ASA Adjudication on Rayotec Ltd

Ad

A leaflet, for Rayotec solar panel systems, was headlined "solar Government Grant Available reduce your fuel bills whilst helping the environment free hot water free electricity". Text on the back of the leaflet stated "solar electricity The latest photovoltaic cell system producing free electricity …use what you need and SELL the excess to [the] National Grid".

Issue

The complainant challenged whether the claim:

1. "free electricity" was misleading and could be substantiated and

2. "SELL the excess to National Grid" was misleading and could be substantiated, because he believed the panels would not generate enough excess electricity to sell on.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

1. Rayotec pointed out that solar energy could be harvested for free and could be used, through different types of solar panel, to generate electricity or heat water. They also pointed out that the complainant had not objected to the "free hot water" claim, which, they believed, was based on the same principle as the "free electricity" claim.

2. Rayotec said their solar panel systems produced a surplus of electricity in instances where consumption fell below the level of solar generation. They sent details of several schemes run by major energy suppliers to buy back that surplus whenever it was produced.

Assessment

1. Not upheld

The ASA noted solar energy from a standard sized photovoltaic cell system could be used to generate electricity, which would on average account for a reasonable proportion of an average home's consumption. We understood that the electricity could be generated at no unit cost and therefore considered that such electricity could be regarded as 'free'. Although  it did not state the  cost of installing Rayotec's systems,  we noted the leaflet stated that government grants were available, indicating the need to pay a fixed installation cost. We considered that readers were likely to realise that fitting a system would incur an installation cost and because thereafter electricity could be generated at no cost, we concluded that the ad was unlikely to mislead.

On this point, we investigated the leaflet under CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness) but did not find it in breach.

2. Not upheld

We understood that, over a year, a photovoltaic system would not produce a net surplus.  However, we understood that it could generate a surplus at any point in time where consumption fell below the level of generation. Furthermore, we noted the evidence sent by Rayotec  showed that such surpluses could be routed back to the National Grid, through one of several 'buy-back' schemes operated by commercial energy suppliers. We therefore concluded that the claim was unlikely to mislead.

On this point, we investigated the leaflet under CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness) but did not find it in breach.

Action

No further action required.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)