Gambler sues bookies for letting him bet

[Mtoto]

Personal feeling is that he has next to no chance, not least because the case pre-dates the introduction of the Gambling Act. That does lay down some statutory obligations for bookies, though even then nothing that would give him much chance to sue.

This was in effect a voluntary scheme operated by Hills. They weren't forced to give the punter the chance to exclude himself, so by the same token, they aren't forced to stick to it when he does.

A lot of the reports on this case - the BBC in particular - have had a remarkable bias towards the punter. I'm one myself, so that's where my loyalties would normally lie, but Hills did have a scheme to try to help him, and seem to have made a simple mistake.

One of the reasons that they have self-exclusion schemes in the first place is to prevent cases like this one, where a punter who's lost everything is plastered all over the media.
Contrary to popular belief, bookies - big ones like Hills, anyway - do not want to bleed people dry in the shortest possible time, as it's bad for business. They would much rather have a little and often over years or decades.

 

[Seagull over NZ]

Surely William Hill will have something in their clauses about the self exclusion saying that the individual has the right to overturn this at any time. Surely their legal people wouldn't allow such a thing not to happen, otherwise they would be setting themselves up for a big fall. Just looked at their website and of course they do have one:

34. RESPONSIBLE GAMING/GAMBLING

"For those customers who wish to restrict their gambling, we provide a voluntary self exclusion policy, which enables You to close Your Account or restrict Your ability to place bets or game on the William Hill Websites for a minimum period of six months. You can ask that the restriction lasts for a longer period.

If You require any information relating to this facility please speak to our customer service team on 0800 085 6296. If we believe that Your gambling will cause You financial or personal difficulties then we reserve the right to close Your Account.

We will use our reasonable endeavours to ensure compliance with self exclusion. However You accept that we have no responsibility or liability whatsoever if You continue gambling and/or seek to use the William Hill Websites and we fail to recognise or determine that You have requested self exclusion in circumstances which are beyond our reasonable control. For example including but not limited to You opening a new account, gambling in an LBO or over the telephone rather than over the internet or using a different name or address.

Unless that clause has only just gone in.........

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

Can Leeds United supporters sue the bookmakers for offering them odds on Leeds winning promotion ?

 

[ben andrews' girlfriend]

its an addiction though BAG. Just signing a form saying you've got a problem please dont serve me doesnt stop you wanting to bet, same as admitting you've got a smack problem, doesnt stop you needing it

I'm probably on my own here, but the bookies have got a responsibilty and a code of conduct to not let people gamble recklessly

if you go into a pub consistently properly drunk you (probably) wont get served. Well you shouldnt, its illegal. I think they should bring in similar laws for problem gamblers. The bookies know who they are and in an ideal world turn them away, instead they milk their problem

Personally I hope the guy wins then gets help

I can see what you mean, but the alcohol companies dont get sued for making them alcoholics, neither the ciggies companies for making them addicted to smoking.

Is their code of conduct legally binding? I don't know! But if it isn't then he will probably lose the case!

 

[Trufflehound]

I think he will win personally.

Will you be getting on this outcome, and getting on it LARGE?

 

[maffew]

I can see what you mean, but the alcohol companies dont get sued for making them alcoholics

no but you would get barred from your pub/not served (though granted probably only if you cause trouble)

Is their code of conduct legally binding? I don't know! But if it isn't then he will probably lose the case!

no its not, though taking the biggest bet on the ryder cup after he had self excluded seems irresponsible possibly negligent, dont know if he will win, but I think tougher measures need putting in place to help people and not let bookies milk them

if you are actually addicted to gambling bad like US said its like a mental disease, it messes with your head, all logic goes out the window

 

[Conkers]

I can't imagine this guy will win the money back he put on the bet (because if he won there is a 99% chance he wouldn't have sued). Also if the bookies stopped everyone that wanted to place a large bet......that would defeat the whole point in bookies yes?
However as he and William Hill probably both knew he was an addict and they still took all these large bets, William Hill will lose. They owed him a duty of care and they let him bet, knowing he had previously closed an account with them.
Loss due to the gambling = No
Sue them for making him lose the money? = Yes

 

[Simster]

Perhaps the solution is to properly regulate the industry. William Hill should be fined for letting him bet without taking due care. That money could then be poured into proper help groups.

And the addict himself needs to face up to his own reponsibility. No way should he be able to claim that money back.

 

[Questions]

I think it better to sue those tossers that put crap horse racing tips on here.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

I guess this depends on just how far service providers can be expected to exercise their "duty of care".

Presumably this self exclusion policy is to a great extent dependent on the will of the gambler, as there would be little that Hills could do if such a customer walked in with false details, say, or demanded point blank to open a new account, or even just said they'd decided to stop their own exclusion. How does a bookies' cashier know the truth? They have no idea of a customer's personal situation, nor are they trained psychologists, able to spot when someone's habit has become a problem.

The pub scenario is completely different, as there are specific laws dealing with serving a drunk, as well as obvious physical symptoms for staff to look out for. There are no such laws dealing with gamblers, and no physical signs of such an addiction.

I wonder if this bloke only gambled with Hills, or went all over the place and is just using them as a last ditch attempt to recoup his losses?

 

[maffew]

I guess this depends on just how far service providers can be expected to exercise their "duty of care".

Presumably this self exclusion policy is to a great extent dependent on the will of the gambler, as there would be little that Hills could do if such a customer walked in with false details, say, or demanded point blank to open a new account, or even just said they'd decided to stop their own exclusion. How does a bookies' cashier know the truth? They have no idea of a customer's personal situation, nor are they trained psychologists, able to spot when someone's habit has become a problem.

The pub scenario is completely different, as there are specific laws dealing with serving a drunk, as well as obvious physical symptoms for staff to look out for. There are no such laws dealing with gamblers, and no physical signs of such an addiction.

I wonder if this bloke only gambled with Hills, or went all over the place and is just using them as a last ditch attempt to recoup his losses?

The pub scenario is not completely different, there are usually signs when someone has a gambling problem. For example many trips to the cashpoint, placing larger amounts to recoup losses, stress on the customer. Its not hard to spot honestly. If you went into a bookies and said to them 'do you know the people in here who have got a real problem', they would generally know, mightnt admit it though. It might be the same people also who turn up weekly/monthly on payday only. It doesnt take a lot to spot it and would be easy to train cashiers to do so. Anyway, a several hundred thousand pound bet wouldnt be placed at a cashier and would have to be cleared by management/head office and probably done over the phone. Any cashier should be able to spot punters in above their head, nearly the same as a bar staff could spot a drunk customer

If he went in with false details to open an account and he wouldnt have a leg to stand on that would be fraudulent

he'd probably have had accounts all over the place.

Not defending the guy to the hilt, but I think the bookie is partly responsible here