ASA Adjudication on Clearview Home Improvements Ltd

Ad

A regional press ad for The Conservatory Outlet stated "... The government has introduced the Window Energy Ratings scheme. By using the same ratings system that items such as fridges and washing machines have been using for years, it is now possible to rate a window from any given installer. The finished window combination is independently tested, and awarded a rating from A to G. Those offering a C-rating or above have achieved the recommended threshold for energy saving as quoted by the Energy Saving Trust. So, if C-rated is energy efficient, how much better does an A-rated window perform? Well, its simple really. An A-rated window will not lose any heat whatsoever from your home. None. Zero. It's a little more complex than that, but the principle really is true …". The ad included a table entitled “Energy Window Clearview Home Improvements Synseal Synerjy PVC U Casement Synerjy 50 Energy Save A Rated Window”, which included columns headed “Energy Index (kWh/m²/year) (Energy Index certified by BRFC and based on UK standard window. The actual energy consumption for a specific application will depend on the building, the local climate and the indoor temperature)”, “Climate zone”, “Thermal Transmittance”, “Solar Factor” and “Effective Air Leakage”.

Issue

The complainant challenged whether the claim "An A-rated window will not lose any heat whatsoever from your home" was misleading and could be substantiated, because he understood that while heat loss could be significantly reduced, it could not be eliminated entirely.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

The Conservatory Outlet (CO) explained that the BRFC, the UK's national system for rating Energy Efficient Windows, operated a scheme which was recognised within the Building Regulations as a method to show energy efficiency for replacement windows installation.  They said Window Energy Ratings used a consumer-friendly traffic-light style A-G ratings guide similar to that used on white goods to help consumers make an informed choice about the energy efficiency of the windows they were looking to purchase.  

CO pointed out that the example of window used in the ad, an "A" rated window, had an Energy Index of "0", which indicated that, over a year, heat would neither be lost nor saved in the UK climate zone under the BRFC scheme.  They explained that, had they used a "C" rated window, the Energy Index figure would have been -15 to indicate that that window would lose 15 kWh/m²/year and alternatively, a window with a positive rating would indicate that it allowed more free heat to pass through the window into the home than would be lost from it in a year.  They said they also sold an "A" rated window with a rating of +2, which indicated that that window would allow energy to be gained at a rate of 2 kWh/m²/year.  In summary, they explained that an "A" rated window started at zero heat loss and, therefore, they felt that the ad fairly and reasonably presented a complicated subject in a way the public would understand it.

Assessment

Upheld

The ASA understood that the complainant was concerned because he believed it was not possible to achieve zero heat loss.  We also acknowledged that the BRFC Window Energy Rating scheme indicated a window's overall energy performance - the net heat loss over a year - taking into account heat loss and solar gain.   Therefore, an "A" rated window with an Energy Index rating of "0" achieved a stasis between the amount of heat lost from the window and the amount of solar heat gained over a year.

We considered that readers would understand that the claim "An A-rated window will not lose any heat whatsoever from your home" referred only to the amount of energy that could be lost directly through the window at any time.  We concluded, however, that the claim misrepresented the nature of an "A" rated window with a "0" Energy Index value, because it implied the window itself lost no heat whatsoever, whereas, more accurately, the amount of heat lost was counteracted by the amount of energy gained over a year.  We noted that the ad also stated "It's a little more complex than that, but the principle really is true" but considered that this was not enough to qualify the claim.

We concluded that the claim should be reworded to more accurately represent the performance of an "A" rated window and was likely to mislead in its current form.

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)