ASA Adjudication on The Property Care Association

Ad

A leaflet, distributed by a trade organisation to its members to use as promotional material, showed two construction workers, one labelled "Cowboy" and "Wanted by the constabulary" and the other labelled "PCA Member" and "Preferred by everyone". Next to the first man was a box with text that stated “Reliable? Not really, likely to head off into the sunset at the first hint of a problem. Qualified? Certificate from the school of hard knocks. Thought to be good with horses. Trusted? You must be joking - just ask the Sheriff. Stable? The horse lives in it. Competent? Lack of training but believes he can muddle through. Approved? By who - take a close look at any certificates offered. Guaranteed? You will have to rope them in and hold them to their word.” Next to the second man was a box with text that stated "Reliable? PCA contractors have to work to a strict code of conduct and obtain and maintain their membership of the PCA. Qualified? All members are qualified to an approved level. The PCA offers industry recognised training to members that is the best in its class. Trusted? The PCA is a member of the Government's Trust Mark scheme, designed to help householders find a reliable tradesman. Stable? Through the PCA Promise, the Association will ensure work is carried-out if a contractor member ceases trading. Competent? Strict criteria for PCA membership ensures peace of mind. Training and regular audits means workers' skills are challenged and kept up to date. Approved? The PCA stamp of approval is a gold plated badge of quality and service. Guaranteed? All PCA contractors are insured and committed to honour their guarantees. Additional long-term FSA-backed Guarantee Protection Insurance is available."

Further text stated "Cowboy or PCA member - who are you going to call? Cowboys blight the building preservation industry - hitting the hearts and pockets of customers. But there is no need to panic, as householders and organisations looking for a quality job can call on contractors who are members of the Property Care Association (PCA) for a job well done."

The reverse stated "Cut out the cowboy and make the right choice - choose a PCA contractor for damp-proofing and timber preservation, structural maintenance and structural waterproofing, wood preservation, damp proofing, flood remediation and structural maintenance projects."

Issue

A PCA member challenged whether:

1.  the ad denigrated non-members (up to 90% of the building preservation industry) by suggesting that they were cowboys and criminals;

2.  the claim that all members were insured was misleading, because although it was a condition of membership, proof of insurance was not demanded from members on an annual basis,

3. the claim "FSA-backed Guarantee Protection Insurance is available" was misleading, because the FSA did not endorse any such schemes;

4.  the claim that all members were "qualified to an approved level" was misleading because PCA did not offer vocational qualifications in many of the services mentioned (structural maintenance, flood remediation or structural maintenance projects) and had no control over or knowledge of members' qualifications;

5.  the claim that members' skills were "kept up to date" was misleading, because PCA offered no training to existing members; and

6.  the claim "Preferred by everyone" was misleading, because PCA members formed only 10% of the industry.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

PCA said they had produced the leaflet for distribution to the general public by members who were specialist contractors working in the damp-proofing, structural waterproofing, structural repair and maintenance and flood remediation sectors.  

1.  PCA said the anti-cowboy theme followed a government-backed campaign to raise homeowners' awareness that trained and qualified contractors could be chosen over those whose credentials were unproven.  They argued that it was a recurring theme in the construction industry, and sent an ad by another organisation in the building industry that referred to cowboys.  They believed that the leaflet did not denigrate non-members and pointed out that it did not state that all contractors, apart from PCA members, were cowboys or that they were all incompetent.  They said, in their view, the light-hearted text beside the picture of the cowboy made the point that there were some tradesmen who purported to have certain standards but did not, and that the ad alerted the homeowner to that: "Approved? By who - take a close look at any certificates offered."  

2.  PCA said it was a requirement of membership that contractors had a range of insurances including Professional Indemnity insurance.  They explained that contractors who applied for membership had to meet a number of criteria and their insurances were checked.  Once in membership, a biannual audit would take place, in which a member's premises were visited by the Regional Support Officer who would undertake a review of the company, including health and safety, record keeping, quality of work, maintenance of standards, training of personnel and existence of insurances.  They therefore considered that it was not necessary, and had limited resources, to additionally check insurance certificates for each member each year.

3.  PCA explained that Guarantee Protection Insurance (GPI) was an FSA-regulated insurance company, that stated on its website that it was authorised and regulated by the FSA.  They said they used the word "backed" to illustrate that GPI was a regulated insurance company.  

4.  PCA said a criterion for membership was that contractors must demonstrate competence through attainment of a relevant qualification.  They said they provided training and examinations in relevant subjects, but that where there was no qualification available, for example in flood remediation, PCA would consider evidence that proved attainment of competence to a minimum standard, which could be provided in the form of reports and meetings with the surveyors concerned.        

5.  PCA sent a copy of their prospectus, which detailed the types of training and qualifications they offered.  They said they kept a database of individuals who passed the qualifications and added that, as well as the provision of a comprehensive training programme that offered discounted rates to members, members' skills were kept up to date by a variety of means that were freely available.  They included a technical helpline populated by a panel of experts, ten member meetings a year at which technical and topical subjects were presented and discussed, an Annual Conference with a programme of technical and business subjects, downloadable technical documents on the PCA website, a team of Regional Support Officers with wide experience in the technical aspects of members' work who offered advice and guidance during their visits, and a Deputy Director who was involved in standards development for British Standards (BSI) and was available to discuss matters of technical interest.  PCA also said they were recognised by the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) as a continuing professional development (CPD) provider and CPDs on two subjects were scheduled to be delivered in 2009, their manufacturer members provided training which gave contractor members up to date current product information, and their consultant members offered training and could be called upon to advise on technical matters.  

6.  PCA said the phrase "preferred by everyone" was intended to suggest that everyone would prefer a trustworthy, competent and professional contractor, and they considered that to be a reasonable statement.  They believed the fact that PCA represented only a small proportion of companies in building preservation was irrelevent.

Assessment

1. Not upheld

The ASA noted the leaflet stated "Cowboy or PCA member - who are you going to call?" and "Wanted by the Constabulary".  We also noted, however, it went on to claim "Cowboys blight the building preservation industry - hitting the hearts and pockets of customers.  But, there is no need to panic, as [people] looking for a quality job can call on contractors who are members of the ... PCA for a job well done".  We considered that readers would not infer from the leaflet that every non-member was a cowboy or a criminal, but, rather, would understand that certain companies might lack scruples and credentials and consumers might, therefore, prefer to choose a PCA member.  We concluded that the references to cowboys and criminals were not denigratory to non-members.

On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code clause 20.1 (Denigration and unfair advantage) but did not find it in breach.

2.  Not upheld

We noted PCA Regional Support Officers carried out a biannual audit of members premises which included a check for the existence of insurance certificates.  We were satisfied that members insurance status was verified on a regular basis and concluded that the claim "All PCA contractors are insured" was not misleading.

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

3.  Upheld

We noted the complainants points that not all contractors offered Guarantee Protection Insurance (GPI) and that the FSA did not "back" any form of insurance.  We considered that the claim "additional long term FSA-backed Guarantee Protection Insurance is available" made it clear that that type of insurance was not automatically included.  We understood from the GPI website that it was authorised and regulated by the FSA, which meant its finances and solvency underwent regular checks, and, if the FSA had any doubts about on-going solvency, they would put GPI into a "run-off situation", where it would have to run-off guarantees that were already in force over the next 20 years, meaning that, in GPIs opinion, it would be impossible for anybody who had taken out a policy with GPI to lose out financially.  Although consumers would, in our view, be likely to feel that FSA regulation of that type was beneficial, we considered that they would understand from the claim "FSA-backed" that the FSA would be held responsible in the event of any financial problems with GPI.  Because that was not the case, we concluded that the claim was likely to mislead.         

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

4.  Not upheld  

We noted, in certain areas of work, PCA would administer the training and examinations themselves and in other areas where there was no qualification available they would assess evidence of competence to a minimum standard from written reports and meetings.  We considered that readers would not infer from the claim "qualified to an approved level" that members held specific qualifications or that the qualifications were necessarily offered by PCA themselves, but would understand that members needed to demonstrate a certain level of competence in their particular field.  Because we understood that was the case, we concluded that the claim was unlikely to mislead.

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

5.  Not upheld

We noted the complainant believed PCA offered no training for existing qualified members in the form of CPD or refresher training.  We also noted, however, the prospectus supplied by PCA described a range of courses available to both members and non-members including several aimed at people with previous experience and training.  We noted, furthermore, members could draw on training resources such as downloadable documents, a technical helpline and training and advice from members with particular areas of expertise.  We noted PCA was part of the RIBA CPD providers network and had committed to prevent CPD seminars in 2009.  We considered PCA had provided adequate evidence to show that members skills could be kept up to date, and concluded that the claim was not misleading.

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

6.  Not upheld

We considered readers would view "Preferred by everyone" in relation to the claim "Wanted by the Constabulary" next to the image of the cowboy.  We considered therefore, that they would not see it as indicating that a majority of customers used PCA members, but, rather, that everyone would prefer a PCA member to the "cowboy" described in the ad.  We concluded that the claim was unlikely to mislead readers about PCAs significance within the industry.

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

Action

On points 1-2 and 4-6, no further action was necessary.

On point 3, we told PCA not to use the claim "FSA-backed" in future ads that referred to GPI.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)