Ad description
A webpage on the Wowcher website, www.wowcher.com, seen on 30 November 2025, featured the text, “5* Prague City Break at Hilton Prague City Centre Hotel with Return Flights”. Further text stated, “5* Prague, Czechia hotel stay with return flights from six airports with The Travel Makers. Enjoy a two, three, or four-night stay overlooking the Vltava River! - Save up to 27%”.
Text under the heading “Highlights” stated, “What’s Included: Two, three, or four-night city break for two people at a 5* Prague city centre hotel with return flights from Bristol, Edinburgh, Manchester, London Gatwick, London Luton and London Stansted”, “Hotel: Stay at the newly renovated Hilton Prague, boasting river views, modern comfort and luxury amenities”, “When: Valid for travel on selected dates as shown in the booking calendar”.
A calendar under the heading “Step 1: Choose a date” showed availability for 20 December to 26 December, with prices ranging from £249 to £389.
Text further down the page, under the heading “The Fine Print” stated, “All holidays purchased are subject to availability and pricing is not guaranteed once the voucher has auto redeemed”, “Hotels are subject to availability”.
Issue
The complainant, who purchased a holiday voucher, but was unable to book the Hilton Prague City Centre Hotel, challenged whether the promotion had been administered fairly.
Response
Wowcher Ltd said they reviewed the case based on feedback from The Travel Makers. They understood that the holiday was available at the time of purchase and was offered to the complainant. That included the Hilton Prague City Centre Hotel and flights providing approximately 60 hours in resort. They said issues arose after the customer asked to change flight times and itinerary, which altered the original package, and affected both availability and price.
Wowcher said they had not been told at the time that there were any unresolved issues. They said they were working with The Travel Makers to improve processes in future.
PCM Travels UK Ltd t/a The Travel Makers did not respond to the ASA’s enquiries.
Assessment
Upheld
The ASA was concerned by PCM Travels UK Ltd t/a The Travel Makers’ lack of response and apparent disregard for the Code, which was a breach of CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 1.7 (Unreasonable delay). We reminded them of their responsibility to provide a response to our enquiries and told them to do so in the future.
The CAP Code stated that promoters were responsible for all aspects and all stages of their promotions, and must conduct them fairly and avoid causing unnecessary disappointment. It also stated that claims such as “subject to availability” did not remove that obligation.
The ad featured a calendar with prices assigned to different dates. We considered that consumers would understand that they could choose from the dates shown as available in the booking calendar, purchase a voucher, and then book the advertised holiday at the Hilton Prague City Centre Hotel with return flights. Although the text under the subheading “The Fine Print” stated that holidays and hotels were subject to availability, and that pricing was not guaranteed once the voucher had auto redeemed, we did not consider those statements were enough to alter the impression that, at the time the ad was seen, the holiday to the Hilton Prague City Centre Hotel was available on specific dates at the prices advertised.
We understood from the complainant that they had purchased a voucher for a holiday and had then been unable to book the Hilton Prague City Centre Hotel for the date for which the voucher was purchased. Although an alternative hotel was agreed, the flights offered resulted in less than approximately 60 hours in resort and required a further payment. We therefore considered the complainant had not been able to book the holiday as it was described in the ad.
We acknowledged that Wowcher had been told the holiday had been available at the time of purchase and that the pricing issue arose after the complainant asked to change their flight times and itinerary. However, we had not seen evidence to demonstrate that the advertised hotel and flights were available to book at the time the voucher was purchased. We considered that as the promoters for the deal, Wowcher and The Travel Makers had a responsibility to ensure that it was administered fairly at all stages and should have ensured that the advertised package was available on the basis presented in the ad. Because the complainant was unable to book the advertised holiday for which the voucher was purchased, we concluded that the promotion had not been administered fairly and was likely to have caused participants unnecessary disappointment.
The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 8.1 and 8.2 (Promotional marketing), 8.9, 8.10 and 8.11 (Availability), and 8.14 (Administration).
Action
The ad must not appear again in the form complained of. We told Wowcher Ltd and PCM Travels UK Ltd t/a The Travel Makers to ensure that their promotions were administered fairly and to ensure that their promotions did not cause unnecessary disappointment. We referred the matter to CAP’s Compliance team.
