While this is undoubtedly excellent news for both players and the Wilshaws alike, other competition organisers will have mixed feelings about the decision. Anyone running a house competition in the UK at the moment will welcome the opportunity for potential players to see someone win the property prize. The hope shared by many is that this could help inject new energy into this sector, by providing players with evidence that they stand a real chance of winning a home and comfort that their competition is run legally.

At the same time, given they were structured very similarly to the Devon competition, recent months saw dozens of other competitions cancelled by their organisers after receiving letters from the Commission asking them to demonstrate it was legal. Others spent considerable amounts of money to either re-structure their competition midway, or to ensure that they were launching one that would not fall foul of the Gambling Act 2005. Entries had to be refunded, properties placed back on the market (often at a lower price) and very quickly payment providers (including PayPal and Google Checkout) declared they were not comfortable offering their services for house competitions.

To add confusion to the issue, the Wilshaws claimed that their competition had initially been cleared by the Commission before they launched it. Similarly, according to a recent Out-Law.com article by Pinsent Masons, Humraz's Asmat Monaghan was reportedly told by the Commission's James Cook that: "it does not matter that the answer can be found from basic research on the internet. If this was the case then it would rule out virtually every question and answer skill competition. It is clear that a person is not eligible to enter the draw without answering the question properly, which stops it being a lottery". According to the article, Monaghan later received an apology by the Commission after this advice was retracted.

With many websites unable to handle payments online and continued negative publicity surrounding the Oldborough Retreat competition; it is likely that many players stayed on the sidelines, making it difficult for most house competitions to succeed. Many UK competitions witnessed disappointing sales over the last few months with continued speculation about the definition of skill-based prize competitions (versus lotteries or games of chance).

Once a winner has been announced, the dust has settled and the Wilshaws are finally allowed to move on from their "Devon property with fishing", all eyes will turn to the Commission. There is no doubt that the public will expect some kind of statement to clarify its position vis-à-vis house competitions. Was the Oldborough Retreat competition an exception (and if so why?), or does this mean that the Commission now considers competitions based on a similar model to satisfy the requirements of the UK Gambling Act 2005? If so, what criteria should competition organisers adhere to and what does this mean for anyone that cancelled theirs or is looking to set up a new one in the near future?

According to Pinsent Masons lawyer Antoinette Jucker, any initial advice provided by the Commission to the Wilshaws could have damaged their chances of a successful prosecution: "If the Wilshaws received similar advice to Asmat Monaghan, the Commission didn't apply any legal rigour in their initial responses to how competitions work," she said. "I think they have stymied themselves by not actually applying Section 14 [of the Act] to the facts.", Jucker said. If this played an important role in deciding the outcome of the Oldborough Retreat probe, this could be a source of further embarrassment for the Commission.

One thing is for sure, the next few months should see further developments in this space. According to Out-Law.com, the Commission intends to consult on revised guidance on prize competitions this summer. While competition organisers may not obtain the kind of guidance they are hoping for from them until that process has been completed, they should be mindful, as Jucker concludes in the article that "it is the Act which establishes what is legal or not, not guidance from the Commission."

Click here to read the Wilshaws' MySpace blog entry announcing the final draw date. You can also visit the Oldborough Retreat website directly for more updates.

What do you expect the Commission to say or do on the back of the conclusion of the Oldborough Retreat competition? Have you been affected by the uncertainty that has surrounded house competitions in the UK over recent months? As always, we would be very interested in your thoughts and opinions.

Visit Win a Dream Cottage, the unofficial Daily Mail Dream Cottage fansite! Get all the daily passwords, latest news and win a home competition results, subscribe for free to have all current Dream Cottage passwords sent to you by email. Plus, lots other prizes to be won, including cars, luxury holidays and gadgets, all free! Win a home

Ways to Stay in Touch

To stay on top of what's happening at Win a House, here are a few ways you can make sure you don't miss a thing. From social media to email delivery, the choice is yours!

	Our official Win a House newsletter, sent out about once a month.	Subscribe
	The latest RSS updates delivered by email, as they get published.	Subscribe
	Our simple RSS feed to add to your favourite RSS reader.	Subscribe
	Follow us on Twitter for all the latest highlights	Subscribe

Hits: 4346

Comments & Opinions

8 comments so far, what say you? Subscribe to this comment's feed

Name

Email

Title

Comment

smaller | bigger

Subscribe by email (members only)

Add Comment

What a mess!

I'm really surprised to be honest. It's such great news for the Wilshaws (and obviously for the person that wins the house!!). But it's difficult to imagine anyone making more of a mess of this than the GC in this case! What about all the people that lost all that money cancelling their comps? Let's hope they sort this out once and for all and finally give people a bit of direction. House comps are an innovative idea and everyone will gain from more clarity, that's what I say!

Darren Snowden , 14 May 2009

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Couldn't agree more!!!!

I think they backed down because they messed it up and initially told them it was ok... So they couldn't take them to court and had to let them go ahead! That's probably why the Wilshaws waited this long, 'cause they knew they had a good chance of taking this all the way. Good on them, they took on the big boys and won!! Onwards with more house competitions is what I say

Martin W. , 14 May 2009

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Positive overall

@ Darren,

There is no doubt that the conclusion to this story has been a long time coming. Any clarification from the GC at this stage should help by providing guidance for both competition organisers and players alike. We're only sorry it has taken so long and most likely proved to be an expensive process for the Wilshaws, the GC and other competition organisers.

Team Win House , 14 May 2009

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Get a licence?

What about simply buying a lottery licence, wouldn't it be simpler for everyone or am I missing something??!

Jess , 14 May 2009

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Re: Get a licence?

@ Jess

You raise a good point. We often get asked about the idea of simply running a lottery with a license to raffle off a property. As you know, it is illegal to run a lottery for profit in many countries unless you hold a licence. Many house competitions offer to donate part of the proceeds to charity, but this does not allow them to get around this basic principle unfortunately.

In order to obtain a licence in the UK, you must first be set up as a charity or local authority - or be running a lottery on behalf of one such non-profit organisation. In theory, although this would allow you to raffle off a home without any element of skill involved, the property would need to be valued less than £400,000. This is the current limit affecting any type of prize offered via a lottery (with a valid licence).

Team Win House , 14 May 2009

• 
• +1
• 
• 

Lottery vs. game of skill?

The real problem with the Wilshaw house competition that no-one seems to mention, was that everyone entering their competition had a correct answer.

It was possible to have as many free guesses as you liked, until you guessed the correct answer. This was clearly NOT a game of skill, knowledge or judgement, but an illegal lottery, despite the GC backing down for a yet unknown reason.

I and my partner have been personally informed on the telephone by Mr Cliff Young of the GC, that 50% of the entrants must get the answer WRONG! however, when he was later questioned about that statement by our solicitor, he denied saying 50%, and changed it to 20%.

Come on GC, how can we work to your Acts, when you have adjustable goal posts?

Paul (aspotofluxury.co.uk)

Paul Roome , 15 May 2009

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Win a House

Congratulations to the Wilshaws, at last their perseverance has been rewarded, fairly and correctly. Maybe now, those of us who have genuinely followed the same path will see an increase in interest with their competitions. Will PayPal now deem these competitions as just that, and stop applying ridiculous rules, or will they ignore a legal ruling? Good Luck to all who try !!

winariscahouse.com , 18 May 2009

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Winner drawn!!!

Fingers crossed everyone they picked a winner at 10am this morning!!! Name to be announced once all the admin is sorted out. Good luck ;)

"19.05.09

Hi All!

Well we didn’t get much sleep last night! Imagine every kind of emotion that you can think of and then add a few! We were so pleased that Steve our Lawyer was able to get time off work to be with us at the draw. It was an emotional experience, as we finally saw our dream become a reality.

The draw took place at 10.am this morning at the offices of WBW Solicitors in Exeter. Present was the Public Notary Mr. Martin, his secretary Ms. Barsby, our Lawyer Steve Kuncewicz, a crew from BBC Spotlight news and ourselves. Also present was a female solicitor from WBW who drew the winning number."

Simon P. , 19 May 2009

• 
• +0
• 
•