A draw in which the prize was promoted as being a house has landed the organisers in hot water with the advertising watchdog.
Not enough tickets were sold and the draw to win the £700,000 home never took place – although one person did scoop a cash prize.
The Advertising Standards Authority ruling may have implications for the apparently growing number of homes now being sold through raffles, how these are worded and whether cash prizes are sufficient substitutes.
This particular draw was launched last autumn by Win Abode, offering the £700,000 home as a prize.
But the complaint arose after the draw was seen on February 12 this year on the Win Abode website.
Entrants were still being offered the chance to win the £700,000 house in London by buying tickets at £2 each.
However, there was an asterisk after the ‘£2’, which linked to text further down the page which said: “Please note that because we are unlikely to reach the necessary target of £700,000, we will most likely offer a cash alternative as per our Ts and Cs.”
The complainant, who understood that the cash alternative was disproportionate to the value of the property, challenged whether the competition had been administered fairly.
Win Abode told the Advertising Authority that it sought legal advice on its terms and conditions, that these were made clear throughout the promotion and that they included a cash alternative in the event that not enough funds were generated for the grand prize.
Win Abode said that it had sold £120,000 worth of tickets, that the prize draw took place within 30 days of the competition closing and that it was administered in accordance with the law of chance, under the supervision of an independent observer.
However, the Advertising Standards Authority upheld the complaint.
It said that both Win Abode’s actual name and much of its website centred on the prospect of winning a property.
The competition page gave significant details of the property’ location, local landmarks and local hotspots.
The ASA said that the prominence of and detail given to the grand prize was likely to give consumers the impression that the winner would receive the property, no matter how many tickets were sold, and that the cash alternative condition was not sufficiently prominent to alter that impression.
Whilst £120,000 was raised and the winner won over £100,000, the ASA said this was not a reasonable equivalent to the prize of the £700,000 property.
It considered that Win Abode had not awarded the prize as described in the ad, or a reasonable equivalent, and that the promotion was likely to have caused unnecessary disappointment.
Win Abode has been told that the ad must not appear again in its current form.
The Win Abode website names a consumer, Alistair, who won £102,141, but not the flat for which £725,000 was needed to trigger the raffle.
The site appears mainly to have offered other prizes, such as jewellery, in its raffles, rather than property, although it is property sales and “win your dream home” promotions it is pushing.
Win Abode was set up last year, and in October, EYE featured its launch and the £700,000 three-bedroom home it was planning to raffle.
Sellers who prefer house raffles to estate agents will have to pay 5% commission plus VAT
Comments (4)
Cyberduck
You may recall that the reason PB even mention additional viewing cost, additional deferred payment cost, and that their fee is payable regardless of sale is that the ASA ruled that in all three instances they had to.
Burying these charges behind symbols and in small print at the bottom of their website appears to be a rather desperate attempt to conceal these rulings as they are hardly bold, compelling or transparent?
Perhaps the ASA ought to consider PB charging £300 for a viewing service when no viewings have taken place next?
Really getting desperate now.
Do you spend as much time looking at traditional agent websites?
It is arguable that they are saying there is no fee while they continue to market your property.
You really can’t put every single exception whenever you state something. Do traditional agents tell you that you still have to pay them when you sell your own home every time they say “no sale, no fee”?
Going by your past, until PB was mentioned you wouldn’t have chimed in.
So on the basis of the ASA ruling above why are they allowing PB to get away with using symbols to bury significant features/additional charges in their T&C’s?
Example 1.
Sword symbol after the advertised fee at the top of PB’s website whereby you have to scroll to the bottom of the page to see this less than prominent explanation:
Our viewings service is an optional £300, where we’ll take care of every single viewing for you, with a dedicated professional. We want to give you the choice of paying a transparent, fair & fixed amount for viewings (many of our customers prefer to do it themselves) rather than hide it within an overall cost. Our fee is a fixed cost to you, payable regardless of sale, and we will market your property for as long as it takes to sell without ever asking for more money.
Example 2.
What’s included in our fixed fee? Note the very small- i -symbol after ‘A choice to pay nothing upfront with this explanation when you hover over it:
By choosing to pay later you agree to use Advanced Conveyancing Services when your property sells unless you choose to pay an administration fee of £360 inc. VAT.
Does this fee conflict Example 1 definition as this £360 ‘conditional’ deferred payment charge is definitely asking for more money?