THE PROMOTER of a local competition that began as a house raffle and ended as a cash prize draw has sent £500 donations each to two charities that were, according to him, the main reason for launching the scheme last March.

But many people who bought tickets for Mel Yates's raffle are still angered by the way the competition was run, and a number of Gazette readers say they are considering taking legal action.

Many of the complaints heard by Gazette journalists have focussed on the discrepancy between the prize that was on offer when they bought the tickets – the 66-year-old businessman's Gorsley house, whose value was given as £700,000 on the competition website, and his 2004 Mercedes – and the £11,000 in cash that was offered when he brought the competition to an early close in November.

But a growing number of ticket buyers are also unhappy at the competition representatives' refusal to refund the cost of tickets or explain exactly how the final draw was conducted.

One dissatisfied buyer wrote to [email protected]">[email protected], the raffle's customer service address, and gave a full copy of the ensuing correspondence to the Gazette. The competition's administrator, Penny Cook, replying to the buyer, refused to refund the price of the raffle ticket, and also declined to supply a copy of the raffle's terms and conditions:

"All ticket holders", she wrote, "were responsible for taking a copy off the site for safe keeping along with their ticket numbers. It is not the responsibility of the promoter to ensure they did that."

In correspondence between another ticket buyer and Ms Cook, also supplied to the Gazette by the buyer, she accused this newspaper of inaccurate reporting and sensationalism:

"The article in the Ross Gazette is incorrect and contains no factual or confirmed information whatsoever, as neither our solicitor nor Mr Yates have had any contact with this newspaper, nor to [sic] they intend to do so.

"This article is quite clearly an attempt at headline grabbing to sell newspapers and it appears that you have allowed this to affect your judgement."

She went on to write: "The competition was conducted at all times in full compliance with the rules, which were drawn up by our legal team. Accordingly, we are satisfied that the competition and it's [sic] conclusion is [sic] not open to scrutiny or question by any other party."

On Tuesday afternoon, the Gazette telephoned Ms Cook, who is also director of a Newent company for which Mr Yates was working as sales and marketing director in December. Ms Cook declined to comment on the raffle, and also claimed that Mr Yates no longer works for her company.

At the time of going to press, the Gazette has still been unsuccessful in its attempt to speak to Mr Yates.

Editor's note: Ms Cook's comments about 'the article' presumably refer to the item we published on our front page on January 26th.

All the information in all of our articles on the raffle, including this one, has been factual and rigorously confirmed. We have been in contact with many people and organisations in relation to this story, including ticket buyers, the Injured Jockeys Fund, Marie Curie Cancer Care, the Charity Commission, the Gambling Commission, local trading standards officers and Companies House.

The only person who has been unwilling to speak to us, despite our repeated attempts to get in touch with him, is the raffle's promoter. In this he is, of course, entirely within his rights.

The raffle's website was taken down earlier this month, but the Ross Gazette has obtained an electronic copy of the web page that contained the competition's terms and conditions, and can supply it to readers on request.

If you have bought a ticket and feel that you have been unfairly treated, let the Gazette know: email the Gazette at [email protected]">[email protected].