The winner of a disability magazine’s holiday competition was left disappointed when he couldn’t take up his prize because the resort wasn’t wheelchair-friendly.
He was delighted to win the week-long break in the Provence region of France until he discovered that he wouldn’t be able to go because the holiday resort wasn’t suitable for his access requirements.
The winner, who has not been named, was so furious he complained to advertising watchdogs about the ‘misleading’ competition in Pos’ability magazine.
The winner of a disability magazine’s holiday competition was left disappointed when he couldn’t take up his prize because the resort wasn’t wheelchair-friendly
And he has had another win after the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) found that the competition breached rules regarding promotional marketing and significant conditions for promotions.
The publishers of the magazine and holiday firm Go Provence were both ordered by the ASA to make sure future promotions don’t breach the rules.
The prize promotion in the December 2016 of Pos’ability was to win a week long all-inclusive holiday at a supported resort for adults and children with learning disabilities and autism in France.
The Terms & Conditions included text stating, ‘which will be shared accommodation’.
But the man who won the competition was left fuming when he found out that he wouldn’t be able to take up the prize because the holiday resort wasn’t suitable for his access requirements.
The publishers of the magazine and holiday firm Go Provence were both ordered by the ASA to make sure future promotions don’t breach the rules
Go Provence Supported Holidays Ltd, trading as Go Provence, claimed that ‘disability’ had a wide definition and that the magazine readers would have needed to check their website to see if the accommodation was wheelchair accessible.
The firm also stated that the ad for the competition included a picture of a group on a rafting trip and jumping in a lavender field which they believed would lead readers to check whether the holiday would be suitable for wheelchair users.
Go Provence said that they had been willing to accommodate the competition winner’s additional needs, which included accessible accommodation, but that due to the increase in costs the competition winner decided it was better for the competition to be redrawn.
The firm also stated that if a wheelchair user wished to go on holiday with the company, they would have tried to find suitable accommodation for them and that this may have been shared.
Glasgow-based 2a Publishing Ltd, which published the magazine, said they understood the accommodation offered in the prize was ‘reasonably accessible’ and therefore the complainant may have been able to take up the prize as advertised.
The publishers said that the full details of the prize and a description of the services offered by the prize provider were clearly outlined in the ad..
They said that they considered the changes the competition winner sought from the advertiser were all related to ‘personal preference’ and were not necessary to allow him to take up the prize.
The Terms & Conditions included text stating, ‘which will be shared accommodation’
However, the ASA said it considered that in the context of the ad, to win a ‘supported holiday for people with learning difficulties’, in a disability lifestyle magazine meant that consumers would not necessarily interpret ‘shared accommodation’ as meaning that the accommodation was not accessible for wheelchair users.
An ASA spokesman said: ‘We considered that the average consumer would interpret the phrase as meaning that the accommodation included in the prize was a room that would not be solely used by the competition winner.
‘We noted that the ad for the competition included images of people in a raft and jumping in the air, and that the description of the holiday included activities such as kayaking.
‘However, we considered that this did not make it sufficiently clear that consumers who used a wheelchair may be unable to access the accommodation.
‘We acknowledged that the advertiser was willing to provide alternative accommodation suited to the competition winner’s needs.
‘However, we considered that in the context of a disability lifestyle magazine, which contained multiple ads and articles for readers who were physically disabled, accessibility was a significant condition which was likely to influence a consumer’s decision about entering the promotion and therefore should have been included in the ad.’
The ASA spokesman added: ‘The promotion must not appear again its current form.
‘We told Go Provence and Pos’ability to ensure that their future promotions included relevant applicable significant conditions where their omission was likely to mislead, including whether or not a competition prize was accessible for readers who used a wheelchair.
‘We considered that they should take into account any obligations they had under the Equality Act 2010 when they communicated any limitation on what was offered to their readers, for example, the duty to make reasonable adjustments.’
_