Addicted Gambler sues Bookmaker...

[thatbloke]

BBC News link

Ok so this guy, to cut a long story short, had a gambling addiction. To try and help him stop it he requests a "self-exclusion" from the bookmakers - basically a voluntary agreement that means his account with them is closed and he is unable to use it to gamble.

This punter is now sueing (spelling?) William Hill for about £2million for breaking this agreement, thereby "causing him to lose more money."

This story strikes a chord with me because I have had problems with gambling myself in the past and I lost alot of money - a large amount of it not even my own and which I had no right to take. The debt caused by those problems is taking me ages to pay off too.

So, who is at fault here? The gambler for perhaps not seeking enough help with his addiction? Or the bookmaker's for "breaking their duty of care?"

Having experienced a similar situation myself, I am with the bookmakers on this one. If you really have a gambling problem it is a very difficult thing to shake off - I know from experience. But you have to seek help to do so and in my opinion if he really was intent on stopping the gambling he should have seeked out more help. That is something I did and within about 3 weeks I had managed to stop the gambling with the help of counselling and other methods.

I still gamble now but now it's only money I can afford to lose and it's not a problem where if I start I cannot stop anymore

But back to the point. Bookmaker's fault or gambler's fault?

 

[waterproofbob]

Gambler's fault, I appreciate that it is an addiction and very hard to beat but similarly with smoking and alcohol I wouldn't blame the vendor for providing the service that they are there to provide. It has to come down to the individual to be responsible and look for the help which these days is regularly available for this sort of thing.

 

[Nanor]

God, this is like the fat people suing McDonalds...

It is your own fault you gave into temptation. You can't blame anyone else for that. He should have gone and got help for this problem and although it's unfortunate he gave in, it's not the bookie's fault.

 

[Wol]

Gambler's fault

I'd agree.

Similar to bob voluntarily asking for the temporary ban on THN. If this was lifted before his exams finished, and he failed the exams, its not quite the admins fault that he failed is it?

I'd also not be suprised if the guy is just trying to sue them so he can pay off his debts, caused by gambling!

 

[Dragon]

I think you can't say that it is someones fault to be addicted to something. First of all the bookmaker should not have given him another possibility of gambling. But then why doesn't the gambler, like most of you already said, take professional help? But even then, can you call it a "fault" that he is addicted to something? I don't think so. You wouldn't say its Amy Whitehouse's fault that she now is a crackwhore or whatsoever, as she cannot control herself anymore when it comes to drugs, just like our gambler.

So in the end I think it would be best just to force our bookmaker to pay a drug therapy for him, which should be not that expensive, compared to the fine the gambler requested, and both of them will be happy. (Or at least less unhappy, concerning the bookmakers case )

 

[Taffy]

I disagree Dragon. You don't just become addicted to something. You become addicted through over-use. With a Class-A drug, it may take just one sniff/smoke/injection; with gambling or drink, it would take more. But at the end of the day, you are still the one at fauly if you over-do it. You need to learn your own boundaries, and stay within them: if you can't trust yourself to do that, steer clear of anything that could become addicting. As for Amy Winehouse, I do say it is her fault she addicted to drugs. Sure, she can't control herself with drugs any more, but she could before she got the addiction. The first time she was offered a bit o' snuff or whatever, she could quite easily have got up and walked away: she tried it, knowing full well the consequences. Hence, shes now doing time in The Priory.

I'm with the others, it is the gamblers fault.

 

[thatbloke]

Haven't got a link, but I've just heard on the radio that the person in question has lost his case.

Yay for common sense! (for a change...)

 

[Silk]

Depends. If he had a written agreement with them to cancel his account and whatnot and they broke it - they can be held responsible.

If it was a verbal agreement, he doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Personally I wish I could get all my local food stores to ban me from buying chocolate and booze but hey.. dream on

 

[AcidK]

Thing is, was it the bookers fault to break the agreement or the gamblers for knowingly breaking the agreement?

I would say it's the gambler's fault in many respects, regardless of agreements made to a booker. Hell, it's like trying to sue a pub or a shop for drinking problems. It's your own damned fault and if you cannot seek the right help and give in to such temptation then you have zero right to complain. I know this by experience because I have my own fair share of addictions, some of which I have shaken off (ex Alcoholic, ex Smoker, etc) and, in fairness, I shook those off with help from others.

 

[thatbloke]

According to a newspaper report I read on this this morning the Judge said that the bookmaker's DID break their code of conduct (or whatever it is) in allowing him to place bets with them after he requested that they not allow him to. But the judge then went on to say that the person in question would have found another way to bet/gamble/lose his money and therefore the bookmaker could accept no liability for him losing his money.