ASA Adjudication on Simple Heating Solutions

Ad

A regional press ad for electric heaters had the headline "Sensational Heating From Germany With Astonishing Energy Saving Capabilities ...". Text underneath stated "German engineering has made huge advances in developing powerful, economic heating with excellent control but an incredible breakthrough came when they discovered how to make 'electric' heating Astonishingly economical to run! ... Surely now, with the cost of fuel it's time for us to consider a change in the way we think and heat our homes ... The heating is so well designed that many, or all of the problems associated with heating are in the past! All that mess on installation - finished with! All the extra cost for servicing and upkeep - GONE! ... In appearance, these slim-line heaters look just like central heating radiators but that's just where the similarity with traditional heating ends. Their performance is just REMARKABLE and the potential for low running costs and energy conservation is ASTOUNDING! Amazingly, you need no special electric tariff for economical running, just the normal supply and a standard plug socket. With individual control over every single room 24 hours a day, you could for instance, only heat a room when it's in use or have heaters timed to come on just minutes before you intend to use the room. This flexibility alone will enable you to have ABSOLUTE control over your running costs and the savings would be evident ... Remarkably, this heating isn't expensive! Yes, it costs more than a convector or oil filled radiator, but for a cost to rival any central heating system of economy 7 system you could do the whole house and probably still be quids in! Add onto that the potential for low running costs and we FIRMLY believe NO other heating comes close! ... There is no time to waste, fuel costs money! We can't afford any more to persist with inefficient heating using old technology...".

Issue

The complainant challenged whether:

1. the ad misleadingly implied that the product would be cheaper to run than a conventional gas heating system, and

2. the ad, and in particular the reference to "energy conservation", misleadingly implied that the product would be less harmful to the environment than conventional central heating systems.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

1. Simple Heating Solutions (Simple Heating) said the ad did not directly state that their product would be cheaper to run than any other form of heating, rather that they "believed" that no other heating came close. They said they had previously taken CAP Copy Advice on a similar claim and therefore considered that the claim was acceptable.

Simple Heating pointed out that gas central heating incurred additional costs, such as installation, servicing, repair and the electricity needed to run the system. They said their heating system plugged in without the need for installation and was a low to no maintenance system. They said, over the last 17 years, not one of their products had been returned faulty or for repair to the manufacturer. Simple Heating said the convenience of simply plugging the system in, combined with the fact that it did not need an annual service or replacement parts, showed that it was miles ahead of the major upheaval and running costs associated with conventional types of heating. They provided estimates of the service and running costs of a gas central heating system and a 1 kW heater.

2. Simple Heating said, with conventional central heating systems, the whole system had to be either on or off at the same time, which meant that rooms that were not in use were often heated. They said that represented a huge amount of unnecessary heating and wasted money. Simple Heating said, because their heaters plugged in, consumers only had to heat the room that was in use.

Simple Heating said greener forms of heating was a government objective and they provided a 2005 leaflet from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, which they said stated that around 16% of the carbon dioxide produced by the UK came from the gas and oil boilers used to heat the home. Simple Heating argued that, because their products ran off electricity, it was right for now and the future. They said the system did not emit toxins into the environment and that customers could get a green energy tariff from their energy supplier. Simple Heating said the product's fast warm up time, the fact that it stored and dispersed heat long after the unit had stopped drawing on the electricity supply and the ability to move the product around the home, were energy saving capabilities. Simple Heating argued that greater control over the heating used in each room equated to greater control of fuel bills. Simple Heating explained that their heaters had a larger surface area than standard UK radiators, which meant that they were efficient heat distribution units. They said their heating system was 100% efficient because all of the energy was converted into heat or stored at the same time. Simple Heating provided copies of letters from some of their customers, which they said showed that the product was effective and saved people money.

Assessment

1. Upheld

The ASA noted Simple Heating's response, and we acknowledged that the claim "we FIRMLY believe NO other heating comes close" was a subjective claim that was likely to be understood by consumers to be an expression of the advertiser's opinion. We considered, however, that the claims "Astonishingly economical to run",  "Their performance is remarkable and the potential for low running costs ... is astounding!", "Absolute control over your running costs and the savings would be evident" and "...for a cost to rival any central heating or economy 7 system you could do the whole house and probably still be quids in! Add on to that the potential for low running costs..." were objective claims that strongly implied that the heating system would be cheaper to run than a conventional gas central heating system, and that were capable of substantiation. We also considered that consumers would understand those claims to refer to the day-to-day running costs of the heating system, rather than to installation or repair. We understood that domestic electricity prices were more expensive than gas prices per kilo watt hour (kWh), and we also understood that any savings would be dependent on the age and efficiency of the gas central heating system, the number of electric heaters used to replace that system and the length of time both heating systems ran per day. We therefore did not consider that it was necessarily the case that the advertiser's electric heating system would be cheaper to run than gas central heating when providing similar amounts of heat for the home. Because we had not seen robust, comparative evidence that demonstrated that the product was cheaper to run than gas central heating, we concluded that the ad was misleading.

On this point the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 19.1 (Other comparisons).

2. Upheld

We noted Simple Heating's response. We considered that the claims "Astonishing Energy Saving Capabilities", "the potential for ... energy conservation is astounding" and "We can't afford any more to persist with inefficient heating using old technology" implied that the heating units would provide a significant energy saving benefit, and we noted that we had not seen evidence that demonstrated that the products were 100% efficient or that they converted all the energy they used into heat emitted from the unit.

We also noted Simple Heating's argument that the units did not emit toxins and that customers could choose to have their electricity supplied through a green energy tariff. However, we considered that, while the electric heaters might not produce emissions themselves, the production of the electricity required to power the units would result in the emission of pollutants at source, and we also understood that the nature of green energy tariffs varied depending on the supplier. Because we had not seen robust evidence that showed that the electric heaters were energy efficient, or that they would be less harmful to the environment than conventional gas central heating, we concluded that on this point the ad was misleading.

On this point the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness), 191. (Other comparisons) and 49.1 (Environmental claims).

Action

The ad must not appear again in its current form.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)