ASA Adjudication on British Air Bargains Ltd

Ad

Two national press ads for British Air Bargains (BAB). a. One ad stated “Malta … Flights from £19 one way … Package Holidays from £73 in Malta’s most popular hotels … PACKAGE HOLIDAYS INCLUDING: FLIGHTS ACCOMODATION TRANSFERS TAXES … ”. b. Another ad stated “Malta … Flights from £19 one way … Package Holidays from £73* in Malta’s most popular hotels …”. Small print, at the bottom of the ad, stated “Based on 2 people sharing …”.

Issue

1. One complainant challenged whether the claim "Flights from £19 one way" was misleading in ad (a), because they were unable to obtain flights for that price at any time on any route when they contacted BAB;

2. One complainant challenged whether the taxes and charges were included in the £19 price for flights in ad (a);

3. One complainant challenged whether the claim "Package Holidays from £73* in Maltas most popular hotels" was misleading in ad (b), because they were told the prices were from almost £300 on enquiry; and

4. One complainant challenged whether the claim "Package Holidays from £73" in ad (a) was misleading, because they were told that the price was based on six people sharing a room when they contacted BAB.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

BAB said they did have flights at those prices, including taxes and charges, and sent four separate bookings of the £19 flight to Malta as proof of that.

Assessment

1., 3. & 4. Upheld

The ASA noted BAB had supplied information on the £19 flights only. We considered that the four booking examples were insufficient to substantiate that BAB had a reasonable proportion of seats available at the advertised £19 price. Because they had not supplied any information on the availability of the £73 package holiday, we also considered that BAB had not shown that the holiday was available in sufficient numbers to give consumers a reasonable chance of obtaining it. We understood from one of the complainants that the package holiday was based on six people sharing and not two. Because BAB had sent no evidence to the contrary, we concluded that the ads were misleading by omission.

On this point, the ads breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness), 15.4 (Prices), and 16.1 (Availability of products).

2. Not upheld

We considered that the four booking sheets showed that the £19 price was the total that the customer paid. We did not object to the ad on that point.

On this point, we investigated ad (a) under CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 15.2 (Prices), but did not find it in breach.

Action

We told BAB to ensure that they could demonstrate the availability of advertised fares in future and to include accurate information in their ads. We told BAB to seek advice from the CAP Copy Advice team to ensure that their ads complied with the CAP Code in future.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)