£3.6 million EuroMillions prize remains unclaimed in UK
EuroMillions ticket holders have been told to search through their handbags and trouser pockets, as a prize worth a staggering £3.6 million is yet to be claimed.
The winning ticket was bought in the local authority area Fife in Scotland for the draw on Friday 13 June.
The winning numbers on that date were 2, 28, 40, 43, 45 and the Lucky Star numbers were 3 and 7, with the missing ticket holder matching the five main numbers and one Lucky Star number.
The lucky ticket holder now has until 10 December 2025 to claim their prize.
'It's time to search through handbags, purses, trouser pockets and the car – everywhere and anywhere – as a ticket is lurking which is worth £3.6M,' said Andy Carter, senior winners advisor at Allwyn, operator of The National Lottery.
He urged those who live or work in the area to take a minute to find their ticket and join the other lucky £3.6M EuroMillions winners.
The jackpot on Friday 13 June was the largest EuroMillions prize ever up for grabs in the UK and Ireland and had been capped at €250m – or £208m.
The record prize was rolled over after nobody won the jackpot. In total, more than 92,000 players in Ireland won prizes in the EuroMillions and Plus games.
Anyone not in possession of their ticket, for whatever reason, but who believes they have a genuine claim can still make a claim in writing to Allwyn, but it must be within 30 days of the draw.
If no-one comes forward with the winning ticket before the prize claim deadline, then the prize money, plus all the interest it has generated, will go to help National Lottery-funded projects across the UK.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
ANDREW PIERCE reveals the breathtakingly cynical reason why Keir Starmer WON'T sack chancellor Rachel Reeves...yet
As MPs poured out of the Commons after another stormy Prime Minister's Questions this week, the Chancellor Rachel Reeves cut a particularly lonely figure. With her head bowed, Reeves was exiting the Chamber alone – until one colleague caught up with her to walk loyally by her side. It was the chairman of the Labour Party, one Ellie Reeves, the Chancellor's younger sister. No other Labour MP, it seems, was willing to be seen associating with the embattled Chancellor. What a dismal year she has had. Reeves came into office last summer promising to 'unlock private investment', 'fix the foundations of our economy' and deliver 'sustained economic growth'. She has failed on all three counts – and it increasingly shows. Many Labour MPs commented on the Chancellor's body language as she took her usual place next to Starmer at PMQs. 'She looked broken, like she had been tranquillised,' says one source. 'She is clearly deeply troubled and unhappy.' There have even been reports – sharply denied by the Treasury – that Reeves spent much of Thursday in floods of tears amid shouting matches with colleagues. 'It's not true: she is resolute,' says one of her allies – a diminishing group these days. Now the Chancellor's problems are about to get even worse. Keir Starmer 's screeching U-turn over disability benefit cuts means she has to find billions to fill a budget black hole – and comes only weeks after her humiliating £1.25 billion volte-face on winter fuel payments. With almost 130 Labour MPs joining the revolt over the Welfare Bill, there are now huge questions about the Prime Minister's grip over his party. Keir Starmer 's screeching U-turn over disability benefit cuts means Reeves has to find billions to fill a budget black hole But it is the debacle over disability cuts that threatens to destroy the remnants of the Chancellor's political and economic credibility. Reeves is now at the centre of a full-blown crisis in relations between Downing Street and Labour MPs. The Chancellor – more than any other member of the Cabinet – is being blamed for the shambles. Some MPs have privately said they 'hate' her. Now the Chancellor's critics within her own party are growing ever louder. Worryingly for Reeves, they include a number of ministers unhappy at her performance. In the increasingly febrile mood at Westminster, even moderate Labour MPs are now saying Starmer should sack her. If she stays, they reason, she will worsen the PM's poll ratings – languishing at an abysmal 46 per cent in the latest YouGov survey. But would Starmer have the guts to ditch his Chancellor barely a year after their landslide general election victory? Absolutely not – and the reason why, I can reveal, is breathtakingly cynical. One senior party figure tells me: 'Number 10 needs her. She is absorbing all the blame for our problems, and therefore diverting it from the PM. 'Whether it's in the rural areas over her decision to bring in inheritance tax for farmers, or with pensioners over winter fuel, it's Rachel's name that comes up on the doorstep every time, not Keir's. 'Keir is an anonymous figure at Parliament. We rarely see him and he's never in the division lobbies, while Rachel is there all the time. She's receiving huge flak from her own colleagues.' But my source also warned fellow Labour MPs: 'Have we learnt nothing from the Tory years? They went into the last election a shattered force and suffered their worst ever defeat.' While few MPs expect Reeves to be sacked or even demoted in the short term, the next big test could be the autumn Budget. Reeves set herself two new fiscal rules in the last Budget: pledging to balance day-to-day spending with tax receipts and to get public debt down as a share of the economy. Another source says: 'The PM may order her to change the rules to avoid tax rises. It could lead to a showdown. If she refuses, she goes. If she agrees to change them, her last scrap of respectability is gone and she will be a lame duck. If taxes go up, it's hard to see how she could limp on for much longer.' After the Budget, Labour faces the Welsh Assembly and Scottish Parliament elections in May. Reform are expecting to capture Wales, a traditional Labour stronghold. A senior government figure says: 'If the local elections are a disaster, Keir will need to blame someone. There'll be yet another 'reset' and I think he'll throw Rachel under a bus if he hasn't already. He will pledge a new direction with a new Chancellor.' The favourite would be Pat McFadden, the dour Cabinet Office minister. But if Tuesday's vote is dramatically lost – now thought to be unlikely after the rebels won a raft of concessions – Reeves would be in dire trouble, as in fiscal terms the Government would be holed below the waterline. Reeves' own political hero is Gordon Brown. She will no doubt be aware of his infamous quip that there are two types of Chancellor: those who fail and those who get out just in time. A mere 11 months after she entered the Treasury, most Labour MPs – to say nothing of the country at large – have already decided which one of those she is.
Daily Mail
2 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Critics warn Sir Keir's screeching welfare U-turn will now result in a 'two-tier' benefits system and a £3billion tax bombshell to pay for it
Sir Keir Starmer 's benefits climbdown will create a 'two-tier' benefits system with families facing a £3billion tax bombshell to pay for it, critics warned last night. And that will be on top of the £1.25billion bill caused by the Prime Minister's screeching U-turn over winter fuel payments for pensioners. Experts warned the £4.25billion black hole in the public finances caused by the backsliding will probably force Chancellor Rachel Reeves to plug it with more tax rises in her autumn Budget. The Prime Minister was humiliatingly forced to hand Labour 's welfare rebels the concessions in a bid to avoid defeat in a crunch vote on benefits cuts on Tuesday. The compromise deal last night looked like it had peeled off enough of the 126 rebels to pass the vote. However, as many as 50 were still threatening to rebel unless the vote was pulled. The reforms had originally been forecast to save the Government £5billion a year by the end of the Parliament. Charity bosses and Labour MPs still planning to rebel also warned the new proposals would create a 'two-tier' benefits system because existing Personal Independence Payment (PIP) claimants will keep their current level of disability payments. But new claimants after November 2026, when the changes are scheduled to kick in, would be entitled to as much as £4,000 a year less on average, even if they suffered from the same condition which meant they couldn't work. Before the U-turn, both existing and future claimants were facing stricter eligibility conditions for the daily living component of PIP, a working-age benefit for those whose health condition increases their living costs. The concessions on PIP alone protect some 370,000 people currently receiving the allowance who were set to lose out following reassessment. Meanwhile, existing claimants of the universal credit (UC) health element, paid to those with a condition which stops them working, will have their payments protected in real terms. However, new claimants will see it halved and frozen. According to calculations by the Resolution Foundation think tank, the PIP and UC reforms will cost £1.5billion each. Sir Keir yesterday branded his own climbdown 'common sense' and refused to rule out tax increases to pay for it in an interview. During a visit to RAF Valley in Wales, he said how the Government intended to pay for it would be revealed in the autumn Budget, adding: 'The changes still mean we can deliver the reforms that we need and that's very important because the system needs to be a system that is fit for the future. 'All colleagues are signed up to that, but having listened, we've made the adjustments. The funding will be set out in the Budget in the usual way.' Yesterday's climbdown is hugely embarrassing for Sir Keir as it highlights the scale to which he failed to read his MPs' mood over the proposed cuts, with rebels having spoken out for months. Care minister Stephen Kinnock dismissed criticism that the Government was in chaos and that Sir Keir was not 'competent', insisting that the process had been 'positive and constructive' and that the PM was someone who 'gets stuck into fixing problems'. Care minister Stephen Kinnock (pictured) dismissed criticism that the Government was in chaos and that Sir Keir was not 'competent', insisting that the process had been 'positive and constructive' and that the PM was someone who 'gets stuck into fixing problems' But Kemi Badenoch said the debacle left benefits claimants facing 'the worst of all worlds'. Speaking to reporters on a visit to North West Essex, the Tory leader said: 'I think we're seeing a government that is floundering, a government that is no longer in control despite having a huge majority. I don't see how they're going to be able to deliver any of the things they promised if they can't do something as basic as reducing an increase in spending. 'It's a real shame because what they're doing now with this U-turn is creating a two-tier system... this is the worst of all worlds.' Arch rebel Nadia Whittome, the Labour MP for Nottingham East, said: 'These revised proposals are nowhere near good enough, and frankly, are just not well thought through. It would create a two-tier system in both PIP and the Universal Credit health element based on when somebody became disabled.' Sir Mel Stride, the Shadow Chancellor, said: 'Labour promised not to raise taxes on working people, and their Jobs Tax has led to rising unemployment and growth being halved. Now the Government has been unable to rule out that taxes will go up this autumn in order to pay for Keir Starmer's latest U-turns.'
BBC News
2 hours ago
- BBC News
Benefits U-turn raises questions about Labour's long-term plan
About a quarter of the working age population - those aged 16 to 64 - do not currently have a job. Caring responsibilities and ill health are the most common reasons given by those who would like a four-year mandate and a towering majority, Labour might have been expected to have invested in a long-term plan to help those who are sick get back into the workforce, at least part-time. It may have cost up front, but in the future it could have delivered big its determination to avoid a repeat of the Liz Truss mini-budget led them to target big savings quickly - but it ended up causing perhaps even more trouble, with the government performing a spectacular U-turn to avoid a mass Labour raises significant questions, not just about how this year-old government manages its affairs day to day, but if its overall strategy to renew the country is on track. Long-term reform vs short-term savings The government was adamant that its "welfare reform" changes - announced in March's Green Paper - were designed to get people back to bulk of planned savings came from tightening the eligibility for Personal Independence Payments (Pip), which are paid to support people who face extra costs due to disability, regardless of whether or not they are in work. Independent experts questioned whether more of the savings should have been redeployed to help people with ill health ease back in to the workforce, for example part time. That could mean support such as potential employer subsidies - especially to help get younger people into work and pay taxes, rather than claim benefits long term. It could also help fill jobs - a win win for rebels argued that the upfront cuts were aimed at filling a Budget hole against the Chancellor's self imposed borrowing rules. Their central criticism was that this was an emergency cost-cutting is true that the Chancellor's Budget numbers were blown off course by higher borrowing costs, such as those emanating from US President Donald Trump's shock tariffs, so she bridged the borrowing gap with these cuts. The welfare reform plan to save £5bn a year by 2029-30 helped Chancellor Rachel Reeves meet her "non negotiable" borrowing rules. Indeed when the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), which monitors the spending plans, said they would not in fact raise enough money, Reeves announced more welfare cuts on the day of the Spring main point was to raise money to help close the gap in the Budget tell me that the welfare reform plan was in fact brought forward for this purpose. But this was still not a full programme of welfare reform designed to deal with a structural issue of rising health-related claims. 'Top slicing never works' The former Conservative Welfare Secretary Iain Duncan Smith resigned as work and pensions secretary almost ten years ago, saying a similar plan to cut disability benefits was "indefensible".He says the cuts should have formed part of "a wider process" of finding the best way to focus resources on those most in need."Top slicing never works," he says of plans to extract savings from the welfare budget without its heart the problem is perceived to be that the current welfare structure has become overly binary, failing to accommodate a growing demographic who should be able to do at least a bit of work. This rigidity - what ministers refer to as a "hard boundary" - inadvertently pushes individuals towards declaring complete unfitness for work, and can lead to total dependence on welfare, particularly universal credit health (UC Health), rather than facilitating a gradual transition back into some leading experts this is, in fact, the biggest cause of the increase in health-related welfare claims. The pandemic may have accelerated the trend, but it started a decade proportion of working age people claiming incapacity benefit had fallen well below 5% in 2015, now it's 7%.The pandemic period exacerbated the rise as ill health rose and many claims were agreed without face-to-face meetings. These claims were also increasingly related to mental ill health. One former minister, who did not wanted to be named, said the system had effectively broken down."The real trouble is people are learning to game the Pip questionnaire with help from internet sites," he says. "It's pretty straightforward to answer the questions in a way that gets the points."As he puts it, the UK is "at the extreme of paying people for being disabled" with people getting money rather than equipment such as wheelchairs as occurs in other most kinds of mental ill health, in kind support, such as therapies, would make more sense than cash transfers, he some disability campaigners have said that being offered vouchers instead of cash payments and thereby removing people's automony over spending, is "an insult" and "dangerous". These pressures can be seen in the nature of the compromise planned cuts to Pip payments will now only apply to new claimants from November next year, sparing 370,000 current claimants out of the 800,000 expected to be affected by the Meg Hillier, Labour MP and chair of the Commons Treasury committee, along with other rebels, have also pointed out that the application of the new four-point threshold for Pip payments will be designed together with disability is a fair assumption that this so called "co-production" may enable more future claimants to retain this universal credit, the government had planned to freeze the higher rate for existing health-related claimants but the payments will now rise in line with inflation. And for future claimants of universal credit, the most severe cases will be spared from a planned halving of the payments, worth an average of £3,000 per these calculations don't take into account the effects of £1bn the government has pulled forward to spend to help those with disabilities and long-term health conditions find work as swiftly as possible. This originally wasn't due to come in until 2029. This change does help Labour's argument that the changes are about reform rather than cost cutting. But this is still not fully fledged radical reform on the scale that is needed to tackle a social, fiscal and economic crisis. The OBR has not yet done the Keep Britain Working review, led by former John Lewis boss Sir Charlie Mayfield, which was commissioned by the government to look into the role of employers in health and disability, has not yet been the Netherlands, where a similar challenge was tackled two decades ago, their system makes employers responsible for the costs of helping people back into work for the first two businesses are concerned about the costs of tax, wages and employment rights policies. And there is already a fundamental question about whether the jobs are out there to support sick workers back into the workforce. Tax rises or other spending cuts The Institute for Fiscal Studies and Resolution Foundation think tanks have estimated the government's U-turn could cost £3bn, meaning Chancellor Rachel Reeves will either have to increase taxes in the autumn budget or cut spending elsewhere if she is to meet her self-imposed spending the income tax threshold freeze again, seems a plausible plan There are still a few months to go, so the Treasury might hope that growth is sustained and that borrowing costs settle, helping with the OBR numbers. It will not be lost on anyone that the precise cause of all this, however, was a hasty effort to try to bridge this same Budget rule maths gap that emerged in questions arise about just how stability and credibility-enhancing it really is to tweak fiscal plans every six months to hit Budget targets that change due to market conditions, with changes that cannot be ultimately idea floated by the International Monetary Fund that these Budget adjustments are only really needed once a year must seem quite attractive today. Is Britain getting sicker? And then there are bigger questions left Britain really fundamentally sicker than it was a decade ago, and if it is, does society want to continue current levels of support? If the best medicine really is work, as some suggest, then can employers cope, and will there be enough jobs?Or was it the system itself - previous welfare cuts - that caused the ramp up in claims in recent years, requiring a more thought-through type of reform? Should support for disability designed to help with the specific costs of physical challenges be required at similar levels by those with depression or anxiety?Dare this government make further changes to welfare? And, in pursuing narrow Budget credibility, has it lost more political credibility without actually being able to pass its plans into law?The government is not just boxed in. It seems to have created one of those magician's tricks where they handcuff themselves behind their backs in a locked box - only they lack the escape skills of a Houdini or will be relief that the markets are calm for now, with sterling and stock markets at multi-year highs. But an effort to close a Budget gap, has ended up with perhaps even more fundamental questions about how and if the government can get things done. BBC InDepth is the home on the website and app for the best analysis, with fresh perspectives that challenge assumptions and deep reporting on the biggest issues of the day. And we showcase thought-provoking content from across BBC Sounds and iPlayer too. You can send us your feedback on the InDepth section by clicking on the button below.
