Ad description
A website for Royalux Competitions, www.royaluxcompetitions.co.uk, seen on 11 August 2024, included a prize draw for a £5,000 garden makeover and a further £2,000 cash. The terms and conditions, which were not specific to the garden makeover prize draw, appeared on a separate webpage. Under the heading “Eligibility”, text stated, “The competition is only open to all residents in the United Kingdom aged 18 years or over except: (a) employees of the Promoter; (b) employees of agents or suppliers of the Promoter, who are professionally connected with the competition or its administration; or (c) members of the immediate families or households of (a) or (b) above”.
Issue
The complainant, who believed the prize had not been awarded in accordance with the terms and conditions because it was won by an immediate family member of the garden makeover supplier, challenged whether the promotion had been administered fairly.Response
Royalux Competitions Ltd (Royalux) said the winner of the draw was made by a randomised number generator live on Facebook and they provided a screenshot showing the winning number and the identity of the person with that number. The winner was the brother of the garden makeover supplier. They said Royalux employees and their immediate families were not permitted to enter draws but that that prohibition did not extend to third-party suppliers such as the garden makeover supplier. Their terms and conditions stated that they reserved the right to amend their terms and conditions as and when required and that their decision was final and no correspondence or discussion would be entered into. They acknowledged that their terms and conditions had changed several times but, because they reserved the right to do so, they believed it was within their discretion who they allowed or considered eligible to participate and win. They believed the draw had been administered fairly, in line with their terms and conditions, and confirmed that they had not received any complaints directly.
They pointed out that the garden makeover was only part of the prize, the other aspect being £2,000 in cash. They had already purchased the £5,000 garden makeover from the third-party supplier before the promotion and Royalux therefore owned that prize.
Assessment
Upheld
The CAP Code stated that promoters must conduct their promotions equitably, promptly and efficiently; be seen to deal fairly and honourably with participants and potential participants and avoid causing unnecessary disappointment. It also stated that promoters should not give consumers justifiable grounds for complaint.The ASA understood that the original terms and conditions of the promotion stated that, in addition to employees of Royalux, employees of agents or suppliers of the Promoter who were professionally connected with the competition or its administration and members of their immediate families and households were prohibited from entering the draw. We considered that exclusion would prevent a brother of the provider of the prize from taking part. We further understood that, after the promotion ended and a winner was selected (who was the brother of the prize provider), Royalux retrospectively changed the terms and conditions of the promotion such that the exclusion of immediate family members of the prize provider was removed, therefore allowing him to retain the prize. Although Royalux maintained that their terms and conditions gave them the right to change the terms and conditions of the promotion as and when needed, we considered that retrospectively removing an exclusion to allow someone to win who would have otherwise been excluded from taking part under the original terms was not a fair or honourable way to treat participants. Further, it was likely to result in disappointment and gave consumers justifiable grounds for complaint. We therefore concluded that the promotion had not been administered fairly and breached the Code.
The promotion breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 8.2 (Promotional marketing) and 8.14 (Administration).
Action
The promotion must not be run again in the form complained of. We told Royalux Competitions Ltd not to administer their promotions unfairly, cause unnecessary disappointment or give consumers grounds for complaint in future – for example, by retrospectively amending terms and conditions to remove exclusions on who could participate.
