I want my 2.1 Million back please Mr Hill...

winbig

Keep winning this amount.
Joined
Mar 10, 2005
Location
Pennsylvania
I'm not sure how this will play out, but here in PA they have it clearly outlined, but under review.

Section 1516(c) of the Act provides that gaming entities or employees are not liable in any judicial proceedings that arise as a result of certain instances that relate only to self-excluded persons. However, this regulatory provision far exceeds the statutory limitations.


You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
 

GaryWatson

Dormant account
Joined
Jun 15, 2007
Location
Europe
Very interesting. He has declared himself unfit to judge his own impulses, the site has accepted. its like a junkie looking for help. All the bonus issues on Casinomaister indicate a lack of interest until it comes to paying out. They get flagged but his would have been obvious. Not many people bet 10k+ on the outcome of an event. I consider Hills negligent. He was a high roller & they were happy to keep him but they accepted his reason of insanity
 

jetset

RIP Brian
Joined
Feb 22, 2001
Location
Earth
How many times have we seen on this forum alone instances where Will Hill CRM has been found inept and/or disorganised, ignoring player emails and the like? Hopefully this issue will focus their minds on a general improvement of that part of their operations.

This guy did exclude himself for the 6 month "cool off" period, and it was accepted by a Will Hill official. Then the guy goes off and opens a new account....but using his own name and details. Will Hill's systems should have picked that one up, and it's an area where I think they may be vulnerable.

This fellow put a huge amount of money through Will Hill so you would assume he would be flagged in some way beside being self-excluded - at one stage he was betting GBP 30K a time, and he lost GBP 300K plus on a golf game bet.

He must have been a red hot greyhound trainer to have amassed that much money to splash around at age 25 (he started in 2005)

I wonder how much he won in those big-spender bets?
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
It doesn't make it clear whether this relates to online, or phone and betting shop action.

When it comes to excluding "bonus abusers", the online industry seems to have an incredibly sophisticated method of looking at SEVERAL "indicators". The result seems to be that the net is cast so wide that many "innocent" gamblers get tangled up with "bonus abuse".

IF this was an online account, or even a phone account under similar terms, then this gambler could have one HELL of a case, but not how he thinks.

IF he had created what seems to be "multiple accounts", then he may well have fallen foul of terms that would have lead to any winnings being confiscated, in which case, ALL bets in the duplicate account are void, and he should receive back his "depost", just as those complainants did in the forum when WillHill online threw them off the online site for "bonus fraud".

His legal team would need to show evidence of what happens to WINNERS who circumvent the systems, INCLUDING "self exclusion". There was one incident on this forum where a player who had opted for self exclusion got back into his casino account several times, but in the end, he WON, and enough to put him back ahead overall. However, at this point, the casino decided to confiscate these winnings after repeatedly letting him LOSE while supposedly self excluded witout taking ANY action, other than offering him more promotional offers.

I doubt the courts will allow the industry to both defend voiding bets when punters win after fooling self exclusion, yet decide that LOSING bets should stand as it was the punter's responsibility to get treatment for his problem and not place any more bets.

Lastly, had this punter consistently WON with these bets, he would have been permanently excluded by WillHill (and long before winning 2Million); the big bookies CAN, and DO operate a tight system when it comes to keeping out those clever punters who consistently beat the bookies.
 

GaryWatson

Dormant account
Joined
Jun 15, 2007
Location
Europe
Im on the assumption it is phone betting


IF he had created what seems to be "multiple accounts", then he may well have fallen foul of terms



he closed it again and this is when he was offered what's known as "self exclusion"

Although the guy had an obvious problem. I dont think he deserves it all back. Im no lawyer but I think in the civil courts he will get a % back or an out of court settlement. He doesnt deserve it all back. with all his inside information I bet he though he was going to get some easy money. In a way it is pure greed & many people will think he got what he deserved.

Yes they would eventually ban him if he won too much but they should also have ensured he stayed blocked when he requested it. I think both parties have to share the blame for this
 

winbig

Keep winning this amount.
Joined
Mar 10, 2005
Location
Pennsylvania
I have to agree with the argument being if he were to win, would he have gotten his money? ....probably not.

But, the case being, he shouldn't have been able to place the bet at all, so I think he should get his money back. They told him flat out that he could bet again - in 6 months. Those 6 months hadn't passed, so they shouldn't have taken the bet in the first place.
 

Pocketdiggers77

Gamester
Joined
May 9, 2006
Location
On Top of Old Smokey
This guy is a douche. Gee I might have a problem. I bet $700,000 on a golf tournament. Take your losses like a MAN and move on.

If this were in the US he would win or they would settle out of court. Hell you can blame gambling/murder on your meds and win. I hope the UK's legal system puts this guys where he belongs.

PD
 

GaryWatson

Dormant account
Joined
Jun 15, 2007
Location
Europe
If this were in the US he would win or they would settle out of court. Hell you can blame gambling/murder on your meds and win. I hope the UK's legal system puts this guys where he belongs.

PD

I totally agree with that. He is grown up enough to make his own decisions in life & I would hate to see UK going down the road of Suing for everything. It has already started following the US, but in lesser extremes. On the other hand, he still has a case & its a bit of a sticky one. Sounds as if he is in major debt & willing to look a douche to get something back. If he loses, william hills wins, if he wins, Ladbrokes wins, then he loses. It is a shame but I hope reality slapped him in the face and he gets over it
 

tristan727

Banned user - violation of <a href="http://www.ca
Joined
May 31, 2006
Location
London
For someone who's supposedly been a multi-millionaire greyhound trainer, it's very odd that googling him you can only find one link in the 1st 5 pages, to anything that doesn't relate to this story - apparently one of his dogs came 3rd in a 2006 derby. What's the trainer %fee of a 3rd place in a dog race? 200?

The only clever thing he's doing is tapping into this country's complete lack of moral compass & responsibility - the lefties will gladly take up arms for him as they love the blame culture, and use this to shoot holes in the gambling industry.
 

aodat2

Dormant account
PABnononaccred
PABaccred2
PABnoaccred2
Joined
Mar 17, 2003
Location
Malaysia
Wow... I can't believe what I am reading.

I do believe that the judge is a little too much to ask him to pay for the legal costs considering the fact that he has already lost the case and did not even have money to go on with the case to begin with. He BORROWED the money to get his case to court.

That's kinda a harsh thing that the court actually ordered him to pay the legal costs. He's already lost everything and now the judge is making him lose even more? Either the judge is sick or the judge is just being a little too much to ask him to do that. After all, Will Hill ain't any small player here. They are HUGE to say the least. They have lawyers working for them anyways. I'm sure they incurred not much extra cost on this and asking that guy to pay about 300,000k+ pounds is totally gonna ruin him totally.
 

1819

Dormant account
Joined
Jan 25, 2006
Location
ny,nj,fla
Wow... I can't believe what I am reading.

I do believe that the judge is a little too much to ask him to pay for the legal costs considering the fact that he has already lost the case and did not even have money to go on with the case to begin with. He BORROWED the money to get his case to court.

That's kinda a harsh thing that the court actually ordered him to pay the legal costs. He's already lost everything and now the judge is making him lose even more? Either the judge is sick or the judge is just being a little too much to ask him to do that. After all, Will Hill ain't any small player here. They are HUGE to say the least. They have lawyers working for them anyways. I'm sure they incurred not much extra cost on this and asking that guy to pay about 300,000k+ pounds is totally gonna ruin him totally.

why shouldnt he have to pay his own legal fees? who should pay taxpayers? he lost millions gambling then files a frivilous lawsuit and someone else should pay? no way. i think the judge sent a message. you play. you pay. he ruined himself.
 

aodat2

Dormant account
PABnononaccred
PABaccred2
PABnoaccred2
Joined
Mar 17, 2003
Location
Malaysia
why shouldnt he have to pay his own legal fees? who should pay taxpayers? he lost millions gambling then files a frivilous lawsuit and someone else should pay? no way. i think the judge sent a message. you play. you pay. he ruined himself.

I think you got me wrong on this... I agree that he should pay his own legal fees but the Judge wanted him to pay Will Hill's legal fees as well. Read the article, it's written in there. He has to pay about 300k+ for Will Hill's legal fees. That's the part that got me. The judge could rule in Will Hill's favor and I'll still be happy but this poor guy basically is dead in a hole and the judge practically handed him a shovel and gun asking himself to dig his grave and then shoot himself dead.

That's what really got me, not the part where he lost or has to pay his own legal fees.
 

GrandMaster

Dormant account
Joined
Jan 21, 2004
Location
UK
why shouldnt he have to pay his own legal fees? who should pay taxpayers? he lost millions gambling then files a frivilous lawsuit and someone else should pay? no way. i think the judge sent a message. you play. you pay. he ruined himself.
I have not seen any indication that he was on legal aid. In that case, if he cannot make enough money from gambling, the people who lent him money and possibly his lawyers as well will lose out. I presume that WH's lawyers were smart enough to ask for security for their costs.
 

silcnlayc

Just one more spin pleez!
PABaccred
PABnonaccred
Joined
Sep 20, 2005
Location
Left Hungary
I think you got me wrong on this... I agree that he should pay his own legal fees but the Judge wanted him to pay Will Hill's legal fees as well. Read the article, it's written in there. He has to pay about 300k+ for Will Hill's legal fees.

I agree he should pay Will Hill's legal fees. He brought the suit and it cost Will Hill this much to exonerate themselves..just as in any lawsuit...you lose , you pay both sides..it's only fair to the one trying to defend themselves against frivilous lawsuits such as this..

Why should the Plaintiff get off with paying a measly few hundred pounds for his lawsuit when it cost another to defend themselves quite a bit more?

Anyone filing frivilous lawsuits should have to pay all fees, not just his own.
 

1819

Dormant account
Joined
Jan 25, 2006
Location
ny,nj,fla
I think you got me wrong on this... I agree that he should pay his own legal fees but the Judge wanted him to pay Will Hill's legal fees as well. Read the article, it's written in there. He has to pay about 300k+ for Will Hill's legal fees. That's the part that got me. The judge could rule in Will Hill's favor and I'll still be happy but this poor guy basically is dead in a hole and the judge practically handed him a shovel and gun asking himself to dig his grave and then shoot himself dead.

That's what really got me, not the part where he lost or has to pay his own legal fees.

i read the article. he should have to pay. why should w.h. have to pay to defend themselves? he could have saved himself a ton of money by not trying to blame someone else for his problems. now maybe he'll go get a job and learn the value of a buck as he pays w.h. legal fees. i do feel for people with problems, believe me alot of my money goes toward people who need help. i do not have sympathy for people who blame everyone else especially here in america where blaming someone else for your problems is the norm not the exception.
 

cheekymonkey

Dormant account
Joined
Oct 24, 2005
Location
Back at my mums
The guy has given WH enough already FFS. I mean, isn't 2 million quid enough?

They can EASILY afford to pay their own fees 1000's times over, but no - they want to save every stinking penny. Makes me sick.

F**k em, the greedy b******s.

Anyway, what goes around, comes around. :D
 

suzecat

Dormant account
Joined
Sep 18, 2004
Location
California
Does GB law have appeal rights or if you lose, it sticks?

Edit: nevermind.........read the article........Brits are cool!
 
Top