Calendar An icon of a desk calendar. Cancel An icon of a circle with a diagonal line across. Caret An icon of a block arrow pointing to the right. Email An icon of a paper envelope. Facebook An icon of the Facebook "f" mark. Google An icon of the Google "G" mark. Linked In An icon of the Linked In "in" mark. Logout An icon representing logout. Profile An icon that resembles human head and shoulders. Telephone An icon of a traditional telephone receiver. Tick An icon of a tick mark. Is Public An icon of a human eye and eyelashes. Is Not Public An icon of a human eye and eyelashes with a diagonal line through it. Pause Icon A two-lined pause icon for stopping interactions. Quote Mark A opening quote mark. Quote Mark A closing quote mark. Arrow An icon of an arrow. Folder An icon of a paper folder. Breaking An icon of an exclamation mark on a circular background. Camera An icon of a digital camera. Caret An icon of a caret arrow. Clock An icon of a clock face. Close An icon of the an X shape. Close Icon An icon used to represent where to interact to collapse or dismiss a component Comment An icon of a speech bubble. Comments An icon of a speech bubble, denoting user comments. Comments An icon of a speech bubble, denoting user comments. Ellipsis An icon of 3 horizontal dots. Envelope An icon of a paper envelope. Facebook An icon of a facebook f logo. Camera An icon of a digital camera. Home An icon of a house. Instagram An icon of the Instagram logo. LinkedIn An icon of the LinkedIn logo. Magnifying Glass An icon of a magnifying glass. Search Icon A magnifying glass icon that is used to represent the function of searching. Menu An icon of 3 horizontal lines. Hamburger Menu Icon An icon used to represent a collapsed menu. Next An icon of an arrow pointing to the right. Notice An explanation mark centred inside a circle. Previous An icon of an arrow pointing to the left. Rating An icon of a star. Tag An icon of a tag. Twitter An icon of the Twitter logo. Video Camera An icon of a video camera shape. Speech Bubble Icon A icon displaying a speech bubble WhatsApp An icon of the WhatsApp logo. Information An icon of an information logo. Plus A mathematical 'plus' symbol. Duration An icon indicating Time. Success Tick An icon of a green tick. Success Tick Timeout An icon of a greyed out success tick. Loading Spinner An icon of a loading spinner. Facebook Messenger An icon of the facebook messenger app logo. Facebook An icon of a facebook f logo. Facebook Messenger An icon of the Twitter app logo. LinkedIn An icon of the LinkedIn logo. WhatsApp Messenger An icon of the Whatsapp messenger app logo. Email An icon of an mail envelope. Copy link A decentered black square over a white square.

Watchdog raps Angus competition firm after changing rules to let supplier’s brother keep prize

The Advertising Standards Authority said Royalux Competitions from Brechin did not operate the competition for a £5,000 garden makeover and £2,000 cash in a "fair or honourable" way.

Brechin firm Royalux Competitions has tens of thousands of social media followers. Image: Supplied
Brechin firm Royalux Competitions has tens of thousands of social media followers. Image: Supplied

An Angus online competitions firm has been criticised by the advertising watchdog after a £5,000 dream garden and £2,000 in cash was won by the brother of the garden makeover supplier.

Royalux Competition, which is based in Brechin, offered the prize in an online draw last year.

The firm was launched in 2021 by local woman Samantha Nichol.

It has a huge online following for its daily giveaways offering cash and other prizes.

But the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has hit out at the company over the way the August garden makeover competition was run.

Royalux Competitions garden draw criticised by ASA.
The £5,000 garden makeover draw was held last year. Image: Supplied

Terms and conditions, which appeared on a separate webpage, stated it was not open to “employees or suppliers of the promoter who are professionally connected with the competition” or members of their immediate families.

However when the winner was announced, it emerged it was the brother of the makeover supplier.

And the ASA said Royalux altered the rules after the draw so the winner could hold on to the prize.

The watchdog said it wasn’t a “fair or honourable” way to treat participants in the draw.

Complaint to ASA over Royalux draw

One person complained to the ASA.

The firm defended the draw, saying the winner was chosen at random.

But the watchdog has now ruled the competition was administered unfairly after finding Royalux Competitions had retrospectively amended their terms and conditions.

They banned the competition, which participants paid £10 to enter, from being advertised again in the form complained of.

Ms Nichol, 33, told the ASA the draw was made by a randomised number generator live on Facebook. They provided a screenshot showing the winning number and the identity of the person with that number.

Royalux Competitions director Sam Nichol
Sam Nichol launched Royalux Competitions in 2021. Image: Kim Cessford/DC Thomson

And the firm said their rules stated they “reserved the right to amend their terms and conditions as and when required”.

Their “decision was final and no correspondence or discussion would be entered into”, Royalux added.

The company acknowledged their terms and conditions had changed several times.

But because they reserved the right to do so, they believed it was within their discretion who they allowed or considered eligible to participate and win.

They also said they had already purchased the £5,000 garden makeover from the third-party supplier before the promotion and Royalux therefore owned that prize.

Not a ‘fair or honourable’ draw

In its ruling the ASA said: “The ASA understood that the original terms and conditions of the promotion stated that, in addition to employees of Royalux, employees of agents or suppliers of the Promoter who were professionally connected with the competition or its administration and members of their immediate families and households were prohibited from entering the draw.

“We considered that exclusion would prevent a brother of the provider of the prize from taking part.

“We further understood that, after the promotion ended and a winner was selected (who was the brother of the prize provider), Royalux retrospectively changed the terms and conditions of the promotion such that the exclusion of immediate family members of the prize provider was removed, therefore allowing him to retain the prize.

“Although Royalux maintained that their terms and conditions gave them the right to change the terms and conditions of the promotion as and when needed, we considered that retrospectively removing an exclusion to allow someone to win who would have otherwise been excluded from taking part under the original terms was not a fair or honourable way to treat participants.

“Further, it was likely to result in disappointment and gave consumers justifiable grounds for complaint.

“We therefore concluded that the promotion had not been administered fairly. The promotion must not be run again in the form complained of.”

“We told Royalux Competitions Ltd not to administer their promotions unfairly, cause unnecessary disappointment or give consumers grounds for complaint in future – for example, by retrospectively amending terms and conditions to remove exclusions on who could participate.”

Royalux Competitions did not respond to an approach for comment.

Conversation