British Gas / Centrica / Hive won't honour substantial prize win - what can I do?

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

powerful_Rogue said:

In the explanatory notes you posted the important part is:

However, the Commission is given power to void betting contracts in certain circumstances. These powers (set out in this Part) are intended to promote the licensing objectives (under Part 1) and enable the Commission to take specific action if it is satisfied that a bet was substantially unfair.

No gambling licence is required for a free to enter competition. The Gambling Act does not apply to this instance.

The guidance notes cover paragraphs 335 and 336.

335 deals with enforcement of a contract, 336 covers the commissions ability to void a bet taken through a holder of 3 different types of license.  

Explanatory notes have lumped the two together in one paragraph. 

Happy to be corrected by 336 doesn't appear to be related to 335 other than in the way the explanatory have been consolidated. 

335 simply says

(1)The fact that a contract relates to gambling shall not prevent its enforcement.

(2)Subsection (1) is without prejudice to any rule of law preventing the enforcement of a contract on the grounds of unlawfulness (other than a rule relating specifically to gambling).

powerful_Rogue

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

powerful_Rogue said:

In the explanatory notes you posted the important part is:

However, the Commission is given power to void betting contracts in certain circumstances. These powers (set out in this Part) are intended to promote the licensing objectives (under Part 1) and enable the Commission to take specific action if it is satisfied that a bet was substantially unfair.

No gambling licence is required for a free to enter competition. The Gambling Act does not apply to this instance.

The guidance notes cover paragraphs 335 and 336.

335 deals with enforcement of a contract, 336 covers the commissions ability to void a bet taken through a holder of 3 different types of license.  

Explanatory notes have lumped the two together in one paragraph. 

Happy to be corrected by 336 doesn't appear to be related to 335 other than in the way the explanatory have been consolidated. 

335 simply says

(1)The fact that a contract relates to gambling shall not prevent its enforcement.

(2)Subsection (1) is without prejudice to any rule of law preventing the enforcement of a contract on the grounds of unlawfulness (other than a rule relating specifically to gambling).

So what part are you believing relates to this situation?

powerful_Rogue

For the avoidance of doubt - From the Gambling Commission:

The Commission has received a number of enquiries regarding ‘win a house’ or ‘win a cash prize’ competitions.

It appears to be the intention of the organisers to run such competitions as Prize Competitions, or Free Draws. The Gambling Act 2005 does not seek to regulate Free Draws or Prize Competitions, rather it draws a distinction between Free Draws, Prize Competitions and Lotteries and sets out what a Prize Competition or Free Draw needs for it not to be classed as a Lottery.

The fact that the Commission does not regulate these competitions means that the competitions themselves, and the companies behind them, may not be subject to the same oversight as regulated providers of gambling products and may not offer the same level of consumer protection against gambling-related harm.

https://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/news/article/consumer-information-notice-free-draws-and-prize-competitions

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

powerful_Rogue said:

For the avoidance of doubt - From the Gambling Commission:

The Commission has received a number of enquiries regarding ‘win a house’ or ‘win a cash prize’ competitions.

It appears to be the intention of the organisers to run such competitions as Prize Competitions, or Free Draws. The Gambling Act 2005 does not seek to regulate Free Draws or Prize Competitions, rather it draws a distinction between Free Draws, Prize Competitions and Lotteries and sets out what a Prize Competition or Free Draw needs for it not to be classed as a Lottery.

The fact that the Commission does not regulate these competitions means that the competitions themselves, and the companies behind them, may not be subject to the same oversight as regulated providers of gambling products and may not offer the same level of consumer protection against gambling-related harm.

https://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/news/article/consumer-information-notice-free-draws-and-prize-competitions

Right yes, so a free entry competition doesn't meet the definitions under part 1 and so aren't covered by the Act at all so long as the promotor doesn't stray into said definitions. 

But OP aside, if you gamble in accordance with said definitions, wins are enforceable. 

Okell

But what is the law saying free to enter competitions are legally enforceable?

As @Grumpy_chap has said, there is no consideration, so there is no contract.  Or is there some other consideration that is not payment?

Complaining to the ASA is all very well, but in the absence of some specific legal provision, what can they do?  eg they may hold the competition to be misleading ( is it?) but are they going to force BG to put in a heat pump?

I still think the OP ought to be making a formal complaint to BG about why they won't honour the prize.  (Might shame them into a "gesture" although I would not hold my breath)

prowla

I guess the message is don't bother entering BG competitions.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Okell said:

But what is the law saying free to enter competitions are legally enforceable?

As @Grumpy_chap has said, there is no consideration, so there is no contract.  Or is there some other consideration that is not payment?

Complaining to the ASA is all very well, but in the absence of some specific legal provision, what can they do?  eg they may hold the competition to be misleading ( is it?) but are they going to force BG to put in a heat pump?

I still think the OP ought to be making a formal complaint to BG about why they won't honour the prize.  (Might shame them into a "gesture" although I would not hold my breath)

A consideration is a promise of value (not necessarily monetary), don’t know if the personal information given during entering could be viewed as consideration?

Right to redress under DMCCA (formerly CPRs) appears to require a contract for a product (product being goods, service or digital content), is the prize goods? 

I don’t know 🤷

Grumpy_chap

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

A consideration is a promise of value (not necessarily monetary), don’t know if the personal information given during entering could be viewed as consideration?

Right to redress under DMCCA (formerly CPRs) appears to require a contract for a product (product being goods, service or digital content), is the prize goods? 

I don’t know 🤷

Looking at this website ( https://harperjames.co.uk/article/running-a-prize-competition/ ) it seems that the draw has to either require some skill or be free to enter to avoid the Gambling Act applying.

In the specific case, the draw appears to have gone down the "free to enter" route and that, in turn, appears to rule out there be any consideration (whether money or something else).  That, then, infers that the personal data does not have "money's worth" and is not consideration.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Grumpy_chap said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

A consideration is a promise of value (not necessarily monetary), don’t know if the personal information given during entering could be viewed as consideration?

Right to redress under DMCCA (formerly CPRs) appears to require a contract for a product (product being goods, service or digital content), is the prize goods? 

I don’t know 🤷

Looking at this website ( https://harperjames.co.uk/article/running-a-prize-competition/ ) it seems that the draw has to either require some skill or be free to enter to avoid the Gambling Act applying.

In the specific case, the draw appears to have gone down the "free to enter" route and that, in turn, appears to rule out there be any consideration (whether money or something else).  That, then, infers that the personal data does not have "money's worth" and is not consideration.

Consideration is defined by case law whilst the reference to “money’s worth” is with regards to criteria under the Gambling Act, the two are separate matters. 

We can safely put the Gambling Act to one side as we’ve established it doesn’t apply

This says go to small claims:

https://businessadvice.co.uk/growth/business-development/sales-marketing/can-you-disqualify-a-prize-draw-winner/

but doesn’t say based on what…. 

prowla

Is this talk of gambling and laws thereof at all relevant?

It was a free prize draw and the Gambling Commision clearly states they are not in-scope of their remit.