If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Gambling addict sues bookie
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Article.
What are people's thoughts on this?
Ultimately I think it comes down to individual responsibility. If this guy had won those bets would William Hill have been able to sue him? No. William Hill's self-exclusion policy clearly needs revising but WH isn't the only bookie, he'd have went to another one had they refused his bets - and he'd have lost the same amount of money... He wouldn't be suing if he hadn't of lost.
People need to take responsibility for their own actions - I'm fed up of people cowardly blaming everybody else.
What are people's thoughts on this?
Ultimately I think it comes down to individual responsibility. If this guy had won those bets would William Hill have been able to sue him? No. William Hill's self-exclusion policy clearly needs revising but WH isn't the only bookie, he'd have went to another one had they refused his bets - and he'd have lost the same amount of money... He wouldn't be suing if he hadn't of lost.
People need to take responsibility for their own actions - I'm fed up of people cowardly blaming everybody else.
0
Comments
Bit pointless to take up gambling when you already have a decent amount of cash saved up anyway IMO.
It's not William Hill's fault the guy was addicted, it's his own. If he was that desperate to stop he could have signed his financial control to a family member and they could have helped out.
Which I think is the issue.
A gambling addiction is as bad as any other.
What wouls you think of a barman who continued to serve and alcoholic even after the alcoholic had asked to be barred?
Of course the majority of the responsibility lies with the punter, but a lot of the blame here still lies with the bookie. I woudl suggets that the bookie has something to answer for here, especially as the punter asked to banned from the place on numerous occasions.
I've got a local alcoholic on my patch, and when I mean alcoholic I mean he regularly drinks himself into oblivion, wanders the streets begging and urinating everywhere before he collapses.
He's been arrested countless times, i've become involved as second beat manager to try and help him. I've put him in touch with different organisations, spoken to the council who have agreed to help him, and i've personally visited every pub and off licence in the area and requested they don't serve him (at his request) anymore.
What does he do? His doesn't bother going to his appointments, and just walks to the petrol stations that are miles away to buy more booze. You just can't win with some people.
The gambler could have sought help for himself, he didn't, or at least did it half-heartedly.
They're both addicts, they've lost the ability to control themselves, I don't see how you can be surprised at their actions. Of course he's going to do it half-heartedly, of course the other one is going to miss his appointments if there isn't somebody to make him go. The onus should be on the bookie and whoever sells alcohol to the alcoholic.
No it shouldn't.
If somebody is an alcoholic or a problem gambler - it's their problem. Gamblers' Anonymous/AA/etc work along these lines.
Yes, it's immoral if I know somebody's an alcoholic and serve them alcohol. However, alcohol is so readily available and there are so many opportunities to gamble - alcoholics and gambling addicts will always find a way. As whowhere said an alcoholic he knows just walks to places miles away... The solution to alcohol and gambling addictions isn't to try and deny alcohol/opportunities to gamble: that's impossible and doesn't cure the problem...
I hope this guy doesn't get a penny - he's still not taking responsibility for his actions - his problem. If William Hill lose this they should have to pay out to Gamblers' Anonymous. If he can't take responsibility and face up to his problem is he even over it? Or will he gamble away anything he wins back off William Hill?
Smoker sues Phillip Morris. Fatty sues McDonald's :rolleyes:
They've both happened.
A lot of tobacco companies have been sued in the U.S. but that was when they advertised fags as healthy for you, back in the 50's/60's and there were no warnings on the pack. I doubt you'd be able to do it now though.
There was some guy last year maybe 2006 who was suing Maccys for making him fat.
But that's the rub of it, isn't it? The fact that he used his own name should have raised suspicions. Is it possible that it didn't? Perhaps, but that isn't the defence they're using is it? They could easily have verified his identity if they were suspicious. My point was that addicts relapse, they often don't have the strength to stay on the straight and narrow, because they're addicts. If people don't know that a person is an alcoholic or a gambling addict, then they obviously can't be blamed for providing the service. But if they do know, then the onus does fall on them. I'm not claiming that it will solve the problem on its own.
There's no responsibility here.
I know
The smoking one was legitimate though. They were sued after purposefully hiding information about the dangers of cigarettes, rather than simply not knowing.
I wonder whether anyone's ever sued any of those alternative therapy centres, because most of them are proven to do nothing, and yet still advertise themselves as being effective treatments.
Anyway, I don't think this bloke has a case. It's not a company's responsibility to keep your addiction in check, and you are fully aware of the risks when you gamble. It might have been nice for them to try and help him, but as far as legal responsibility goes, there's obviously none.
Surprised is the wrong word. Annoyed and disappointed are better ones.
Still don't think any blame can rest on the bookies though.
I think the annual average national wage is around the £22 000 mark.
Famous English law case similar to your suggestion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlill_v._Carbolic_Smoke_Ball_Company
Or someone suing the person who gave them their first drink/spliff/pill/line etc...
Which is just under £2000 a month before tax. This guy was on £30,000 a month.
I think the man in question has taken great steps to ensure that he remains in control of their actions. He was begging William Hill to refuse his custom so that he could get his life on track. That shows a good level of foresight on behalf of the man. William Hill agreed to do it and then went back on that agreement. He used his own name for crying out loud.
Sadly William Hill made a lot of money out of this man and so will do nothing. They should be financially responsible for what they do. I hope he wins.
Laws already exist to prevent drunken people from being served alcohol. There should be similar laws preventing people from gambling using credit cards or from gambling beyond a certain level of loss.
Yet again I'm amazed that people leap to the defence of the exploitative multinational corporation rather than the poor sap who's life has been destroyed by them.
The US have the right idea in banning online gambling and sending the owners of online gambling websites to jail. The worst thing in this country is the rise of online gambling websites, it means that more people can lose more money without anyone ever noticing. It's disgusting profiting from that and the online sites (such as William Hill's) are specifically designed to be addictive.
1. Should the bookie be responsible in general?
2. This mans case, the point in question, where William Hill agreed to no longer take his custom and then failed to keep that agreement. That's heading towards being a breech of contract and as such I can completely see why he's claiming from them.
Just my opinions:
1. Yes, they should have a duty of care over their patrons. This doesn't mean holding their hands and giving back the money when they lose some, but it does mean if someone is gambling too much just being sensible and saying they've had enough. They'll do it in bars (well, they're supposed to - I've never been kicked out of a bar / club for being too drunk and I've collapsed and thrown up all over the place on different occasions).
2. I think WH have exploited him for their own gain. He's said he's got a problem, he wants to stop, they said are you sure for the next 6 months he said yea - 2 months later he walks in and signs up with the same name and they don't even bother challenging him.
TBH it seems that WH really couldn't give a rats arse about their patrons - they're just looking for the addicts really to sap them of their money.
I don't know if the guy should be entitled to all his money back - but I do think there should be a harsh ruling against WH, perhaps even a legal precedent setting out that gambling companies must show a duty of care towards their patrons.
The right decision I think.
Like my above post, I didn't know if he should have got a refund, but WH interpretation of the case is pretty grim:
Why is it then pubs have to sell responsibly to problem drinkers? Shops have to sell responsibly if they think people might be a problem.
It seems gambling firms have it made since it's not their problem.
If this is the law it needs changing.
Those who provide gambling services have a responsibility to ensure that gamblers with addiction problems do not ruin themselves. Particularly with the rise of internet gambling, where people can and do lose hundreds of thousands of pounds without anybody ever noticing.
It's all well and good saying that people should be more careful. It's not as easy as that. I've used William Hill's website before because of an offer through Quidco (spend £10 and get £30 cashback); I spent £10 in as many minutes on a CGI roulette wheel and the whole website is designed to make it difficult to walk away.
If they encourage addiction through their marketing then they should pay for the consequences.
There were pretty mixed emotions about this. It's not really in anyone's interest to have gambling addicts, after all. Aside from the fact it can potentially destroy a person's life, there's also the bad press that the arcade/casino/betting shop, etc, will get afterwards. Questions will inevitably be asked about why no one stepped in, and that's understandable. I do think the law could do more to protect from gambling addiction, particularly from Internet gambling. When I saw the USA making it illegal, I thought to myself "why can't we do that in this country?". It's something I sympathise with.
However, there's the matter of personal responsibility here too. No one forces anyone to walk into a betting shop. No one forces anyone to make a bet with money that they couldn't afford to lose. One has to remember at all times that the odds are stacked against you when you gamble - most of the money spent ends up being won by the house in pretty much every game. Same with the Internet - no one told me that I have to come online tonight. Similarly, no one's being forced to go online to gamble. But gambling addiction is something very dangerous, and I accept entirely that the industry has to play a bigger role in dealing with this.