On the one hand he's a muppet for continuing to bet. On the other, if as the article implies there was an agreement in place between him and William Hill that they wouldn't take bets from him in breach of their own self-exclusion policies then they should be partly liable.
Man sues bookies for 2 million
- Thread starter Silent-Lucidity
- Start date
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 3,007
- Location
- Hobbiton
Apparently he bet £347,000 on America to win the Ryder cup in 2006. Was the single largest golf bet at the time. No wonder he lost loads if he can't pick the winner in a 2 horse race! 
Permabanned
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 1,518
he doesnt have a leg to stand on. if he gets refused in the agency he said not to serve him he'll just go somewhere else.
All companies have a duty of care towards their customers.
Continuing to serve a known gambling addict would appear to be a big failure in that.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 May 2003
- Posts
- 9,361
- Location
- Limehouse
He has a medical problem and specifically made an attempt to stop himself gambling by asking WHill not to let him bet. They failed in that duty and so I can see where he's coming from.
Apparently he bet £347,000 on America to win the Ryder cup in 2006. Was the single largest golf bet at the time. No wonder he lost loads if he can't pick the winner in a 2 horse race!
50% of the population would also pick the loser there, all things being equal
Typical knee-jerk reactions in this thread. William Hill operate a self-exclusion scheme for people who recognise they have a problem with gambling. This particular gentleman used that scheme, which would have prevented his existing account being used for 6 months. But then the chap opened a new account and lost £2m.
The question in my mind is, did William Hill know this was the same person (e.g. did he use the same credit card, address or any other form of ID that would have made it clear it was him), and if so why did they allow him to open an account? Like it or not, it is right that firms have a duty of care to their customers.
i think he has a valid point. He had banned himself from other bookies. did the same with WH he record the convo that stated "You will not be able to gamble within the next 6months"
he then opened another account using the SAME name and they allowed it. Surely there should have been a notice on his name that he was banned from using it.
I relise obvioulsy if he had won he wouldnt be complaining, but i belive that WH have negleted this guys wishes.
/awaits the flaming
he then opened another account using the SAME name and they allowed it. Surely there should have been a notice on his name that he was banned from using it.
I relise obvioulsy if he had won he wouldnt be complaining, but i belive that WH have negleted this guys wishes.
/awaits the flaming
I guess the difference is (at least these days) cigarettes are known to be highly addictive in themselves because they contain nicotine, whilst gambling isn't for the vast majority of people. Because of that the duty of care doesn't come into play with cigarettes because the customer knows what they are getting themselves into.
So are you telling me after the first 1.5million pounds he lost in the bookies - he still hadn't realised he had a gambling problem...?
He is responsible for himself.
he admitted he had a problem thats why he cancelled his account, they told him he couldnt bet anymore for 6months.
THEY then let him (not checking the name on registration) sign up again using the same name.
Ok, yeh. Just read more about it now. William Hill shouldn't have let him bet.
after losing 1.5mil some people can convince themselves they are due a winning streak as the odds would point towards that... Some people also continue gambling as it is the only method that has any chance of making that money back in their lifetimes.
Badbob, 'others' have to pay? IF anyone ends up paying it will be WHill, and it will be his own money being payed back, BECAUSE it is their fault for allowing him to open another account when they had already agreed to suspend him for 6months.. There should be legislations introduced to help stop this happening, something that keeps a record of an individuals betting activity which raises flags when somebody appears to be going a bit mad.
I think most people who have an addiction find it hard to admit it to themselves. He must've known long before then he had a problem, but as with many addictions it's "just one more time".
It's hard to see how this case will come out as we don't know how legally binding this 'no gambling' agreement was. I'm guessing that the bookies would've had safeguards in place to prevent them getting sued.
Soldato
- Joined
- 5 Aug 2006
- Posts
- 11,428
- Location
- Derbyshire
haha what a retard. hes an adult and it his entirely his own fault.
Say my name is mark smith (most common uk name??) and I ban myself, they cannot ban that name as 100s of other uses have that name. Opening another account with the same name as last time means nothing.
Say my name is mark smith (most common uk name??) and I ban myself, they cannot ban that name as 100s of other uses have that name. Opening another account with the same name as last time means nothing.