ASA Adjudication on Brookson Ltd

Ad

A magazine ad was headlined "The Brookson Umbrella Solution. No one does more for less for freelance contractors". Boxed text stated "Total peace of mind, for as little as £20 per week The best value, all inclusive price available*". Further text stated "Delivering the very best value No one else provides the breadth and quality of umbrella employment service backed by real experience. No one else provides more value for an all inclusive price of £20 per week.*" The asterisks led to a footnote that stated "£20 a week relates to the Brookson Employment Solution".

Issue

Recruitment and Contractor Services (RACS) challenged whether the claims "The best value, all inclusive price available" and "No one else provides more value for an all inclusive price of £20 per week" were misleading and whether they could be substantiated because their service was cheaper.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

Brookson Ltd (Brookson) said they believed their range of services offered the best value for money; they currently provided services to 8,500 freelance contractors and felt their wide-ranging approach was unrivalled by their competitors.  They provided a list of the features they believed contributed to their "unique value proposition", including insurance cover included in the standard charge, access to a company pension scheme, an inclusive health and safety review for each assignment and no additional charge for processing expense claims.  

Brookson said they had never claimed to be the cheapest umbrella company but stated their aim was to provide a comprehensive service that represented the best value for money.  They stated they based their £20 price claim on the fee payable up-front by the client and explained that after the tax relief that applied to their fees the client would be, in effect, paying only £11.88.  Brookson said, although many of their competitors had ads based on the cost calculated after tax relief, they had stated the pre-tax price, which had to be paid to them up-front by clients, to ensure they were transparent about their costs.      

They also stated they completed regular reviews of competing service providers to ensure their services were properly benchmarked and provided details of a competitor they believed was comparable on services but who charged 37% more.  They also provided details of the other companies they believed to be direct competitors, because they had more than 1,000 clients, and stated that only one of them had a lower fee than them.  They said, however, that that competitor applied an additional 5% fee to process expense claims.  Brookson said that was a core part of an umbrella companys service and would amount to an extra cost of £14.25 per week.   

Brookson said they believed RACS was not comparable to them in size because RACS had 250 customers and they had more than 1000.  They said that although RACS headline fee appeared lower, unlike Brookson, their fee was not all-inclusive; with Brookson there were no hidden costs or additional charges whereas RACS customers would pay extra, for example, if they worked more than eight hours in one day, for additional holiday pay claims and to use CHAPS (an electronic bank-to-bank payment system that guaranteed same-day payment) rather than BACS.  They said RACS did not provide a health and safety review and had a hidden variable adjustment fee; RACS did not provide details of what that fee was used for but it reduced the customers take home pay.

Assessment

Not upheld

The ASA noted Brookson had not claimed to be the cheapest umbrella provider but they believed they offered an unrivalled all-inclusive approach relative to the price they charged.  We noted they had provided comparisons with the companies they believed to be their direct competitors; only one was cheaper but they applied an additional charge for expense claims, which were a key part of an umbrella providers service.  We noted they had also provided details of a competitor they felt provided a comparable range of services but that they were more costly. We noted, due to the size of their client base, Brookson did not believe RACS to be a direct competitor and they did not provide such a comprehensive service.  

We acknowledged RACS headline fee was cheaper but considered Brookson had provided evidence that they offered a more wide-ranging all-inclusive service than RACS.  We considered readers would generally understand the best value company to offer the widest range of services for a price that was lower compared only to those competitors who offered the same services.  Because, based on the evidence provided, Brookson offered the same range of services cheaper than their direct competitors we concluded the claims that "No one else provides more value ... " and that they offered the "best value, all inclusive price ... " were unlikely to mislead.  

We investigated the ad under CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 19.1 (Other comparisons) but did not find it in breach.

Action

No further action necessary.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)