The equivalent of “a rule made by the Financial Conduct Authority” would be the licence conditions and social responsibility codes of practice made by the Gambling Commission, for instance in relation to affordability tests and self-exclusion https://www.modulatis.net/profile/meierpeterest/profile. A contravention of these would not only lead to the sanctions which the Gambling Commission can impose, but would also give rise to an action for breach of statutory duty at the suit of a customer who can prove that he has suffered loss as a result.

The causation issue which was fatal to the claim in Calvert might still arise. Unless express provision were made to the contrary,410 it would still be arguable by the operator that the loss suffered by the customer was not attributable to the operator’s breach of duty, since the loss would have been suffered in any case.

This defence may have been appropriate when there was nothing to prevent a customer who had self-excluded from one operator from finding another operator with which to place a bet, and every chance that the other operator would not conduct an affordability test. We hope that, particularly if our recommendations are implemented, the days are now approaching when it is unlikely that a customer who has self-excluded will be able to find another operator prepared to accept a bet.