news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7243656.stm
How a gambling addict lost £2.1m
A man is suing William Hill for more than £2m, money he lost gambling after asking the bookmaker not to let him bet again.
At just 28 years old, Graham Calvert has achieved a great deal. He built his reputation as a greyhound trainer and became one of the best in Britain.
It was a job which earned him up to £30,000 a month and he built up savings of nearly £700,000.
He was even chosen to train dogs for international competitions and his reputation should have ensured a prosperous future.
But it has all been ruined by his gambling habit which has cost him his career, family life and business.
Run an internet search for the words "Ryder Cup punter" and one of the first items which appears is a story about a gambler who in 2006 placed £347,000 on America to win the Ryder Cup.
At the time it was the biggest golf bet in history and, if successful, would have returned £753,000.
But the downside for the punter was that America lost and the big problem for Graham Calvert, from Wearside, is that he was the punter. That, though, was just a fraction of his losses.
Moments of clarity
He began gambling at the end of 2005 and it wasn't just the odd fiver on the horses.
He says he didn't get a buzz out of bets of tens or hundreds of pounds. He wanted to gamble thousands.
At one stage he placed up to 20 bets a day at £30,000 a punt. But, by his own admission, in what he describes as "rare moments of clarity", he realised it was all getting out of hand and so excluded himself from a number of bookmakers.
Some of them wouldn't let him bet again while others only allowed him maximum bets of a few hundred pounds. But Mr Calvert was a big time gambler so he went in search of other bookmakers to take on his bets.
So, in May 2006, he opened an account with William Hill - one of the best known bookies in the UK.
He says up until that point he had been reluctant to gamble with them because they owned the track where he raced his dogs.
After placing some big bets he closed that account after just a few days, although he chose to re-open it two weeks later.
About a week later, after more bets totalling nearly £300,000 pounds, he closed it again and this is when he was offered what's known as "self exclusion".
This, his lawyers say, is a facility provided by bookmakers to help gambling addicts break free of their addiction.
'Account closed'
The BBC has obtained a transcript of the conversation between Mr Calvert and a team leader at William Hill.
J: "Hi Mr Calvert , you're through to John, team leader here. I understand you want to close the account?"
GC: "Yes please, yeah."
J : "Can you tell me why that is please?"
GC: "'Cos it's just far too easy to gamble."
J: "Right, so do you want to be self-excluded at this point then? Which means you will not be able to open the account with us again within the next six months?"
GC: "That's right, aye."
J: "Right, well, what I'll do is I'll pass on all the relevant information."
GC: "Right."
J: "The account will now be closed, you will not be able to open it within the next six months."
After a discussion about returning the remaining funds in the account to Mr Calvert, he's told by J: "But the money will be returned to your account and the account will now be closed for the next six months.
"You will not be allowed to open it under any circumstances. You will not be allowed to bet over the phone with William Hill."
But two months later, Mr Calvert did start betting with William Hill again by opening a new account in his own name.
Sacks of cash
It was through this account that he placed the huge bet on the Ryder Cup.
His downward spiral continued and ended up going into William Hill branches with sacks full of cash, using up all his savings and borrowing more than £1m from business associates.
By the time he stopped gambling with William Hill he had made a net loss of just under £2.1m, the amount he is now claiming against them in a High Court case due to start next week.
Regardless of Mr Calvert's big time gambling past his legal team claim that William Hill were negligent in allowing him to continue to gamble after agreeing that he would be self-excluded and that they should be held responsible for the consequences.
But of course there are two sides to the story. William Hill are strongly contesting the claims.
They argue that any individual choosing to place a bet does so as a matter of their own voluntary choice.
The case is likely to take a long look at the issue of duty of care. Where does the responsibility of both the gambler and the bookmaker start and finish?
It will be for the court to establish exactly how and why Mr Calvert resumed betting and whether William Hill can be held legally liable for his behaviour.
Topic Author
