 |
|
 |
|
 Main Menu |
|
| News
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
| Current |
|
|
|
| GGG | |
 |
|
 |
 |
| | Home | | Index | | Info | | This Week | | Poker | | News |
 |
|||||
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|||||
 |
|||||
| Cathy Heffernan
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." |
|||||
|
|||||
 Play Online Poker |
|||||
Welcome to the News desk. 
