Ad description
A voucher for Sean Graham bookmakers, seen on 14 March 2025, stated “£5” and “MATCHED BET VOUCHER” in large font, and “WIN ONLY – See reverse for conditions of use” in smaller font. On the reverse side of the voucher, text stated “VOUCHER RULES: […] TO PLACE YOUR BET, SIMPLY TAKE THIS VOUCHER TO ANY SEAN GRAHAM BETTING SHOP OR ON COURSE FACILITY”.
Issue
The complainant, who attempted to use the voucher at a Sean Graham betting shop but was refused, challenged whether the promotion was administered fairly.
Response
SP Graham Retail Ltd t/a Sean Graham said that they periodically carried out localised promotions in the form of matched bet vouchers related to specific shops in certain geographical locations. These promotions tended to be focused on a particular event and were not regular day-to-day promotions.
14 March 2025 was the final day of the Cheltenham Racing Festival. The relevant store the complainant reported the incident was not directly involved in the matched bet promotion and had not issued such vouchers over the period of the Cheltenham festival. They had issued this Cheltenham Racing Festival promotion at a number of selected locations, but participants were able to use the voucher in any of their betting sites, as stated on the reverse of the voucher.
They issued the £5 matched bet voucher directly to consumers. Those who handed out the vouchers were briefed to explain to each customer how the voucher could be used and that voucher could only be used on the first three days of the festival. They said it was common practice that the company did not issue these vouchers on Gold Cup Day (14 March 2025) for commercial reasons. They highlighted that there were instructions on the reverse side of the vouchers but acknowledged that the supporting information could be improved, including additional verbal communication regarding terms of use.
At that shop, the staff explained to the complainant that they would not accept these vouchers on 14 March. That condition was also emphasised by the customer service team when the complainant contacted them. They believed that the complainant was not financially impacted and could have used the voucher on any other day. Most vouchers issued over the Cheltenham Racing Festival period were redeemed on the day they were received by customers, and since no vouchers were issued on the final day, they said that they had not received further complaints about their validity for use on the final day.
They acknowledged the basis of the complaint and said they aimed to address the management of their future similar promotions. They accepted that verbal communication had been insufficient for providing the necessary terms and conditions for customers to engage with the promotion. They understood the need to display the terms and conditions in all relevant locations to inform consumers who wanted to use the matched bet vouchers in a different location to the issuing shop and accepted that participants should have other means than verbal communication to understand the terms. In particular, they acknowledged that the terms of use displayed on the reverse of the voucher should direct customers to specific usage conditions displayed in shops.
Assessment
Upheld
The CAP Code stated that promotions must communicate all applicable significant conditions or information where the omission of such information was likely to mislead. Significant conditions may, depending on the circumstances, include information about how to participate and a closing date. It further stated that promoters must avoid causing unnecessary disappointment.
The voucher stated “£5” and “MATCHED BET VOUCHER” and included the wording “WIN ONLY – See reverse for conditions of use”. On the reverse, it stated that the voucher could be used at “ANY SEAN GRAHAM BETTING SHOP OR ON COURSE FACILITY”, but it did not specify when the voucher could be used or that it was not valid on 14 March 2025.
We considered that the date restriction on using the voucher, and the duration of the promotional period, were significant conditions of the promotion. They were likely to affect a consumer’s understanding about how to participate in the promotion and their decision to participate. We therefore considered their omission was likely to mislead.
We acknowledged that staff may have explained the conditions verbally when distributing the vouchers. However, the Code required that significant conditions must be stated in the ad itself or made available in a clear and easily accessible alternative source to which consumers were directed. The voucher did not refer to any further terms and conditions, and in any case, we considered the ad was not sufficiently limited by time or space to justify their omission.
Because the ad omitted significant conditions about the closing date and how to participate in the promotion, we concluded that the promotion had not been administered fairly and breached the Code.
The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 8.1, 8.2 (Promotional Marketing), 8.14 (Administration), 8.17, 8.17.1, 8.17.4 (Significant conditions for promotions).
Action
The ad must not appear again in the form complained of. We told S P Graham Retail Ltd t/a Sean Graham to ensure their future promotions included all significant conditions and that their future promotions were administered fairly.
CAP Code (Edition 12)
8.1 8.2 8.14 8.17 8.17.1 8.17.4
