“I don't know which lawyers are advising these people. Whoever it is, does not know the law.
The fact is you cannot enter the 'competition' unless you get the answer to the question right.
You cannot pay your entry fee unless you get the question right.
So, when you buy your entry, you are, by definition, NOT COMPETING with anyone else.
There is NO WAY anyone else who has entered could have the question wrong.
Therefore, this is a lottery that requires you to answer a question BEFORE you an buy a ticket.
Make it a genuine competition - and insist people part with their £25 at the same time as answering the question.
You might find you get a lot less entries if people realised it was a genuine competition.
Like that couple in Devon, you are going to find out the hard way that your scheme is a lottery.”

“Jonathon, Suffolk Square, Montpellier

This chap from "Montpellier" would appear to be from the PR company behind this daft raffle. Shame he doesn't disclose that in a more direct manner.”

“this is brilliant, get rid of your house and give someone who may never have the opportunity, to get a decent pad any other way, to get one for twenty five quid, this is good old british inovation at its best, the do gooders and naysyaers shouldn't be given the time of day, its their sort who have shackled the majority of us in the past, and now we can't even defend the home that we win if someone breaks in. It's about time the british started admiring this kind of spirit, instead of trying to kill it.”

“I think some maths classes are required here. Whatever the street value (assuming it is over £25) makes it worthwhile. Less than five packs of cigarettes, a decent flutter on the nags, or two big buskets at Colonel Fried Chicken. A no brainer!”

“Following Andy's somewhat churlish note I would have thought a Tewkesbury resident would be more than aware of the vagaries of market forces and what people are prepared to pay (flood plain or not). I have to say I'm getting fed up with some of the negative remarks (perhaps the credit crunch is making some more mean/envious). When I look at Cheltenham prices, and I often do, I think the pegged value of circa £800k is not unrealstic. Let's face it Cheltenham is whatever your views a desirable place in which to live. The view of what is and what is not a Grand Design is admittedly subjective, but I really think Andy should get a life and be more positive. No doubt he'll find another way to place his well earned cash, perhaps a share in an estate agent or a bank or other such liquid asset?”

“¿anyone wanting a little piece of television history or a million-pound slice of contemporary living has a chance of winning it for just £25.¿

The house wouldn't sell at £850k. In fact, it's my guess the real price should be around the £600k mark never mind a million!

Hang on, isn't this false advertising or misinformation? Surely it contravenes some rule?

As for a slice of TV history, give me a break! This is one of the more forgettable GD houses...

They weren't doing it with passion or to fulfil a lifelong dream.

Plus, the only remarkable thing about the house is that over half of it is in the basement!”

“From the article in The Times on Sunday, it looks like they are using a very big law firm in Manchester called Ralli and the solicitor called Steve Kuncewicz. This solicitor is bound by law to make sure the they keep to the terms of the agreement. I believe in a radio interview i heard with BBC Glos they said that the solicitor controls the funds from the draw until. So I cannot see how they can run off with the money, can you ? However maybe they should make this more clear on there website. I also understand that it is "up to 35%" to cover third party marketing expenses and admin. So if they are not in control of the money and it is all third party costs, it seems like a S**t load of hassle to go through unless there where completely serious about going through with, i think the only question is , are the lawyers and good.”

“In answer to David H, i have to agree with graham. No one is policing this draw, so one will ever know if the money goes to charity, or if in fact the 'winner' gets the house, or if the number of tickets sold is reliable. I think a lot more people would enter if they had a proper license. As it stands, you might as well just hand over £8.75 of your hard earn money to this couple. (35% of the £25 entrance fee)

I think graham sums it up perfectly, no ones against people making money on their house, of course, but once you put yourself in the media spotlight please please please just be honest about your motivations.”

“In answer to Graham, and a few others, I am writing out of exasperation. For goodness sake, are we not allowed to make a proift on house sales? Surely that's the idea? This couple should be applauded for an innovative way to buck the depressed property market. Oh, and a contribution to a very worthwhile charity (Cancer Research) - so next time Graham and his cohort sell, I expect they won't ask for a profit on their asset. It goes without saying they won't be gifting any cut to charity. I guess we should be used to the knockers having a go, but it still annoys the heck out of me that we can't support innovation. Just for the record, I did buy a ticket and will buy some for my children too! In fact, I'm encouraging all my friends to join in too.”

“This is clearly a very innovative way to sell your house and has been tried and tested several times before.

Having said that, some of these people subsequently faced legal action due to infringing gaming laws!

I have a real problem with this couple's sheer greed. The house cost around 330K to build including all the furnishings, yet they are looking to raise well over a million!

Taking out 10% for charity, plus the marketing budget etc, this couple stand to make a fortune over the value of their home.

If they don't sell 95% of the tickets they keep the house and bank up to 35% of the prize fund gaining them up to 300-400K which they say is to cover costs!! How will this be policed I wonder?

In this difficult time we are all struggling to realise the real value of our homes and I guess they should be credited for their initiative. However, if they were to halve the amount they are trying to raise they could still make a good profit on what it's cost them to build.

Also, I think people would be happier if they had some assurance that they would only take the minimum amount to pay for admin etc. just to cover their costs.

I think a lot more people would warm to them if they stopped being so greedy. In fact, that's the reason the house has failed to sell in the first place - they were asking an unrealistic amount and refused to accept it wasn't worth that!

Finally, this is a great money-making scheme, no question. But the reason some people are so sceptical about the whole thing is that this couple have already exposed the type of people they clearly are in front of millions of people.

They claimed this to be their dream home when it was simply a money-making exercise - that's fine in itself, but for goodness sake be honest about your motivations.”