ASA Adjudication on Keystone Group

Ad

Two brochures for Keylite Roof Windows (Keylite). a. The first brochure stated "Made in the UK" on the front. b. The second brochure stated "Made in Northern Ireland" on the front. Text inside both brochures stated "Extensive testing has been carried out on the Keylite range of windows by Dr J.M. Taylor MSc MCIOB LCG in the Centre of Sustainable Technologies at the University of Ulster. Keylite achieved the highest class in the standard for resistance to penetration by air and water ...".

Issue

Velux Company Ltd (Velux) challenged whether:

1. Keylite could substantiate the claim "Extensive testing has been carried out ... Keylite achieved the highest class in the standard for resistance to penetration by air and water ...", because they believed there was no standard for resistance to penetration by air and water; and  

2. the claims "Made in the UK" and "Made in Northern Ireland" misleadingly implied all Keylite products and components were made in Northern Ireland or the UK, because they believed some were manufactured in Poland.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

1. Keylite sent the report by Dr J.M. Taylor entitled "Test Report on Roof Window for Keylite Roof Windows Ltd" which they believed substantiated the claim.  

2. Keylite said they had recently had some roof window components and roof windows sourced and manufactured in Poland.  They asserted that they would not imply in future brochures that all products and components were manufactured in Northern Ireland or the UK.

Assessment

1. Upheld

The ASA noted the report by Dr Taylor stated that one of Keylites windows was tested in 2001 based on the British Standard BS6375 Part 1: 1989.  We also noted the report stated "This report relates to the roof window selected and submitted by the manufacturer and the results are only relevant to the actual sample tested and the conditions and methods used during the test. The results do not necessarily relate to the samples from the production line and in no way implies performance or quality of continuing production".

We understood that BS6375 required testing in three areas: air permeability, water tightness and wind resistance. We contacted Dr Taylor, who told us he believed the claim was accurate because the window tested had achieved test pressure classifications of 600 Pa in air infiltration and 300 Pa in water tightness and had therefore achieved the highest class asked for in the standard for those areas.

We contacted the British Standards Institution (BSI), which was responsible for the standard. They said the 1989 version of BS6375 was reissued in 2004 with new test methods. They said both versions of the test were written for vertical glazing, not roof windows and, although the air permeability assessments sounded acceptable, both versions of the standard required the product to be mounted vertically and therefore the assessment for water tightness was not appropriate. They said the 2004 version of the standard specifically excluded not vertical patent glazing. They also said the 2004 version used new European tests which often gave significantly different results from the 1989 version; they believed a product that met the highest class according to the 1989 version might not meet the highest class according to the 2004 version. BSI said it was normal to categorise a product using all three elements of the standard but that it was acceptable, in principle, to claim that windows intended to be installed vertically met the highest class for air and water penetration.  

We considered that readers were likely to understand the claim to mean that all Keylite windows, regardless of style or size, had achieved the highest class possible for air and water penetration in the current standards available for roof windows. We noted only one window had been tested and that the report stated the results were only relevant to the sample tested and did not reflect on the "performance or quality of continuing production"; we considered that one window was not a sufficient sample on which to base a claim about all Keylite windows available. We also considered that, although the window tested had met the highest class for air and water penetration stated in the 1989 version of the standard, because it was based on an out-of-date standard that had been replaced by one with different levels of testing that could produce different results, and because the standard was intended for vertical glazing, not roof windows, the 1989 version of BS6375 was not an appropriate standard on which to base a claim about Keylites range of roof windows. We concluded that the claim was misleading.

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

2. Upheld

We considered that readers would understand the claims to mean that all Keylites products and components were made in the UK or Northern Ireland. Because Keylite used some products and windows that were manufactured in Poland, we considered that the claims "Made in the UK" and "Made in Northern Ireland" were misleading. We welcomed Keylites assurance that they would not imply in future brochures that all products and components were manufactured in Northern Ireland or the UK.

On this point, the ads breached CAP Code clause 7.1 (Truthfulness).

Action

We told Keylite to remove the claims "Keylite achieved the highest class in the standard for resistance to penetration by air and water", "Made in the UK" and "Made in Northern Ireland".

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)