ASA Ruling on Virtual Insanity Ltd
Virtual Insanity Ltd t/a
St Chads House
25-27 St Chads Street
9 January 2013
Internet (sales promotion)
Number of complaints:
PUNK PR Ltd
A prize promotion on the Daisystreet.co.uk Facebook page stated "Don't forget to keep sharing & liking the DaisyStreet Facebook Page to enter the amazing KEY 103 LIVE COMPETITION, 2 tickets PLUS vouchers to spend at DaisyStreet!!!! Enter here".
The complainant, who complained via the Institute of Promotional Marketing, challenged whether the promotion had been conducted promptly and fairly, because the concert tickets arrived after the concert had taken place and the products ordered using the vouchers had not been delivered.
CAP Code (Edition 12)
DaisyStreet said the complainant was posted two tickets to the KEY103 LIVE event on 19 July, which were signed for at the complainant's address on 20 July by someone with the same surname as the complainant. They provided a copy of the electronic proof of delivery and they pointed out that the concert took place on 22 July, two days after the tickets were signed for. They understood that their own staff and staff at their PR agency had been in contact with the complainant regarding delivery of the clothes that she had ordered using the vouchers. A problem arose with delivery and, when they became aware that the complainant had claimed that the concert tickets had arrived late, they decided she had forfeited the remainder of her prize and they did not make further attempts to deliver the clothes to her. Instead, the vouchers were re-drawn from the pool of eligible entrants. They provided a screenshot of the promotion entry page, which contained the terms of the promotion.
The ASA noted that the promotion entry page said the prize was two tickets to the KEY103 LIVE concert and two £50 DaisyStreet gift vouchers. We considered that the proof of delivery showed the concert tickets had been signed for two days before the concert took place and, although the complainant denied that she, or anyone else at her address, had signed for the tickets and maintained that they arrived in her flats' mailbox system the day after the concert, we considered that that element of the prize had been awarded sufficiently promptly.
We understood that the clothes ordered using the vouchers had not been delivered. The message the complainant received notifying her that she had won, which was sent from the personal account of an intern at DaisyStreet's agency, said "The prize also includes £150 voucher for you and a friend valid for products from the DaisyStreet website." The complainant then contacted DaisyStreet directly and through their agency to arrange delivery and received confirmation via the official Facebook page that £300 of clothes had been dispatched. We understood that the clothes had been lost by the courier and that DaisyStreet had been in touch with them to try to remedy the situation, before they made the decision not to reissue the clothes following the disagreement regarding the date of delivery of the concert tickets.
We noted that the terms of the promotion said DaisyStreet reserved the right to withdraw the promotion at any time, and that another winner would be drawn if the first did not claim the prize. The complainant had claimed the prize and we noted that the terms did not state any grounds upon which a winner, once confirmed, might be deemed to have forfeited their prize in whole or in part. We considered that DaisyStreet were responsible for all aspects and all stages of their promotions, including correspondence with winners and delivery of prizes. They were unable to explain why the correspondence with the complainant, including interaction on their Facebook page, referred to a different value of vouchers than the promotion entry page and why, irrespective of their value, the complainant did not receive the vouchers.
Because the complainant did not receive part of the prize, and because the decision not to award that part of the prize had not been made in accordance with the terms of the promotion available before entry, we concluded that DaisyStreet had not dealt fairly with the complainant and had caused her unnecessary disappointment.
The promotion breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 8.1 and 8.2 (Sales Promotions) and 8.15.1 (Sales Promotions - Administration).
We told DaisyStreet to ensure that they deal fairly with participants at all stages of their promotions in future.