Background
Summary of Council decision:
Three issues were investigated, of which two were Upheld and one was Not upheld.
Ad description
Tweets from the Reve House Ltd Twitter account, promoting a competition to win a house, dated 28 September 2017 and onwards, showed photographs of a three-storey detached house fronting on to the River Thames. The tweets contained text such as "... the competition for a chance to win Reve House on the River Thames is open, see the website and enter for only £25 [website address]" (dated 28 September 2017); "Enter spot the ball competition for a chance to win New England style house on the Thames in Berkshire all SDLT paid [website address]" (dated 9 October 2017) and "No bank of mum and dad. Then try your hand at this [website address] for a chance to win a £4million house near Reading on the Thames mortgage free and stamp duty paid" (dated 11 October 2017).
Issue
The complainant challenged whether:
1. the promotion had been conducted fairly; and
the ads were misleading because they omitted the significant conditions or information that:
2. a 25p transaction fee applied when buying a ticket; and
3. a cash prize equivalent to 75% of the revenue received from ticket sales would be awarded instead of the house if a ticket sale threshold was not met by the closing date.
Response
1. Reve House Ltd said the winner of the competition was the entrant who had chosen the spot closest to where, in their opinion, the judges thought the ball should be. Reve House said security features had been built into the competition process so that the judges could log into the page once only to make their choice and be witnessed by a legal representative.
2. & 3. Reve House said the original tweets stated that terms and conditions applied but that space was limited and information might have been omitted from the published version. They said the tweets nevertheless referred would-be entrants to Reve House's website, where it was not possible to enter the competition without being aware of the terms and conditions, which explained what would happen if the required number of tickets sold was not reached.
Assessment
1. Not upheld
The complainant was concerned that the judging process for the Spot the Ball competition had not been conducted fairly because consumers needed to guess where a judging panel placed the ball, which she believed had resulted in a winning location that she did not agree with and believed was false. The ASA noted that the Gambling Commission cited a judging panel deciding the location of the ball as an example of acceptable practice when spot the ball was used in a prize competition. Notwithstanding the concerns expressed in point 2 below, and noting that the complainant did not agree with the judging panel's decision, we considered that it was not unreasonable, and consequently not in breach of the Code, for Reve House to have structured the competition in this way.
On that point we investigated the ad under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules
8.2
8.2
Promoters must conduct their promotions equitably, promptly and efficiently and be seen to deal fairly and honourably with participants and potential participants. Promoters must avoid causing unnecessary disappointment.
(Promotional marketing) and
8.17
8.17
All marketing communications or other material referring to promotions must communicate all applicable significant conditions or information where the omission of such conditions or information is likely to mislead. Significant conditions or information may, depending on the circumstances, include:
and
8.17.1
8.17.1
How to participate
How to participate, including significant conditions and costs, and other major factors reasonably likely to influence consumers' decision or understanding about the promotion
(Significant conditions for promotions), but did not find it in breach.
2. Upheld
We noted that several of the tweets referred to the cost of entering the competition as £25 but that the terms and conditions stated "Entry to this Promotion costs twenty-five GBP sterling and twenty-five pence (£25.25) (which includes a twenty-five pence (0.25p) [sic] per entry transaction fee) per entry". The CAP Code (rule 3.18 3.18 Quoted prices must include non-optional taxes, duties, fees and charges that apply to all or most buyers. However, VAT-exclusive prices may be given if all those to whom the price claim is clearly addressed pay no VAT or can recover VAT. Such VAT-exclusive prices must be accompanied by a prominent statement of the amount or rate of VAT payable. stated that quoted prices must include non-optional taxes, duties, fees and charges that applied to all or most buyers. We considered the 25p per entry transaction fee was a non-optional charge that applied to all buyers and therefore needed to be included in the quoted price. Because it was not, we concluded that the ad was misleading.
On that point the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules
8.17
8.17
All marketing communications or other material referring to promotions must communicate all applicable significant conditions or information where the omission of such conditions or information is likely to mislead. Significant conditions or information may, depending on the circumstances, include:
and
8.17.1
8.17.1
How to participate
How to participate, including significant conditions and costs, and other major factors reasonably likely to influence consumers' decision or understanding about the promotion
(Significant conditions for promotions) and
3.18
3.18
Quoted prices must include non-optional taxes, duties, fees and charges that apply to all or most buyers. However, VAT-exclusive prices may be given if all those to whom the price claim is clearly addressed pay no VAT or can recover VAT. Such VAT-exclusive prices must be accompanied by a prominent statement of the amount or rate of VAT payable.
(Prices).
3. Upheld
We considered that the various tweets that made up the ad were focused very much on the possibility of winning a specific, three-storey, detached house fronting on to the River Thames that the tweets suggested would normally be priced at £4m. We noted that the tweets highlighted the spacious and luxurious interior; the views from the property and its proximity to local facilities and services. We considered the prominence of that information was likely to give consumers the impression that the winner would win the property irrespective of the number of tickets sold, and that the cash alternative condition was not sufficiently prominent to alter that impression. We understood that the property had not been awarded as a prize and had seen nothing from Reve House to show that the cash alternative was a reasonable equivalent, as required by the Code (rule 18.15.1). We therefore concluded that Reve House had not awarded the prize as described, or a reasonable equivalent, and that the promotion was likely to have caused unnecessary disappointment.
On that point the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 8.2 8.2 Promoters must conduct their promotions equitably, promptly and efficiently and be seen to deal fairly and honourably with participants and potential participants. Promoters must avoid causing unnecessary disappointment. (Promotional marketing) and 8.15.1 8.15.1 Promoters must award the prizes as described in their marketing communications or reasonable equivalents, normally within 30 days. (Administration).
Action
We noted that the competition had ended. We told Reve House Ltd to ensure that, to avoid causing unnecessary disappointment, future ads stated all significant conditions sufficiently prominently and that they awarded the prize described in the ad, or a reasonable equivalent.
