Background
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated, both of which were Upheld.
Ad description
Text on the home page of the website www.prizepig.co.uk stated "I have cars, holidays, iPads and much more ready to win. Simply sign up to become a member of the Prize Pig family and then you can browse my website, select which prize you'd like, enter the online competition and cross your fingers ...". A number of prize promotions were featured. Text on a page entitled "How it works" stated "It's quick and easy to become a member ... Our competitions all have a closing date. After then winners will be picked at random and contacted via email or phone ...". A further page contained a list of eight prizewinners who had won competitions in July and August 2013.
Issue
The complainant challenged whether the promotions run by PrizeFarm Ltd were properly administered, because:
1. they had been informed in November 2013 that they had won a competition but had not received their prize; and
2. the list of prizewinners had not been updated since August 2013.
Response
PrizeFarm Ltd did not respond to the ASA's enquiries.
Assessment
The ASA was concerned by PrizeFarm Ltd's lack of substantive response and apparent disregard for the Code, which was a breach of CAP Code rule 1.7 1.7 Any unreasonable delay in responding to the ASA's enquiries will normally be considered a breach of the Code. (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
We noted from correspondence supplied by the complainant that in November 2013 they had been informed that they had won a competition and that their prize would be posted to them a week later; we understood that the prize had not arrived. The complainant had made several enquiries and had each time been told that the prize would be despatched shortly. In January 2014, the complainant had been told that recent staff turnover had resulted in delays in sending out some prizes, but that the issue would be rectified within a week and further updates would follow. We understood that the complainant had not received any more contact from PrizeFarm. Because we understood that the prize had not been delivered to the complainant, and because PrizeFarm had not supplied evidence that it had been sent, we concluded that the promotion had not been properly administered and was in breach of the Code.
On that point, the promotion breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 8.1 8.1 Promoters are responsible for all aspects and all stages of their promotions. and 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. (Sales promotions), 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. 8.15.1 8.15.1 Promoters must award the prizes as described in their marketing communications or reasonable equivalents, normally within 30 days. and 8.16 8.16 [Rule deleted 30 April 2015]. (Sales promotions - administration)
2. Upheld
We noted that the list of prizewinners on the website referred to people as having won in July and August 2013, but we understood that promotions, including the one won by the complainant, had featured on the website since that date. We considered that PrizeFarm needed to provide documentation showing that prizes had been awarded in respect of those promotions. Further, the CAP Code required promoters to publish or make available on request the names and counties of major prizewinners. In the absence of further information from PrizeFarm showing that prizes had been awarded for promotions that had ended since August 2013, and that they had published or made available on request the names and counties of the major prizewinners for those promotions, we concluded that they had not demonstrated that their promotions were properly administered.
On that point, the promotions breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 8.1 8.1 Promoters are responsible for all aspects and all stages of their promotions. and 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. (Sales promotions), 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. 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. (Sales promotions - administration) and 8.28.5 8.28.5 Promoters must either publish or make available on request the name and county of major prizewinners and, if applicable, their winning entries except in the limited circumstances where promoters are subject to a legal requirement never to publish such information. Promoters must obtain consent to such publicity from all competition entrants at the time of entry. Prizewinners must not be compromised by the publication of excessive personal information (Prize promotions).
Action
The promotions must not be run again in their current form. We told PrizeFarm Ltd to ensure in future promotions that they were able, if asked, to provide documentation demonstrating the awarding of prizes, and to publish or make available the names and counties of major prizewinners. We referred the matter to CAP's Compliance team.
CAP Code (Edition 12)
1.7 8.1 8.14 8.15.1 8.16 8.2 8.28.5
