ASA Adjudication on Home N Dry

Ad

A directory ad for Home ‘N’ Dry, a carpet dry cleaning service, stated "... the vertical pile traps and holds impurities such as soil, dust and allergies [sic] … To remove these impurities; one option is to wet the carpet which forces the soil to the base of the carpet forming a sludge and attempting to extract as much as possible and allowing the sticky, dirty detergent to dry. The dangers of this cleaning method are shrinkage, split seams, colour run, mould, etc. The other and better option is the revolutionary Home'n'Dry system ...".

Issue

Deep-Cleaning UK Ltd (DCUK), a company that used wet-cleaning methods, challenged whether the ad was misleading.  They said, when wet-cleaning carpets, excess dirt was removed before any detergents were added, all detergents were removed before completion and the process did not result in shrinkage, split seams, colour run or mould.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

Home 'N' Dry explained that they used the HOST system; a dry extraction carpet cleaning system that used sponges moistened with water, detergent and solvent.

They sent the ASA a copy of two chapters from a booklet called "Complete Guide to Carpet Cleaning and Maintenance for the Professional" which compared the HOST system to other cleaning methods.  The chapters were titled "Comparison of Carpet Cleaning Methods" and "The HOST System".  The comparison chapter described different methods of wet and dry cleaning including rotary shampooing, rotary spin pad shampooing, dry foam, wet extraction and dry extraction, and included a comparison chart which showed the results of the different cleaning methods for various factors including amount of residue, chance of colour bleeding, shrinkage, seam splitting and mould.

They also submitted "The HOST System Common Questions & Answers", an article by the Chairman of HOST titled "EXAMINING the PROBLEM of CARPET RESOILING" and copies of testimonials made by fibre producers who used the HOST system.  

Assessment

Upheld

We noted Home 'N' Dry had based their claim on information supplied by the manufacturers of the dry cleaning method they used - the HOST system.  

We noted the ad made a comparison between wet and dry cleaning systems.  We understood from the evidence that more than one type of wet cleaning method existed.  We considered that the ad referred to wet cleaning methods in general.  

We understood DCUK used the wet extraction method, also known as steam cleaning and they asserted no "sticky, dirty detergent" was left behind when using this method.  Home 'N' Dry's evidence, however, reported that between 15% and 40% of solution, consisting of the soil and detergent, remained in the carpet after cleaning using this method.  It further stated that all methods of carpet cleaning left a residue but that the HOST system left behind the "perfect" residue that could be easily vacuumed up.  The comparison chart listed "None" as the amount of residue left by the HOST system and "Little" as the amount left by the wet extraction method.  

We noted Home 'N' Dry's evidence stated that the wet extraction method was "very likely" to result in shrinkage, split seams and mould and there was a "possible" chance of colour bleeding.   We noted another wet cleaning method, rotary shampooing, was "likely" to result in shrinkage, split seams and mould and there was a "possible" chance of colour bleeding.  A third wet cleaning method was reported as "unlikely" to result in shrinkage, seam splitting or mould and a "possible" chance of colour bleeding.  The same report noted there was no chance of shrinkage, split seams, mildew or colour bleeding using the HOST system.

We noted the evidence did not explain the methodology by which the conclusions were arrived at and we were concerned about the independence of the tests carried out using the different cleaning methods.  While we understood that Home 'N' Dry had used the evidence in good faith, we considered that it was insufficiently robust to support the claims made in the ad about the dangers of wet cleaning methods in general.  We concluded that the ad could mislead by exaggerating the negative effects of wet carpet cleaning which we understood would not always be experienced.

The ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 19.1 (Comparisons)

Action

We told Home 'N' Dry to amend their ad and advised them to contact the CAP Copy Advice team for help.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)