Raffle House: Win-a-flat competition advert banned
- Published
The £650,000 one-bedroom flat is on Ashmere Grove in Brixton
An advert for a raffle for a £650,000 south London flat has been banned after a watchdog found the promotion had not been administered fairly.
Two people complained and said Raffle House had changed its method of entry mid-way through the promotion.
The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) said this and an extension of the closing date were in breach of code.
The promotion's founder said it "treats matters such as this with the utmost seriousness".
Tickets to win the one-bedroom flat in Brixton launched in April of last year but the closing date had been extended from June 2018 to June 2019.
'Risk free'
Consumers initially had to buy a ticket before answering a multiple-choice question and only those giving correct answers were entered in to the draw.
In November, a Facebook post and website said: "Have you checked out our new play then pay process? Increase your chances to win today, risk free!".
Raffle House said it sent an email that month to customers informing them of updates - including a change that meant consumers could pay for their ticket to be entered into the prize draw after they had answered a multiple-choice question correctly.
'Breach of code'
It also informed customers they had all been awarded a free entry to the property competition, as well as being entered into a cash-prize giveaway.
Raffle House said the changes created a "fair and equitable environment" for those affected by the change and would avoid any disappointment.
The ASA said the new method of entry was unfair to those participants who had entered under the original terms, as was awarding existing participants a free entry into the prize draw.
It found the promotion had been in breach of code, and the extension by one year had been a "further breach".
Raffle House founder and chief executive Benno Spencer said: "We treat matters such as this with the utmost seriousness and have attempted to enter into a dialogue with the ASA regarding a number of incorrect hypotheses contained in their rulings."