ASA Adjudication on Simple Solar Ltd

Ad

A national press insert, for a solar hot water system from Simple Solar, claimed " ... Simple Solar - 'Lets [sic] keep it simple' Don't get baffled with science, Simple Solar have the facts and the price that matters. Our panels use the latest photovolactic [sic] solar technology, so it doesn't need to be sunny to work, you just need daylight! ...". A section headlined "Reasons to choose Simple Solar" stated " ... Improves water pressure ... Pays for itself within 3 to 5 years 'OR YOUR MONEY BACK'. this relates to a family of two adults and two children living a regular day to day life ... Up to 100% off your summer water heating bill average over the year 80% 'OR YOUR MONEY BACK' ...". The ad included a diagram of how the system worked; text stated "Solar Simple water heating ... Delivers hotter water ... Even heats water on cloudy days ...".

Issue

The complainant:

1. thought the claims "it doesn't need to be sunny to work, you just need daylight!" and "Even heats water on cloudy days" were misleading, because he asserted that solar systems did not heat water sufficiently for domestic use on cloudy days;

2. challenged whether the claim "Improves water pressure" could be substantiated; and

3. challenged whether the claim "Up to 100% off your summer water heating bill average over the year 80% 'OR YOUR MONEY BACK' could be substantiated, because he believed solar systems provided little productive heat on cloudy days and in winter, and therefore thought the claim of 80% savings over the year was exaggerated.

The ASA challenged whether Simple Solar could substantiate the claims:

4. "Delivers hotter water"; and

5. "Pays for itself within 3 to 5 years 'OR YOUR MONEY BACK'".

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

1. Simple Solar quoted dictionary definitions of "sunny" and "cloudy" and said they challenged anyone to prove it was incorrect that their panels only needed daylight to produce hot water.

2. They explained that the system improved water pressure by fitting an extra pump to the gravity flow.  They argued that, unless the force of the pump was less than that of the gravity pull, water pressure would be improved.  However, they did not send evidence to show that was the case.

3. Simple Solar said customers would not have to pay for any hot water used in the summer months unless it was for central heating.  They also said if customers' water bills were not reduced by 80% they would receive a full refund and the system would be removed.  They did not send evidence to prove their assertions.

4. They said their system could deliver water up to 85 degrees centigrade; therefore if customers' existing systems could not provide water at that temperature, Simple Solar could "deliver hotter water".

5. They said if their system did not pay for itself within three to five years, a full refund would be provided and the system would be removed.  They sent no evidence to show the system paid for itself within three to five years when used by a family of two adults and two children.

Assessment

The ASA reminded Simple Solar that the onus was on them to prove their claims were true; the burden of proof did not rest with the complainant.

We were also disappointed that Simple Solar had taken six weeks to respond in writing to us, despite having received several reminders to do so.  We told them to respond to our enquiries promptly in future.

1., 2., 3. & 5. Upheld

Because Simple Solar had sent no documentary evidence to substantiate the challenged claims, we concluded that they were unproven and therefore misleading.

4. Upheld

We considered it was unclear from the ad whether Simple Solar's system delivered "hotter water" than conventional water heating systems or other solar systems, but in the absence of qualification readers were likely to infer that the system would provide hotter water than that of their existing system.  We noted Simple Solars argument that their system could deliver water up to 85 degrees centigrade which could be hotter than customers' existing systems but considered, without qualification, the claim "delivers hotter water" did not make this argument clear.  Because it was possible that readers' existing systems could already deliver water up to 85 degrees centigrade, we considered Simple Solar's system would not always provide "hotter water" and the claim, without qualification, was therefore likely to mislead.

On points 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness).

Action

The ad must not appear again in its current form.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)