Man sues bookies for 2 million

jamrag said:
So that gives him the right to claim the money back? I would assume that along the road to losing the total of £2m he would have won some fairly hefty bets along the way as well (unless he was incredibly bad at it) so can Hills claim that back from him?
Click to expand...

He has the right to claim the money back because they either failed in their duty of care or they breached their contract with him. And no - of course Hills can't claim his winnings back because they were made under a legitimate, valid arrangement. If he could somehow have formed a binding contract agreeing not to win anything from them (absurd as that is) and then went on to do so, then they'd have a claim, but beyond that - no.

jamrag said:
I understand the points you have made but if we have reached the stage where the bookies can be held liable for his losses then i think thats fairly hellish. Is it genuinely right that he has a leg to stand on here? He's clearly realised he was totally in the **** and is trying to recoup anything he can by any means he can. It is hills fault that he bet with them but he is arguing presumably that he wouldnt have bet at all had they not let him open up a new account. Had they let him access his old account they would have some responsibility but not enough for him to get money back.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is genuinely right and it is legally correct with a long history in tort law.

He's arguing that they agreed not to let him bet, for his own good, and then they let him bet anyway. I think the issue of accounts is irrelevant - as I understand it, they agreed not to let him gamble at all.


jamrag said:
The sad thing is he is probably legally in the right and will end up getting a payout.
Click to expand...

That's not sad at all. It's legally sound. It may be his fault that he is hooked on gambling, but it is Hill's fault that they let him gamble when they said they wouldn't. That's what he's claiming against - not his own problems.

It's probably worth comparing this to the fact that pubs aren't allowed to serve drinks to drunk people - that would be in breach of their duty of care.
 
Hmm you obviously know your stuff regarding the law. How would him winning money from them be a valid arrangement if they had previously agreed not to let him bet? Surely the arrangement is being broken regardless of the outcome.

Im not arguing im just interested.
 
vonhelmet said:
He has the right to claim the money back because they either failed in their duty of care or they breached their contract with him. And no - of course Hills can't claim his winnings back because they were made under a legitimate, valid arrangement. If he could somehow have formed a binding contract agreeing not to win anything from them (absurd as that is) and then went on to do so, then they'd have a claim, but beyond that - no.
Click to expand...

I think that argument contradicts itself. You're arguing that the bets made after the self-exclusion were invalid (so he should get back the money he paid to the company) and that they were valid (so the company can't get back the money they paid to him). They can't be both valid and invalid at the same time.

If he wins, all gambling companies will be under pressure to withdraw self-exclusion facilities completely. That would be the sensible thing for gambling companies to do, if gambling companies are liable for people deliberately taking steps to circumvent the self-exclusions they themselves requested.

The other option is far more intrusive controls on gambling, with multiple corroborating forms of ID required before being allowed to gamble at all. Even fingerprinting wouldn't be enough - that can be fooled.

What about other gambling places? Say, for example, a chain of pubs? They have gambling machines in. If I exclude myself from gambling in a Wetherspoons pub in Southampton, then travel to a Wetherspoons pub in Edinburgh and lose £250 on a fruit machine in it, should I be entitled to have that £250 back? If so, why should I be allowed to walk away with £150, if I won £150?

Risk-free gambling on any scale! Keep the money if you win, get all the staked money back if you lose! Where do I sign up for that?
 
jamrag said:
Hmm you obviously know your stuff regarding the law. How would him winning money from them be a valid arrangement if they had previously agreed not to let him bet? Surely the arrangement is being broken regardless of the outcome.

Im not arguing im just interested.
Click to expand...

Whoa, did I say that? Whooops... I think I must have skipped a beat there.

Actually, thinking about it, I think the agreement to allow him to bet would be legally binding, even if it would contradict another legally binding agreement to not allow him to bet. This is a bit more specialist... I think we need Raymond Lin for this one. I think it's complicated because it's a bit of a trade off between duty of care (in agreeing not to let him bet) and contract law (in allowing him to bet) and I'm not sure which would take precedence, or if they would in fact be treated as entirely separate, in which case it could appear to go both ways. It might depend on whether the agreement not to let him bet was contractual.

Still, it's hypothetical as it appears he only lost money after they agreed not to let him bet.
 
Last edited:
vonhelmet said:
Whoa, did I say that? Whooops... I think I must have skipped a beat there.

Actually, thinking about it, I think the agreement to allow him to bet would be legally binding, even if it would contradict another legally binding agreement to not allow him to bet. This is a bit more specialist... I think we need Raymond Lin for this one.

Still, it's hypothetical as it appears he only lost money after they agreed not to let him bet.
Click to expand...

If he's claiming he didnt win at all after he opened the new account then he's either a mahoosive liar or possibly the worst gambler in the world! The ryder cup bet would suggest the latter may be the case however.

Im not well up on the law and i'm more than willing to believe that he is in the right legally but the idea just doesnt sit well with me at all. HE was responsible, he duped the bookies by opening the other account and had that application been rejected i'm pretty sure he could have got round whatever measures they had in place one way or another. The amounts involved are largely irrelevant, its just the concept of it.

Actually, having just seen an interview with him on tv he is definitely chancing his luck here, i hope he doesnt see a penny!
 
Angilion said:
I think that argument contradicts itself. You're arguing that the bets made after the self-exclusion were invalid (so he should get back the money he paid to the company) and that they were valid (so the company can't get back the money they paid to him). They can't be both valid and invalid at the same time.

If he wins, all gambling companies will be under pressure to withdraw self-exclusion facilities completely. That would be the sensible thing for gambling companies to do, if gambling companies are liable for people deliberately taking steps to circumvent the self-exclusions they themselves requested.

The other option is far more intrusive controls on gambling, with multiple corroborating forms of ID required before being allowed to gamble at all. Even fingerprinting wouldn't be enough - that can be fooled.

What about other gambling places? Say, for example, a chain of pubs? They have gambling machines in. If I exclude myself from gambling in a Wetherspoons pub in Southampton, then travel to a Wetherspoons pub in Edinburgh and lose £250 on a fruit machine in it, should I be entitled to have that £250 back? If so, why should I be allowed to walk away with £150, if I won £150?

Risk-free gambling on any scale! Keep the money if you win, get all the staked money back if you lose! Where do I sign up for that?
Click to expand...

Boogles me that you actually think the bookies offer problem gamblers help of their own accord. In order to become a LBO (Licence betting office) they have to aggree to MULTIPLE agreements and one of those is the protection of problem gamblers. Willhill ****ing love problem gamblers, they are a business, and that group give them the most money. That is why there are laws to protect vunerable people. From working in willhills for quite some time I would say 70% of our income comes from stolen/dirty money or either benefit allowance. Since computerisation of our systems, it is easy to look at stats of income, and dole/giro day is by far the most profitable day for the branches I work in.

If a bookies is found to allow problem gamblers custom, then their licence will be withdrawn, the same as the withdrawl of an offsales licence.
 
vonhelmet said:
That's irrelevant! He'd taken steps with William Hill and they went back on them. As I said earlier, it wouldn't have been their fault if he'd bet elsewhere, but it is their fault that he bet with them.
Click to expand...

complete balls to be honest

they made an oversight and approved another account - he carried on betting and lost a total of 1.5 million

if he didn't want to carry on then why didn't he inform them of their mistake - it isn't like he just bet 1.5 million in one go - this would have happened over time - if he wanted to be self excluded he could have simply informed them that he had opened another account. I could perhaps understand a bit if he'd opened a second account and placed a couple of bets in a moment of frustration etc.. - but to carry on using the second account - well he is doing that out of choice - he has got no one else to blame but himself.

I wouldn't be too surprised if this was some lame attempt to get back some of his losses - i.e. place stupidly huge bets & if he wins keep quiet if he loses the sue the bookies. You can guarantee he'd be suing them if he won a big bet and they refused to pay after discovering the oversight.
 
Jokester said:
Pubs are legally not allowed to sell alcohol to someone that is drunk ;).
Click to expand...

yes but you can't go to a pub and say - I want to be excluded from every pub you own in the UK - it would be impossible to enforce - even if they attempted to enforce such a voluntary ban by circulating photos etc.. there would still be an oversight and I don't think an individual brewer could be held responsible because an alcoholic got ****** in one of thier pubs

just as there would have been with this william hill thing- some temp has probably entered his details in differently, or he has filled them out slightly differently online or even moved house etc..

the fact is that if he wanted to be voluntarily banned he could have simply informed them of his other account instead of putting it into use over an extended period of time - he is basically moaning because he lost
 
dowie said:
yes but you can't go to a pub and say - I want to be excluded from every pub you own in the UK - it would be impossible to enforce - even if they attempted to enforce such a voluntary ban by circulating photos etc.. there would still be an oversight and I don't think an individual brewer could be held responsible because an alcoholic got ****** in one of thier pubs
Click to expand...
The pubs duty of care would require that they took reasonable steps to prevent that person at their request from being able to purchase alcohol. Ultimately it would be upto the courts to decide what is reasonable, as will likely happen in this case.

You and other people seem to be ignoring that people that are addicted to something don't act rationally when it comes to their addiction, that's why companies have a duty of care in cases where they know that they have a problem.

I used to work in a supermarket and I was not allowed to sell alcohol to people we knew had an alcohol problem, not so much that they might sue us, but because of duty of care we would also potentially be liable for anything that happened to them whilst they were steaming drunk.
 
My first post was made without reading the whole thread - it was a post in anger. Whilst I still dont think William Hill should in any way be held accountable for a gambling addicts problems, if the law says otherwise they should take steps to install some kind of networked central database to prevent repeat problem gamblers.

As a business (no point in bringing ethics into this kind of debate) this isnt in their favour and will cost millions to impliment.....not the best thing in the world.

Bah
 
I think all bets that were made between him and William Hill after he asked to be not allowed to bet there should be declared void.

However I imagine if he gets the above ruling then a lot of gamblers will be ringing up to ban themselves then placing huge bets and if they lose will be claiming they shouldve have been allowed to bet and they want their money back. If they win then they will just keep quiet.
 
If he wins this then 100s of people will use the loophole in the law and everyone will continue sueing everyone just like our fat ignorant american friends do.

EG, I sign up then exclude myself from WH
I then open a new account and bet 50grand.
I win =yay
I lose = sue them and get compo

WTF!?!?!?!
 
WIlliam Hill should be fined for breaking the duty of care, however it shouldn't go to the guy.

People in general need to take responsability for their own actions, addiction or no addiction! What next - allow crack heads to get away with breaking the law because they can't help it!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom