Will Pavia and agencies
Enter our Snapshots of Summer photography competition

A man who became addicted to gambling is suing a bookmaker for continuing to take his bets and allowing him to lose more than £2 million on golf, football and horse racing.
Graham Calvert, 28, a greyhound trainer from Tyne and Wear, says that he had asked William Hill to bar him from their betting shops because of his compulsive habit.
Over 16 months, beginning in August 2005, he placed £7.5 million on the outcomes of sporting events, sometimes walking into the betting shop with bin liners filled with £100,000 in cash.
He had been earning £30,000 a month and began betting £1,000 to £5,000 a time; his stakes rose over time to single bets of £30,000.
A year into this betting spree, he says, he recognised that he was suffering from an addiction and sought to curtail his own behaviour. In May 2006 he asked William Hill to ban him.
However, later that summer he says he was able to open another account and resume placing large bets, including one £347,000 bet backing America to win the Ryder Cup. They lost.
He now owes £1.5 million and says his life is in ruins: his wife has left him, taking their two young children with her.
His solicitor, Tiejha Smyth, said: “He was allowed to continue gambling after Hill's agreed he should be self-excluded. They should be held legally responsible.”
He is suing the bookmaker for the £2 million he lost after he asked to be barred. “If I’d known I had the problem and didn’t do anything about it, I would see myself as being 100 per cent responsible,” he told the BBC.
“The fact is that I did try to go through the right procedures and I was let down.”
The case opens at the High Court next week. William Hill has said it will contest the allegations.
The case comes a month after the mother of a mentally disabled man from Bournemouth, permitted to continue gambling after several local bookmakers had agreed to exclude him, called for gambling regulations to be tightened.
Sue Mottram’s son Alex, 39, had suffered severe brain injuries during a cycling race when he was 16. Having gambled away most of the compensation money he received for the accident, he had signed six-month self-exclusion agreements with a number of bookmakers in the area, his mother said. He was subsequently allowed to gamble during the six-month period, she said.
The Gambling Commission, which regulates the industry, said at the time that since September 1, 2007 licensed betting operators were required to promote “socially responsible gambling” under the Gambling Act 2005. This included an obligation for licensees to “put in place procedures for self-exclusion and take all reasonable steps to refuse service or to otherwise prevent an individual who has entered a self-exclusion agreement from participating in gambling".
The self-exclusion period is a minimum of six months but customers should be given the option of extending this to a total of at least five years.
Paul Devlin, director of services at the brain injuries association Headway, said the Gambling Commission’s rules on self-exclusion still assumed that gamblers had “sufficient decision-making capacity to exclude themselves”.
Win a luxury weekend to Newcastle and its neighbour Gateshead, find out more here
Risk, resilience and embracing new technology
Industry sectors news at a glance. Interactive heatmap, video and podcast
Discover the collective power of smart thinking. Submit a solution and be in with a chance to win a Flip MinoHD Camcorder
The inside track on current trends in the charity, not for profit and social enterprise sectors
Everything the Business Traveller needs to know to make a better trip
Make the most of the summer and enter our fabulous photographic competition, you could win a £5000 holiday
Corsica is an island of beauty and contrast, an ideal holiday destination
Enjoy further reading from Travel to Fashion, Business to Sport, discover more
Shortcuts to help you find sections and articles
The clever way to lease a new car is with Car leasing made simple™
2009
42,945
2008
71,450
Car Insurance
Not Specified
MI6
UK-based
£60,000
The Environment Agency
Bristol
Up to £90K
Boots
Midlands
OTE £85k
Credit Protection Association
Nationwide Opportunities
Completely London
Luxury Condo's in Manhattan with NYC views
The best new homes in Wimbledon?
Nationwide
Save up to £1,000 per couple with Elite Vacations at the five-star Constance Lemuria Resort
and do the British Isles this Summer.
Save up to 60% with Oxford Hotels and Inns
Try our inspiring luxury holidays to the Indian Subcontinent and South East Asia.
Great offers available
8 fabulous Canadian cities ...you won’t find cheaper
Contact our advertising team for advertising and sponsorship in Times Online, The Times and The Sunday Times, or place your advertisement.
Times Online Services: Dating | Jobs | Property Search | Used Cars | Holidays | Births, Marriages, Deaths | Subscriptions | E-paper
News International associated websites: Globrix Property Search | Property Finder | Milkround
Copyright 2009 Times Newspapers Ltd.
This service is provided on Times Newspapers' standard Terms and Conditions. Please read our Privacy Policy.To inquire about a licence to reproduce material from Times Online, The Times or The Sunday Times, click here.This website is published by a member of the News International Group. News International Limited, 1 Virginia St, London E98 1XY, is the holding company for the News International group and is registered in England No 81701. VAT number GB 243 8054 69.
Why would the Act allow for a private law suit? That to me is the bewildering aspect. Surely a problem gambler like this person would find a way to gamble away his money, even during the self-exclusion period. A private law suit in cases like this seeks to collect damages that surely weren't caused by William HIll's negligence. A fine against the company would be the better remedy.
Jeffrey, Oregon, USA
I used to work in Australia for one of their biggest sports wagering companies. Even though their rules are far better than the UK which have until recently been stuck in the 60s. Unfortunately you still heard many horror stories about people openingly using betting shops to launder money and how a particular shop's revenue had halfed because their main customer was back in jail.
However, the rules are strict & clear. The whole point is to protect children and vulnerable people from irresponsible gambling.
William Hill are extremely negligent to let a customer continue to bet in their shop once self excluded. Even before that, they have a conduct code to spot a problem gambler and exclude them regardless.
There should be hefty operator fines for such a lapse and the inviduals resposible should lose their commission licenses. Its just a case of "don't care - take the money."
This is very poor example for a tightly regulated industry. I've not sympathy for William Hill at all.
Ian, Manchester, uk
How about drug addicts sueing drug barons for the money spent on their addiction over the years? Or the government for introducing laws restricting supplies of drugs thereby making them needlessly high in price?
John, LONDON,
If he was addicted to gambling, then even if William Hill kept to their side of the agreement and banned Calvert surely he'd simply have gone to an alternative bookmakers, or an online one.
That being so, surely his claim must fail on the basis of causation; even without William Hill's alleged breach of whatever duty they may have owed Calvert, he most likely would still have lost the sums he now claims.
Barry, London, UK
Is he to blame?
Are William Hill to blame?
You decide.........?
Should we sue the supermarkets who sold us the food to make us fat?
Where will it end?
Mr Knight, Hove, England
The case rests on William Hill being held legally liable for Mr. Calvert's losses. If he realised he had a problem, surely he should have sought additional help other than asking to be in a voluntary scheme with the bookmaker? It was, after all, he who broke his own voluntary agreement by opening a new account with which he could place more money on bets. I cannot see how William Hill can be liable under these circumstances. Mr. Calvert appears to be looking for an easy way out of the catastrophic position he, and only he, has placed himself in.
Sam Higgins, Brixham, Devon
The word is going mad what next? Someone suing there local Gym if they fail to make them lose weight? No wonder the u.k is a laughing stock!!!
Alex , harlow, England
I am not sure why people think he is a 'cretin'. He has a legitimate argument. There is a contractual relationship between the gambler and the company. I am sure you will agree that there is an implied trust and responsibility from both of the parties who are involved in gambling. Statutues also encourage responsibility.
We are all aware without a doubt that gambling is an addiction. He knows it and so does the gambling company. He wanted to do something about it. And so he did. He did by informing the company that provides the gambling services.
I feel he ought to win his case. The company has been negligent.
Ripon Ray, London , UK
Im suing the local gym, im overweight and dont exercise but the gym is letting me be lazy so its their fault
Michael, london, london
Binliners full of cash eh? No doubt all tax had been paid on this cash and duly accounted for, if your in a hole stop digging is my advice.
paul, manchester, uk
This is ridiculous. Should we now sue brewers for alcoholism?
Gary, Belfast,
How far is the 'victim' society going to continue, before it either implodes, or people are expected to take control of their own actions.
People will blame anyone but themselves for their own actions. What next, burglars ask people not to have nice stuff, as it's too tempting? Car thief's ask showrooms to not sell fancy cars, because it's too tempting?
Be an adult and accept responsibility for your own actions!
Arthur, Newcastle,
Is this a joke?
Most people have to work for a living, Calvert has NO ONE to blame but himself.
edwina rigby, Blackburn, England
What a hilarious fat oaf. He is reaping what he has sown - how on Earth does he get paid £30k a month for training bloody greyhounds any way?
This is just another example of 'blameless Britain'; people need to start taking responsibility for their actions. People blaming fast food companies for their being fat, people blaming bookies for taking their money? Whatever is next? People suing the army for being shot?
He looks about the right size to put a claim against McDonalds as well - what a cretin!!!!!!!!
Jerry, Norwich,