Mr Z entered a charity’s lottery and won a one-of-a-kind item but found that the certificate of authenticity had a laser printed signature. He said this could reduce the value of the item and felt he was misled into entering the lottery.
We concluded that the charity’s description of the signature on the photographs was not misleading.
We found that by not responding to Mr Z’s final email the charity was not consistently respectful in its complaint handling.
We recommended that the charity review how it handled Mr Z’s complaint. We asked the charity to consider whether there is any wider learning from this complaint that it can apply to its complaint handling.
The charity accepted our findings and recommendations.