? oh dear me what a prize fool !!

A problem gambler whose addiction cost him his marriage and business is taking betting chain William Hill to court to try to reclaim £2.1m he lost in six months.

Greyhound trainer Graham Calvert, 28, from Sunderland, claims that William Hill failed in its duty of care towards him by allowing him to open a new account two months after he requested that they close his account.

Calvert requested "self-exclusion" from several bookmakers, including Ladbrokes and Stan James as well as William Hill, after betting thousands of pounds on horses, once placing 20 bets of £30,000 in one day. Calvert went on to lose £2.1m in six months after re-opening his account, between June and December 2006. Bets included a record £347,000 on the US to win the 2006 Ryder Cup, a bet that made headlines at the time.

His wife and children left him in December of that year and he has since lost his training licence and business. He had earned up to £30,000 a month.

William Hill says that it provides a self-exclusion facility "enabling customers to close their account or accounts for a minimum period of six months up to five years as requested".

Spokesman Graham Sharpe declined to comment on the case but said that self-exclusion was not foolproof as people who requested it could open accounts in other names or ask someone else to place bets for them. He said it was the "customer's responsibility" to cease gambling.

The bookmaker will deny wrongdoing and fight the allegations when the case begins in the high court next Monday.

Self-exclusion is a process whereby someone can request to have their account with a betting shop closed. Guidance from the Association of British Bookmakers says that if a customer requests self-exclusion the account must be closed and cannot be opened for a minimum of six months, even if the customer asks to reopen it.

The Gambling Act 2005, which came into force last September, says that gambling operators are obliged to put in place procedures for self-exclusion and should take all reasonable steps to ensure the self-exclusion period is for a minimum of six months.

Matthew Pugh, dispute resolution expert at Clarion Solicitors in Leeds, says that even though William Hill does have a self-exclusion policy he would be surprised if the court rules in favour of Calvert "as this could open the floodgates to similar claims by others with gambling habits".

But he added that "regardless of the outcome, the court is likely to look closely at the extent of any duty of care owed by gambling institutions to customers with known gambling problems. Even if Mr Calvert is unsuccessful, this could have far-reaching consequences for the industry."

Research published last September estimates that the UK has 250,000 "official" problem gamblers. Unofficially, the figure is believed to be many times higher.

This bit caught my eye the most!!

Greyhound trainer Graham Calvert, 28, from Sunderland, claims that William Hill failed in its duty of care towards him by allowing him to open a new account two months after he requested that they close his account.

The Gambling Act 2005, which came into force last September, says that gambling operators are obliged to put in place procedures for self-exclusion and should take all reasonable steps to ensure the self-exclusion period is for a minimum of six months.

I was suspended for not taking a bet from a self excluded customer when he walked in with another man and gave him the bet to put on...I knew it, because I spotted the money being passed over to the "stranger" to place the bet, when I refused the bet and told him why, I was accused of calling him a liar because I wouldnt take the money and he then phoned up head office and reported me.....If I had took it I would have been in trouble but I couldnt win eather way.

Accounts can be opened up over the internet too.