If William Hill can show they didn't accept a request to be banned or if they did then they still took reasonable steps to prevent him from placing bets from him then fair enough.
Otherwise they shouldn't be offering the "self-banning" service if they're not going to carry out their side of the agreement.
The behaviour of the bloke, how much of an idiot he was etc. is pretty much irrelevant I'd have thought. Unless it can be shown he was going out of the way to disguise himself to place bets.[/quote]
Its amazing what people who do just to have that bet, and how they react.
A friend of mine since school days told me his wife had found him playing away from home and needed money to put down on a deposit for rented accommodation. I lent him a fair sum only to find out a few days later he went into the bookies and put it straight on a 'dead cert' which lost, he told me total bull.
