Gambling addict is suing betting chain

Feb 15 2008 by Chris Robinson, The Journal

A COMPULSIVE gambler last night explained why he is suing a betting chain for losses of £2.1m, saying he asked to be barred from their shops.

Greyhound trainer Graham Calvert, 28, wants William Hill to pay back the money on the grounds they failed in their duty of care to him.

Mr Calvert, of Sedge Letch farm, Houghton-le-Spring, near Sunderland, claims the bookmaker allowed him to place bets when he had twice asked them to close his account and stop accepting bets from him as he battled with gambling addiction.

He claims the betting firm allowed him to open two new accounts and to make bets totalling around £3.5m between June and December 2006.

During this period he lost a total of £2.1m. He lost around £347,000 in one bet alone when he backed the USA to win the 2006 Ryder Cup.

Mr Calvert claims he asked the bookmaker not to take his bets in a process called self-exclusion offered by bookmakers to help people fighting gambling addiction.

It allows a customer to ask that their account be closed for six months or more and that it cannot be re-opened during that period, even at the customer’s request.

Guidance from the Association of British Bookmakers (ABB) states that once a customer has indicated that they wish to be barred from gambling, the bookmaker is responsible for ensuring that such a customer is excluded from betting for the specified period.

Peter Hornsey, the head of Mr Calvert’s legal team with Newcastle-based solicitors Ward Hadaway, said the case is a crucial test of the industry’s social responsibility policies.

He said: “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.

“For whatever reason, William Hill failed to operate its self-exclusion policy, with disastrous consequences for our client, despite knowing that he had a gambling problem and we argue that they should be held responsible for that.”

Graham Sharpe, from William Hill, said he did not want to comment on the particulars of the claim, but added: “The case will be heard in full in court. We will be contesting the case vigorously.” Mr Calvert had previously opened up accounts with several other bookmakers, including Ladbrokes and Stan James.

He had asked to self-exclude with Ladbrokes and Stan James and had strict money limits placed on accounts with two other betting firms – Coral and Victor Chandler. Mr Calvert had been a successful greyhound trainer before becoming addicted to gambling. He has now lost his training licence and his business, while his marriage has also broken down as a result of his gambling problem. Ron Finlay, from charity The Responsibility in Gambling Trust, said he did not want to comment specifically about Mr Calvert’s case, but admitted the result would set “an interesting precedent”.

The case will be heard at the Royal Courts of Justice in London from Monday and is scheduled to last for five days.