ASA Adjudication on The Eco Patch

Ad

A circular, for the Thermoflow fuel conditioner device, was headlined "FUEL PRICE INFORMATION" and discussed ways of saving on fuel costs. Text stated "This communication is to draw your attention to the fact that it is possible to save much more by fitting a small ionising unit to the fuel feed pipe on your heating system. This will enable more heat to be obtained from the same amount of fuel, thus enabling you to turn the thermostat down again and save an average of 5% - 15% over the course of the winter, more in the case of an oil fired system … it is entirely self-supporting, needing no electrical connection and is 'always on' therefore working to reduce the amount of fuel being burnt every time your boiler fires up. This is proven technology that carries a full 90 day money back guarantee … Overleaf you will see a diagram and a couple of testimonial [sic] from the many that are held on file." The testimonials included claims about customers’ reductions in gas consumption.

Issue

The complainant, an investigative journalist, challenged whether the device could reduce fuel consumption and cut bills as claimed.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

The Eco Patch ("Eco Patch") said that the Thermoflow system worked by conditioning fuel prior to combustion by using magnets to manipulate the surrounding magnetic field.  They believed this meant the fuel would be used more efficiently and generate higher temperatures from a given amount of fuel.  Eco Patch sent an example from a test conducted in 1996 that showed the temperature of a boiler flame on a system with Thermoflow generated heat 17 degrees celsius greater than that of a conventional system.  That test stated that it was conducted by a large steel manufacturer but the advertisers were unable to provide us with a full copy of that test or tell us the name of the manufacturer that commissioned the test.  Although they were unable to provide us with definitive evidence of how the system worked, Eco Patch maintained that the test showed that the Thermoflow system allowed fuel to be used more efficiently and generate more heat.

To support the claim "save an average of 5%-15% over the course of the winter", Eco Patch sent examples of their personal domestic gas bills for 2008, which showed a saving of £241.72 on an average bill of £500 per annum.  Eco Patch said they had contacted their energy provider and were told that their bills were "low" when compared with standard energy prices.  In addition, they sent further testimonials from individuals and commercial businesses who claimed to have saved between 10% and 20% on their gas prices.

The advertiser stated that the ad made clear that consumers could save "up to 15%" on their energy bills and that most readers would understand this would fluctuate depending on personal domestic consumption. Although the advertiser acknowledged that testimonial evidence alone might not be sufficient substantiation, they maintained that all customers who used the system saved money on their bills and reasoned that very few systems were uninstalled which they believed was a testament to customer satisfaction with the product.  Eco Patch also made clear that they operated a 90-day money back guarantee which meant that no customer lost money as a result of the installation of the system.

Assessment

Upheld

We understood that the Thermoflow system operated a process called Ionisation by Magnetic Induction (IMI) which claimed to condition fuel prior to its combustion so it used fuel more efficiently.  However, we had seen no evidence to support that it improved energy efficiency by reducing consumption or data to clarify how the Thermoflow system and its magnetic field operated.  We acknowledged the test Eco Patch sent concerning the effect Thermoflow had on temperature but because they were unable to send us a copy of the test or cite its source, we considered that it was insufficient substantiation for the advertised claims.

We noted Eco Patch had sent us examples of personal gas bills which they said demonstrated they had been able to make savings after installation of the Thermoflow system.  However, we did not consider this evidence or the supporting testimonials were a sufficient basis on which to make a general savings claim.  We noted the advertisers were unable to provide us with comparative evidence to show that all consumers, irrespective of their energy provider or tariff, would have lower energy prices as a result of using the device.  Although we acknowledged Eco Patchs contention that the claim was pre-fixed with "up to" to indicate to readers that 15% was the highest amount that could be saved, we noted that the claim stated that savings could be made from 5% to 15% and considered that they had not provided evidence to show consumers would save a minimum of 5% on their bills.

We also acknowledged the advertisers assertion that testimonial evidence showed that consumers were happy with the product and its efficacy. However, we noted that the CAP Code stated that evidence in support of testimonials should be supported with "independent evidence" which the advertisers were unable to provide.

We considered that most readers would interpret the claim "save an average of 5% - 15%," without further qualification, to mean that all consumers could save money on their energy bills by using the Thermoflow device and most would expect to save between 5% and 15%. Because Eco Patch did not provide robust, independent evidence to show that was the case, we concluded the ad was likely to mislead.

The ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness), and 14.3 (Testimonials and endorsements.)

Action

The ad must not appear again in its current form.  We told Eco Patch that they should ensure they held robust evidence to support any savings claims before publication.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)