ASA Adjudication on Countrywide Eastern Counties Limited

Ad

Two direct mailings for an estate agent.

a. The first mailing stated "ARE MICHAEL STEVENS HOLDING YOU BACK? We all want to achieve the best price for our home. FACT. Michael Stevens of Loughton are a single office. FACT. Ambrose Loughton are part of a network of 1100 offices. FACT. Who do you think has the best chance of achieving the best price for your home? Your property deserves the widest coverage. Why compromise?"

b. The second mailing stated "ARE ROFFEYS HOLDING YOU BACK? We all want to achieve the best price for our home. FACT. 68% Buyers are from outside your local area.* FACT. Roffeys of Loughton are part of a network of 2 offices. FACT. Ambrose Loughton are part of a network of 1100 offices. FACT. With Property Exhibitions, Ambrose can reach more buyers than any other agent. Is your agent doing enough? For more information on changing your agent please call ... " Text at the foot of the page linked to an asterisk in the body copy stated "Countrywide Survey Statistics".

Issue

1. Michael Stevens Estates (Michael Stevens) and Roffeys Residential Sales (Roffeys) complained that the mailings were denigratory because they implied the companies offered a limited service to their customers because of their circumstances.

Roffeys also challenged:

2. whether Countrywide Eastern Counties Ltd (CEC) could substantiate the claim "68% Buyers are from outside your local area" in mailing (b) and

3. whether mailing (b) was misleading because Roffeys were part of a network of three estate agents, not two as claimed in the mailing.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

1. CEC said their mailings sought to highlight features which distinguished them from their competitors. They said the purpose of the mailings was to invite the homeowner to consider whether their appointed agent was the best-placed in the market to sell their property. CEC disagreed that the mailings implied that the complainants' businesses offered a limited or substandard service.

2. CEC said they had carried out an audit of properties sold through their Loughton branch between October 2005 and August 2006. They told us that 49 contracts for sale had been exchanged and 34 of those properties were sold to purchasers from outside the Loughton area. CEC asserted that the claim "68% Buyers are from outside your local area" was accurate.

3. CEC disagreed that Roffeys were part of a network of three offices because they believed that, while the company had three offices, one of those offices dealt solely with residential lettings. They asserted that the claim "Roffeys of Loughton are part of a network of two offices" was therefore accurate.

Assessment

1. Upheld

The ASA noted CEC's comments but considered that statements such as "Are Michael Stevens/Roffeys holding you back?", "Ambrose can reach more buyers than any other agent" and "Why compromise?" could be seen to discredit the complainants' service by unfairly implying they offered an inferior service. Because CEC had not justified that implication, we concluded that the mailings were denigratory.

On this point, the mailings breached CAP Code clause 20.1 (Denigration and unfair advantage).

2. Upheld

We acknowledged that the claim "68% of Buyers are from outside your local area" appeared to be accurate based on the figures supplied by CEC. However, we noted the survey was carried out amongst CEC customers only and were concerned that mailing (b) did not make clear the number, or type, of sales upon which that percentage was calculated. Furthermore, we noted the footnote stated "Countrywide Survey Statistics" and considered that some consumers could be misled into believing that the figure was based on a survey of all prospective homebuyers in Loughton, rather than based on a survey carried out on Countrywide Group's prospective customers, whose service might have particular appeal to buyers purchasing from outside the area. We considered that the claim implied two out of three of all prospective homebuyers in Loughton came from outside the area. Because CEC had not proved that, we considered the claim was likely to mislead.

On this point, mailing (b) breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness).

3. Upheld

We acknowledged CEC's argument that, in the context of a mailing about property sales, it was logical to exclude offices that did not offer that service. However, we considered that the services of only a small number of the 1,100 offices in the network were likely to be of interest to recipients of the mailings, who lived in Loughton. We noted the claim that Roffeys had two offices was technically incorrect and considered that, without qualification, it was likely to mislead. We therefore concluded that the mailing exaggerated the likely benefits to consumers in choosing CEC over Roffeys and told CEC to amend the claim.

On this point, mailing (b) breached CAP Code clause 7.1 (Truthfulness).

Action

We told CEC to stop distributing the mailings and advised them to contact the CAP Copy Advice team for guidance with future mailings.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)