November 5, 2018

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]”; “Enter spot the ball competition for a chance to win New England style house on the Thames in Berkshire all SDLT paid [website address]”; and “No bank of mum and dad. Then try your hand at this [website address] for a chance to win a £4 million house near Reading on the Thames mortgage free and stamp duty paid.”

The complainant challenged whether the promotion had been conducted fairly and whether the ads were misleading because they omitted the significant conditions or information that:

• a 25p transaction fee applied when buying a ticket; and
• 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.

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. The ASA 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.

The ASA 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”. Rule 3.18 of the CAP Code states that quoted prices must include non-optional taxes, duties, fees and charges that apply to all or most buyers. The ASA said 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, it concluded that the ad was misleading and breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 8.17 and 8.17.1 (Significant conditions for promotions) and 3.18 (Prices).

The tweets were focused very much on the possibility of winning a specific, three-storey, detached house fronting on to the River Thames, the ASA said. The tweets suggested the house would normally be priced at £4 million. The tweets highlighted the spacious and luxurious interior, the views from the property and its proximity to local facilities and services. 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, the ASA said. The property had not, in fact, been awarded as a prize and the ASA had seen nothing from Reve House to show that the cash alternative was a reasonable equivalent, as required by Rule 18.15.1. Accordingly, the ASA 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. The ad had therefore breached CAP Code (Edition 12) Rules 8.2 (Promotional marketing) and 8.15.1 (Administration). (ASA Ruling on Reve House Ltd (24 October 2018) — to read the Ruling in full, click here).