ASA Adjudication on Balfor Legal LLP

Ad

A TV ad for Balfor Legal, a firm of solicitors, showed a couple in the kitchen of their home being visited by a female friend. The friend said to the woman "I heard you and Dan had a bump in the car the other day." The woman replied "Yes, it was a nasty shock, but I'm fine now." The friend asked "But you guys have made a claim though, right?" To which the man replied "Oh, we can't be bothered with all that, filling out forms and dealing with lawyers". The friend suggested "You should give Balfor Legal a call. They'll come round and sort out all the paperwork for you." The woman said "Ooh, I could do with a nice holiday", and the man added "and a new car". When the friend informed the couple that Balfor Legal gave "100% of any compensation awarded", the man replied "Wow, well give us their number, let's try Balfor Legal", to which the friend responded "OK, but if you guys go on holiday, can I come with you?". On-screen text provided the company's contact details and large text at the end of the ad stated "CALL NOW TO START YOUR CASE!"

Issue

1.  Eight viewers challenged whether the ad misleadingly implied that those who had been involved in an accident but who did not appear to have been injured as a result would be able to claim compensation and

2.  Two viewers challenged whether the compensation amount for a relatively minor accident could be enough to afford a holiday and a new car.

BCAP TV Code

Response

1.  Balfor Legal explained that the injuries a claimant could suffer could vary in severity and many injuries sustained in road traffic accidents involved the soft tissue in the neck, back and shoulder regions.  They said in their experience the symptoms for these types of injuries were not always physically apparent.  Balfor Legal said they felt the ad would deter people who were entitled to claim, but were not visibly in pain, if they portrayed someone with a particularly apparent injury.  Balfor Legal pointed out that the ad made clear that the potential claimants had been in an accident, and there was no implication that injuries had not been received.  They explained that they applied strict criteria to all claimants, including a medical examination and hospital and GP records to ensure the existence, and extent, of any injuries being claimed for.  They pointed out that it was not in their interest to encourage people who had not suffered injuries to claim, as it would be Balfor Legal who would have to pick up the cost of obtaining medical evidence if the claimant's injury was not as alleged.

Clearcast said the ad was a dramatisation to describe the services offered by Balfor Legal.  They said the ad clearly depicted the couple as having been in a car accident and, as the accident was minor enough to be described as a "bump", it was reasonable not to expect the couple to be shown in a neck-brace or using crutches.  Clearcast said they believed that the woman said "... it was a nasty shock, but I'm fine now" to show she was over the shock of the accident, not that she had suffered no injury.  Clearcast said they felt the ad did not materially mislead, because it served primarily as a device to explain the services offered by Balfor Legal, such as home visits and form filling.

2.  Balfor Legal said the amount of compensation awarded to a claimant could vary significantly depending on the severity of the injury sustained.  They explained that, typically, a minor soft tissue injury to the neck, back or shoulder region would have a recovery period of or around three months, at which point all symptoms would usually have fully subsided.  Balfor Legal explained that the guidelines set out by the Judicial Studies Board (JSB) placed the maximum valuation for this type of injury at £2,550.  They felt that this amount was easily sufficient to purchase a holiday or even a car.  However, they did not provide the ASA with evidence that the JSB placed a maximum valuation for such injuries at £2,250.

Clearcast said the differing levels of injury and corresponding compensation award amounts meant it was reasonable to suggest the couple were able to spend a potential award on a holiday or a new car.  They pointed out that the ad did not specify what sort of holiday or car the couple had in mind, and said the couple could just as easily spend the money on a UK holiday, or a used car which was new to them if the compensation amount was lower.  Clearcast did not think that viewers would therefore be misled as to the potential compensation amount for relatively minor injuries.

Assessment

1.  Upheld

The ASA noted the ad portrayed the couple as being involved in a relatively minor "bump" in their car.  We understood Clearcast's arguments that the woman's statement that she had had a shock but was fine now was a reference to her being over the shock of the accident, rather than suffering no injuries.  However, we noted that the couple's friend had stated that the accident had occurred "the other day".  While we accepted that whiplash-type injuries, such as soft tissue damage to the neck, back and shoulders, would not necessarily be physically apparent, we understood that symptoms could last for up to three months and considered that if the potential claimant was fine only a few days after the accident, it was unlikely that she would have grounds to claim for these types of injury.  While we accepted that those who had been injured in minor collisions were entitled to compensation, we considered that viewers were likely to infer that the couple had not been injured.  Because the ad showed a seemingly uninjured couple contemplating claiming for compensation, we considered that the ad implied that it was possible to claim for compensation when no injuries had occurred and concluded that the ad was likely to mislead.

On this point, the ad breached CAP (Broadcast)TV Advertising Standards Code rules 5.1 (Misleading advertising) and 5.2.2 (Implications).

2.  Upheld

We noted that Balfor Legal advised that general guidelines set by the JSB placed compensation awards for minor whiplash-type injuries at a maximum of £2,250.  We noted that we had not seen evidence of that.  We also noted that the couple had stated that they wanted to purchase a "nice holiday and a new car" and we considered that the guideline amount of £2,250 was unlikely to purchase what most viewers would consider to be a "nice" holiday as well as a new car.  We agreed with Clearcast that the ad did not specify where the potential holiday would be, or whether the car would be brand new or new to the couple. However in the absence of any clarification, we considered that viewers were likely to interpret the statement as a reference to an expensive or luxury holiday and a brand new car, which would cost considerably more than £2,250.

Although we considered the ad implied the couple had not been injured, we concluded that the ad misleadingly exaggerated the potential levels of compensation for minor injuries.

On this point, the ad breached CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 5.1 (Misleading advertising) and 5.2.2 (Implications).

Action

The ad must not be broadcast again in its current form.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Broadcast)