Housing raffles have taken the UK by storm – but how likely are you to win?
In an increasingly grim housing market, the chance to own a once-in-a-lifetime home for the price of a £5 ticket seems too good to be true.
And that’s because it usually is.
But amid a cost of living crisis, it is the chance to “escape from reality” that drives people to continue gambling on a win, one psychology expert has told Sky News.
This week, a woman who thought she had won a £2m villa in Nottingham was left “heartbroken” after the small print meant she had won £5,000 instead.
Loretta, a teacher, was over the moon when a representative from Win My Home visited her to say she had won the grand prize – but this turned out to be just 0.25% of what was advertised.
Competition organisers said they had actually made a loss, and the prize was a gesture of goodwill.
This £5.2 million house was a lottery prize – but the winner ended up with an (undisclosed) cash sum instead
Where did housing raffles come from?
Housing raffles first cropped up in 2008, as a way to beat the economic slump, when a couple from Devon raffled off their £1 million estate at £25 a ticket.
Then in 2018, Win a Country House sparked a revival of the trend, and more recently Omaze has been combining it with fundraising, promising entrants both the chance of winning a luxury property and a warm fuzzy feeling for donating to charity at the same time.
But although they still seem popular in the last three years, the number of competitions involving winning a house has declined, according to Loquax, the UK’s competition portal.
In 2020 there were 93, followed by 108 in 202.
In 2022 this dropped to 34 and this year there have been 29.
Win My Home declined to comment for this story – and Omaze has been contacted by Sky News for a response.
The North London home was “raffled” in 2019
But the lucky winner never got a chance to live in it
The charity house raffle
The most recent iteration of the housing raffle is Omaze’s million-pound house draw, which promises to raise at least £100,000 for each charity partner and give away a stunning home at the same time.
In 2020, their first home raised £250,000 for the Teenager Cancer Trust.
But a slick advertising campaign has boosted popularity, and their most recent draw – a Norfolk home – raised £1.4 million for the RNLI, while the one prior raised £1.9 million for Blood Cancer UK.
However, Omaze is still a business. Once each campaign is over, it takes the total amount raised and reimburses itself for the cost of the prize and the cost of marketing – it does not publicly disclose what this is.
Then it divides what is left, with 80% going to the charity and 20% to the company.
How likely are you to win?
Of the 264 competitions run since 2020, just 89 have resulted in a house being awarded, says Loquax.
Some 143 house raffles awarded a cash prize instead, and 18 issued refunds. Loquax wasn’t able to say what had happened in the case of 14 raffles.
The most expensive house awarded since 2017 was the £4.5m Omaze Cornwall River Rowey House property, won by June Smith.
But cash prizes are often lower. The first Raffle House competition dolled out £173,012, while the Dream Home Prize awarded £365,366 in place of the £1.2m home that was promised.
And they can do this because it is all there in the often-ignored small print.
So, you probably won’t going to win – why do you keep entering?
Annika Lindberg is a chartered psychologist who specialises in gambling addiction. She says these lotteries – and gambling of any kind – run on “intermittent reinforcement schedules”, which is the idea that we are motivated by the anticipation of a potential win, rather than any certainty.
“The unpredictability of the reward actually has a positive effect on our motivation,” she says.
And it is actually people who are poorer that are more likely to enter – particularly during times of recession.
“When you look at why people who have less financial means, and why they would be more motivated to gamble, it is because the meaning of a potential win is much greater,” she says.
“It gives people more motivation to escape from reality.”
While these lotteries aren’t nearly as addictive as betting shops, they can still be problematic, in part due to their “enormous mass appeal”.
“We should be concerned if a larger portion of the population starts taking the view that we have a reality of living that is so difficult that we want to escape,” she says.
“I think there is something very problematic about our population in any way at all being prompted to turn to escapism or ‘hope’ through any form of gambling during tough financial times.
“It will remain innocent for many but could prime others for more intense forms of gambling later.”
Ms Lindberg says, while “hope is a human trait that saves our lives” when “something like gambling taps into that, it’s not all that positive”.
Annika Lindberg
When housing lotteries fall foul of the law
The Gambling Commission has investigated a number of different housing lotteries and found many of these competitions were being run illegally.
In 2017 and 2018 – the most recent data available – it received 88 reports regarding 55 different raffles. Just 13 of these resulted in no further action being taken – meaning 77% of those investigated were breaking the rules.
And one of the key rules is who is going to benefit.
“You cannot create a lottery to raffle a house where the beneficiary (that is, the recipient of all lottery profits after expenses and prize costs are deducted) is not a good cause and the organiser/promoter of the lottery is not a non-commercial society,” the GC says.
“The only competition style that might be appropriate would be a free draw or prize competition.”
MPs have voted to decriminalise abortion in England and Wales.
The amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill, abolishing the prosecution of women for terminating their pregnancy at any stage, passed by 379 votes to 137.
It represents the biggest shake-up in reproductive rights for almost 60 years.
Labour MP Tonia Antoniazzi, who tabled the so-called “New Clause One” (NC1), said it would ensure women do not face investigation, arrest, prosecution or imprisonment in relation to any pregnancies.
She said the current “Victorian” laws had been used against vulnerable women, citing cases such as Nicola Packer, who was prosecuted on suspicion of having an illegal abortion. She was found not guilty in May.
“Nicola’s story is deplorable, but there are many others,” Ms Antoniazzi said.
Abortion in England and Wales is currently a criminal offence but is legal with an authorised provider for up to 24 weeks after conception. The procedure is allowed after this time in very limited circumstances.
It is also legal to take prescribed related medication at home if a woman is less than 10 weeks pregnant.
Ms Antoniazzi said NC1 was “a narrow, targeted measure” that would not change how abortion services were provided or the rules under the 1967 Abortion Act.
Pro-choice campaigners demonstrating for decriminalising abortion in the UK
She said: “The 24 [week] limit remains. Abortions still require the approval of signatures of two doctors, and women would still have to meet the grounds laid out in the Act.”
The MP said that meant healthcare professionals “acting outside the law and abusive partners using violence or poisoning to end a pregnancy would still be criminalised, as they are now.”
She added: “This piece of legislation will only take women out of the criminal justice system because they are vulnerable and they need our help.
“As I have said before, and I will say it again, just what public interest is this serving? This is not justice, it is cruelty and it has got to end.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Should abortion be decriminalised?
The change will not come into effect immediately as the Crime and Policing Bill is still making its way through Parliament.
A separate amendment, put forward by Labour MP Stella Creasy, went further with a measure to “lock in” the right of a person to have an abortion while protecting those who help them.
However, her amendment was not voted on because Ms Antoniazzi’s passed, as expected.
Conservative MP Sir Edward Leigh, speaking against both amendments, described them as “not pro-woman” and argued they “would introduce sex-selective abortion”.
How did MPs vote?
MPs were given a free vote on the amendment, as is typically the case with so-called matters of conscience.
A breakdown of the vote showed it was passed overwhelmingly by Labour and Lib Dem MPs.
Read more:
Sky poll reveals public’s view on decriminalisation
Just eight Conservative MPs voted in favour, while all Reform UK MPs opposed the amendment, with the exception of the party’s leader Nigel Farage, who abstained.
Sir Keir Starmer was not present for the vote as he is currently in Canada for the G7 summit, but said earlier that his “longstanding in-principle position is that women have the right to a safe and legal abortion”.
The issue of women investigated by police over suspected illegal abortions has been in the spotlight due to several recent high-profile cases.
Ms Packer was cleared by a jury last month after taking prescribed abortion medicine at home when she was around 26 weeks pregnant, beyond the legal limit of 10 weeks.
In the Commons, Ms Antoniazzi cited another case of a young mother who was jailed for two years after she was forced to take illegal abortion medication by her abusive partner. He was never investigated.
The UK-US trade deal has been signed and is “done”, US President Donald Trump has said as he met Sir Keir Starmer at the G7 summit.
The US president told reporters in Canada: “We signed it, and it’s done. It’s a fair deal for both. It’ll produce a lot of jobs, a lot of income.”
Sir Keir said the document “implements” the deal to cut tariffs on cars and aerospace, describing it as a “really important agreement”.
“So this is a very good day for both of our countries – a real sign of strength,” the prime minister added.
Mr Trump added that the UK was “very well protected” against any future tariffs, saying: “You know why? Because I like them”.
However, he did not say whether levies on British steel exports to the US would be set to 0%, saying “we’re gonna let you have that information in a little while”.
Mr Trump also praised Sir Keir as a “great” prime minister, adding: “We’ve been talking about this deal for six years, and he’s done what they haven’t been able to do.”
He added: “We’re very longtime partners and allies and friends and we’ve become friends in a short period of time.
“He’s slightly more liberal than me to put it mildly… but we get along.”
Sir Keir added that “we make it work”.
As the pair exited a mountain lodge in the Canadian Rockies where the summit is being held, Mr Trump held up a physical copy of the trade agreement to show reporters.
Several leaves of paper fell from the binding, and Sir Keir quickly stooped to pick them up, saying: “A very important document.”
Sir Keir Starmer picks up paper from the UK-US trade deal after Donald Trump dropped it at the G7 summit. Pic: Reuters
The US president also appeared to mistakenly refer to a “trade agreement with the European Union” at one point as he stood alongside the British prime minister.
Mr Trump announced his “Liberation Day” tariffs on countries in April. At the time, he announced 10% “reciprocal” rates on all UK exports – as well as separately announced 25% levies on cars and steel.
Read more:
G7 summit ‘all about the Donald’ – analysis
Scrambled G7 agenda as leaders race to de-escalate Israel-Iran conflict
In a joint televised phone call in May, Sir Keir and Mr Trump announced the UK and US had agreed on a trade deal – but added the details were being finalised.
Ahead of the G7 summit, the prime minister said he would meet Mr Trump for “one-on-one” talks, and added the agreement “really matters for the vital sectors that are safeguarded under our deal, and we’ve got to implement that”.
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports1 year agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Sports2 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike