Background
Summary of Council decision:
Three issues were investigated, all of which were Upheld.
Ad description
A website for Win Your Dream Home, www.winyourdreamhome.co.uk, seen on 23 July 2017, featured a web page stating “WIN YOUR DREAM HOME Win a Luxury Property set in an exclusive residential area in Central Scotland | 7 Bedrooms | Swimming Pool | Sauna | One Acre of Private Gardens | Fireplaces | Original Features YOU CAN NOW ENTER THE COMPETITION DIRECT FROM YOUR BANK!”. The page also stated “Transfer your competition entry fee to the account below. One ticket = £5, Three tickets = £15 and so on. There is no limit to the number of tickets you can purchase” and featured an entry form, bank account details for transfers and an address for postal entries. At the bottom of the page text stated “In the event that the contest winner cannot be contacted within 21 days after the end of the contest a new winner will be chosen. By entering this contest you declare that you have read and agree to the terms and conditions of entry”.
Issue
Two complainants, who had entered the competition, challenged whether the competition breached the CAP Code because the:
1. advertised prize of a house valued at £625,000 was withheld and the alternative cash prizes were not of equivalent value;
2. ad did not make sufficiently clear that a substitute cash prize applied if an insufficient number of tickets were sold; and
3. subsequent prize draw for the cash prizes was not administered fairly.
Response
Win Your Dream Home UK Ltd t/a Win Your Dream Home did not respond to the ASA’s enquiries.
Assessment
The ASA was concerned by Win Your Dream Home’s lack of response and apparent disregard for the Code, which was a breach of CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 1.7 (Unreasonable delay). We reminded them of their responsibility to provide a substantive response to our enquiries and told them to do so in future.
1. Upheld
The ASA noted that both the advertiser’s name and the content of the home page included a number of prominent claims, such as the references “Win Your Dream Home”, “Win a Luxury Property”, “Dream House Competition”, “Win Your Dream House Direct”. We considered that, because those references were centred on the prospect of winning the property, consumers were likely to expect from the ad that they would be awarded the property if they had won the competition, regardless of the number of tickets sold.
The terms and conditions of the promotion stated that a cash alternative might be awarded in place of the property, “If the Maximum Number of Entries to the Competition is not equal to the number of entries received as at the closing date, the Competition will close and the proceeds will either be deemed sufficient to award the house as a prize at the discretion of the promotors, or the remaining funds will be allocated as a cash prize to a winner after the deduction of any expenses and marketing fees”. However, the CAP Code required that promoters must award the prizes as described in their marketing communications or reasonable equivalents, normally within 30 days. We considered the term suggested the cash alternative prize was likely to be lower than the value of the property because it stated that it would be comprised of the remaining funds and applicable fees would be deducted. Because the prize was advertised as a “Luxury Property set in an exclusive residential area”, with a number of features and valued at £625,000, we considered that any cash alternative that was less than the value of the property, with applicable deductions made prior to the alternative being awarded to the winner, was not a reasonable equivalent to the prize as advertised.
Based on the information available, we understood that the advertised house had not been awarded in the competition because an insufficient number of tickets had been sold. In the absence of a response from the advertiser, we had also not seen any evidence that a reasonable equivalent prize to the house, valued at £625,000, had been awarded. Because the promoter had not awarded the prize as described in the ad, or demonstrated that a reasonable equivalent cash prize was awarded, we concluded that the promotion breached the Code on that basis.
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 8.15 Promoters must allow adequate time for each phase of the promotion: notifying the trade; distributing the goods; issuing rules if relevant; collecting wrappers and the like and judging and announcing results. 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).
2. Upheld
The CAP Code stated that all marketing communication or other material referring to promotions must communicate all applicable significant conditions or information where the omission of such conditions or information was likely to mislead. Significant conditions included major factors reasonably likely to influence consumers’ decision or understanding of the promotion.
We considered the information that an alternative cash prize would be awarded at the discretion of the promoter, based on whether they deemed that sufficient proceeds had been obtained from the tickets, was a significant condition of the promotion likely to influence consumers’ decision to participate or understanding of the promotion, and omission of that information was likely to be misleading.
The home page did not explicitly and prominently state that a substitute cash prize applied if an insufficient number of tickets was sold. The information was only stated in the terms and conditions of the competition, which consumers could only access if they scrolled down to the bottom of the home page and clicked on the link. We were concerned that consumers would be able to submit entries, by filling in and submitting the entry form on the home page, without having been made aware that the term relating to the alternative cash prize at the discretion of the advertiser was applicable. Because the information about the discretionary alternative cash prize was not specified clearly in the ad, and was only included within the terms and conditions that was not easily accessible, we considered 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).
3. Upheld
The Code required that promoters conducted their promotions equitably, promptly, and efficiently and were seen to deal fairly and honourably with participants and potential participants, and avoided causing unnecessary disappointment. It also stated that promoters must make adequate resources available to administer promotions, and should not give consumers justifiable grounds for complaint.
The terms and conditions of the promotion stated that the first prize was the advertised house, the second prize £10,000 cash, and the third prize was £1,000 cash for ten entrants. In addition to the first prize of the property as referred to in point 1 above, we considered that entrants would also expect the second and third cash prizes to be awarded as described.
Besides that the first prize of the property, or a reasonable equivalent, had not been awarded, the advertiser also had not demonstrated that the second and third cash prizes were awarded as per the terms of the promotion under which participants had entered. We understood that the proceeds were instead split between cash prize winners in the prize draw. We also understood that the promoters had informed participants that they had made charitable donations using proceeds from the tickets. Neither the home page of the website nor the terms of the promotion stated that the proceeds would be used for this purpose. In addition to not awarding any of the prizes as described, we considered that changing the nature of the prizes part way through the promotion was unfair to entrants who had sought to participate under the original terms of the promotion.
Additionally, the advertiser notified the entrants by email that cash prizes were awarded on 15 May 2018 following the prize draw, over 30 days after the closing date of the promotion on 15 March. One of the complainants had also not been allocated with the correct number of entry tickets for the cash prize draw. We therefore considered that the promoters had not made adequate resources available to administer the promotion or allowed adequate time for each phase of the promotion, and that consumers had been given justifiable grounds for complaint.
For the reasons outlined above, we concluded that Win Your Dream Home had not dealt fairly and honourably with participants, and were likely to cause unnecessary disappointment, and also had not made adequate resources available to administer the promotion, and therefore the promotion breached the Code.
The promotion breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 8.1 8.1 Promoters are responsible for all aspects and all stages of their promotions. 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), 8.14 8.14 Promoters must ensure that their promotions are conducted under proper supervision and make adequate resources available to administer them. Promoters, agencies and intermediaries should not give consumers justifiable grounds for complaint. 8.15 8.15 Promoters must allow adequate time for each phase of the promotion: notifying the trade; distributing the goods; issuing rules if relevant; collecting wrappers and the like and judging and announcing results. 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 told Win Your Dream Home to ensure in future promotions that they awarded the prizes as described in their marketing communications or reasonable equivalents. They must ensure they communicated all applicable significant conditions or information where the omission of such conditions or information was likely to mislead, including that an alternative cash prize would be awarded at the discretion of the promoter, based on whether they deemed that sufficient proceeds had been obtained from the tickets. Additionally, Win Your Dream Home must be seen to deal fairly and honourably with participants to avoid causing unnecessary disappointment, by ensuring the nature of prizes were not changed during the promotion. They must conduct future promotions equitably, promptly, and efficiently, awarding the advertised prizes within 30 days, and must make adequate resources available to administer promotions. We referred the matter to CAP's Compliance team.
CAP Code (Edition 12)
8.1 8.14 8.15 8.15.1 8.17 8.17.1 8.2
