ASA Adjudication on Thames Water Utilities Ltd

Ad

A regional press ad, for Thames water, was headlined "OK, explain to me again, why are we still short of water?" Text stated "The fact is, there's less rainfall and we're all using more of it. London, would you believe, actually receives less rainfall than Rome, Istanbul and Dallas … And we've just had a total of 19 months below average rainfall … By 2016 the number of people living in the area we supply will have swollen by half a million. Imagine the entire population of Sheffield arriving on the doorstep".

Issue

The complainant challenged whether the claim:

1. "The fact is there's less rainfall" was misleading and could be substantiated;

2. "we're all using more of it" was misleading, because figures had shown that metered homes used consistently less water;

3. that London received less rainfall than Rome and Istanbul was misleading and could be substantiated and

4. "we've had a total of 19 months of below average rainfall" was misleading, because it suggested there had been 19 consecutive months of below average rainfall.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

Thames Water Utilities Ltd (Thames) said they had run the ad in several local newspapers in their region during November and December 2006 as part of a campaign to get local people to realise the importance of continuing to save water in the long term. They said the drought had received widespread publicity earlier in the year but they were concerned that several weeks of wet weather might have led their customers to believe that there was no longer a need to conserve water supplies. They said their intention had been to explain that local water resources were likely to recover only after several months of winter rainfall, and to challenge widespread but inaccurate perceptions about Londons rainfall levels compared with other cities. They said they wanted to give people advice on ways to save water, but also to explain what they were doing to address the situation. They said they had therefore included information about their ongoing work to develop new sources of water and reduce leakage. They addressed each of the points in turn:

1. They said the water available to them came from the Thames catchment area and rain that fell outside that area was of no benefit to them. They said the claim was based on figures provided by the Environment Agency, which obtained data from the Meteorological Office (Met Office). They said the figures came from a range of measuring stations across the Thames region and therefore represented the rainfall that affected the level of local rivers and underground sources. They said the reference to "less rainfall" related to the rainfall figures (which they provided) for the last four years in their region, which had shown a trend of below average rainfall, when compared with the average (742.3mm per year) for the last 108 years. They said they used a 108-year average, because they were the oldest records available at the time. They said although the water industry generally looked back over a rolling 30-year period, they believed the 108-year average illustrated better the unusual weather experienced in the Thames area. They said there was no agreed consensus among hydrologists about whether to use the 30-year period or the 'period of record' to calculate averages. They said they had referred to their 'period of record' averages throughout 2006 when they communicated with customers and the media. They said they believed the severity of the drought could only be put in context by looking back over the longest period possible, which included the worst droughts on record (for example in 1922 and 1933-4).

2. Thames said the data they used to analyse customers water usage per head was collected over a number of years and suggested a long-term rise in usage for both metered and non-metered customers. They said their figures covered water consumption trends over the long term, because there were a range of factors which could affect the amount of water people used; for example a colder than average year could lead to an unusual fall in demand. They said their data for unmetered customers began in 1992-93 when customers had used 144.36 litres per head per day, and although there had been rises and falls since then, the overall trend was upwards, to the point where the latest data for 2005-06 showed a figure of 166.80 litres per head.

They said their figures for metered customers dated back to 1994-95 and the latest statistics for 2005-6 showed an increase from the previous year to 153.99 litres per head. They provided an excerpt from their annual report to Ofwat (The Water Services Regulation Authority) to support those figures. They highlighted the latest figures in Ofwats report "Security of supply, leakage and the efficient use of water" from 2005-6, which showed an increase in the water consumption figures from 2001-02. They said the report stated the national level of metered customers was 28% but that only 21.45% of Thames customers had meters. They said even if metered consumption in their region was falling, it would still represent only a proportion of their customers and the ad was aimed at all of their customers. Thames also highlighted the views of other organisations, for example the Environment Agency and Waterwise, both of which had stated on their website that the national consumption of water had increased.

3. Thames said a wide variety of figures were available for different measuring stations on different websites. They said they had used figures from the World Weather website (which used data from the World Meterological Organisation) and from the World Climate website; both websites had been recommended to them by the Met Office. Both websites showed that London, on average, received less rainfall than either Rome or Istanbul.

4. Thames said the figures on which they based the claim "weve just had a total of 19 months of below average rainfall" were taken from the Environment Agency and related only to their region. They said the figures showed that, in November 2006 when the ad appeared, 19 of the previous 24 months had seen below average rainfall in their region, compared with the 108 year average. They said they were careful to say that was a "total" rather than 19 months in succession. They said that 24-month period represented the time from which the drought had begun. They said in all of their communications (for example media interviews and letters to customers) they had defined the beginning of the drought as November 2004.

Assessment

1. Not upheld

The ASA noted the complainant believed the claim "theres less rainfall" was inaccurate, because data from the Met Office for the periods 1961-1990 and 1971-2000 showed a small rise in the rainfall for the South Central and South East England area. However, we noted Thames had used rainfall figures for their specific catchment area and had based their figures on a longer period to reflect the historical average.

We considered that because the ads were shown in local papers and referred to rainfall in London, consumers were likely to understand that the claim "theres less rainfall" referred to the Thames area specifically. We considered the figures Thames provided had substantiated the claim and it was therefore unlikely to mislead.

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

2. Not upheld

We noted the complainants assertion that metered homes had consistently demonstrated a reduction in their consumption of water and not everyone was therefore using more water. We considered, however, that readers would understand the claim "were all using more of it" to refer to average consumption and would not interpret the "were all" part of the claim literally.

We noted the complainant referred to figures from the Sustainable Development Unit (part of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) which showed average water consumption in the Thames area over the period 2000-2005 had peaked in 2002-3 and then steadily reduced. However, we noted Thames latest figures for 2006 showed a rise in consumption and that they had based the claim on the trend since 1992/93. We noted their figures showed that, although consumption had not been subject to an incremental year by year increase, the overall consumption of both metered and unmetered water had increased from the year the Thames data began (1993). We considered the claim was unlikely to mislead.

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

3. Not upheld

We noted the complainant had used the monthly average rainfall figure of 66mm stated in the ad to calculate that the average rainfall in London was 792mm. She had also obtained figures from two websites which showed the averages in Rome and Istanbul were lower than the London average.

However, we noted Thames had used data from websites recommended by the Met Office, both of which showed the mean total rainfall figure for London was lower than that for Rome and Istanbul. We considered that Thames had substantiated the claim and it was therefore unlikely to mislead.

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

4. Not upheld

We noted the claim related to 19 out of the last 24 months, and that Thames provided figures to show that rainfall in those 19 months had been below average (according to the historic 108-year average). We also noted the 24-month period reflected the time from which the drought had begun and that it was not significantly longer than 19 months. We considered the context of the claim, i.e. the drought in the Thames region, which was referred to in the preceding sentence "The south-east is going through its driest patch since the 1930s" and a later sentence "Two years of drought", was likely to be understood by most consumers.

Although the 19 months referred to were not consecutive, because Thames had referred to a "total" number of months and because the total period was not significantly longer than 19 months, we considered the claim was unlikely to materially mislead.

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

Action

No further action required.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)