ASA Adjudication on Lincat Ltd

Ad

An ad, for industrial beverage equipment, featured a section on "Automatic Fill Electric Water Boilers." The section featured several diagrams of water boilers along with pricing information and their specifications. The specification tables had a box that stated "Output per hour" followed by the number of litres relevant to the individual model.

Issue

Instanta objected that the claim "Output per hour" was misleading because it implied that the output figure was constant when in fact it could be achieved only in an initial hour of use.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

Lincat Ltd (Lincat) said their boilers functioned using an automated filling cycle where sensors detected the level of water and activated the filling and boiling functions when required. Once the water in one cycle was heated to the maximum temperature, more water was added until the boiler reached its maximum capacity. They said, when the boiled water was drawn off for use, the cycle would begin again to refill the boiler to its maximum level. Lincat pointed out that their boilers were set up for use as required and, thus, it was unrealistic for the complainant to refer to an initial hour of use.

Lincat maintained that the complainant's point was theoretical and irrelevant to the practical use of their products. They said their customers used the output per hour figures as a broad guide to select the model most suitable for their needs and maintained that they had received no complaints from consumers about the claim. They maintained that the ad was merely a price list and that their full catalogue featured more information on the specifications of their boilers. However, Lincat sent a copy of their new ad, which featured a disclaimer stating "Output per hour is the volume available in one hour from maximum fill".

Assessment

Upheld

The ASA noted Lincat's argument that the material complained about was a price list. We noted, however, the listed specifications under each model of boiler and considered that the material constituted an ad. We considered that the claim "output per hour" was likely to lead readers to expect that each boiler would produce the stated amount of heated water per hour of use. We understood, however, that Lincat's measurement of 'output per hour' included water that had been heated prior to a particular hour period. We also understood that because the boiler would be emptied by the end of the hour the output could not be maintained in the subsequent hour. We considered, therefore, that it was unreasonable for water present in the boiler at the start of the hour to be considered part of the subsequent hour's output. We noted the disclaimer featured in Lincats amended ad but considered that it contradicted the output per hour figure rather than qualifying it.

We considered any measure of a boiler's output based purely on measuring volumes of water produced in an individual hour was likely to be problematic because of the different possible outputs for any given series of hours. We concluded that the claims were misleading.

The ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness).

Action

We considered that a more relevant measure of output per hour was the recovery rate of the boiler per minute multiplied out over an hour. We understood that the recovery rate of a boiler was the volume of water heated to boiling over a given period following draw off.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)