ASA Adjudication on Belmont Thornton Ltd

Ad

A regional press ad, for Belmont Thornton, a claims management company, was headed "Have you taken out a loan or credit card in the last 10 years? Does your bank owe you £2,500?". Text underneath stated "Did you know, that if you have taken out a loan or credit card then you are probably entitled to claim for Mis-sold Payment Protection Insurance or over the limit Credit Card Charges? Call us today, it takes minutes to start your claim. Our service is strictly no win no fee, and could earn you £000's ... 'The money was in my account after only 4 weeks' NO WIN NO FEE!". Further text stated "Applies to Loans and Credit Cards with the following banks ...", which was followed by a list of high-street banks including Barclays.

Issue

Barclays Bank plc (Barclays) challenged whether:

1. the ad misleading implied that any consumer with a loan or credit card would be able to claim money back, whereas they understood that only those consumers with Payment Protection Insurance and those who had incurred default fees on their credit cards may be eligible to make a claim;

2. the claim "The money was in my account after only 4 weeks" misleadingly implied that successful claims would be resolved within four weeks;

3. the ad denigrated Barclays;

4. the claims "Our service is strictly no win no fee" and "NO WIN NO FEE" were misleading, because the ad did not make clear that other costs were likely to be incurred.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

1. Belmont Thornton (Belmont) said the only reference to any potential claim was in relation to Payment Protection Insurance and credit card charges, which they believed was made clear in the body copy claim "if you have taken out a loan or credit card then you are probably entitled to claim for Mis-sold Payment Protection Insurance or over the limit Credit Card Charges". They did not believe that the ad implied that any consumer with a loan or credit card would be able to claim money back.

2. Belmont said the claim The money was in my account after only 4 weekswas a customers testimonial and they supplied the ASA with documentary evidence to show that it was possible for claims to be resolved within that period of time. They did not believe that the quote implied that all successful claims would be resolved within four weeks.

3. Belmont said the ad listed 12 major high street banks or lenders all of which they had successfully claimed against. They provided documentary evidence of those claims. They said that listing the companies was relevant to their service. They did not believe that it denigrated Barclays.

4. Belmont said that no costs were incurred by unsuccessful claimants. They said the only other cost would be if a client cancelled a claim after 14 days. They said that that fee was explained in their Terms of Engagement, which all clients had to sign.

Assessment

1. Upheld

The ASA noted that the headline claim "Have you taken out a loan or credit card in the last 10 years?" was qualified in the main body of the ad, which referred to Mis-Sold Payment Protection Insurance and over the limit credit card charges. However, we considered that the use of "probably" in the claim "Did you know, that if you have taken out a loan or credit card then you are probably entitled to claim for Mis-sold Payment Protection Insurance or over the limit Credit Card Charges?" gave the impression that anyone who had taken out a loan or credit card was entitled to claim. We considered that the ad did not make sufficiently clear that only those consumers who had purchased Payment Protection Insurance with their loan, or incurred over the limit charges with their credit card, had any likelihood of claiming. Because the ad implied that all loan and credit card holders were almost certainly able to claim, we concluded that on this point the ad was misleading.

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 11) clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 and 7.2 (Truthfulness).

2. Upheld

We noted the claim The money was in my account after only 4 weeks!was a testimonial, and also noted from the documentary evidence that a number of claims had been settled within that time span. However, we considered that it was unclear from the ad that, although possible, it was not usual for settlements to be made within four weeks, and we considered that consumers might therefore expect that four weeks was the typical length of time taken to resolve a claim and receive any monies due. Because we understood that was not the case, we concluded that the claim gave a misleading impression of the time taken to resolve a claim.

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code ( Edition 11) clauses 7.1 and 7.2 (Truthfulness) and 14.3 (Testimonials).

3. Not upheld

We noted Barclays was listed with 11 other high-street banks and lenders and understood that it was a requirement for consumers to have a loan or credit card with one of those companies in order for Belmont to pursue a claim on their behalf. We considered that it was therefore necessary for that important condition to be included in the ad. We noted from the documentary evidence that Belmont had made successful claims for their clients against the bank and therefore considered that it was reasonable for Barclays name to be included in that list.

We noted that that was the only mention of Barclays in the ad and considered that consumers were unlikely to believe that it was a comment on the bank's reputation, but was simply highlighting the main banks and lenders with whom they needed to have a loan or credit card in order for Belmont to act for them. We concluded that, because there were no claims referring to Barclays other than listing them amongst those banks and lenders required for Belmont to take on a clients case, the ad had not denigrated them.

On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code (Edition 11) clause 20.1 (Denigration and unfair advantage) but did not find it in breach.

4. Upheld

We considered that consumers would understand the claims "NO WIN NO FEE!" and "strictly no win no fee" to mean that clients would be liable for no costs whatsoever, but we understood that a fee applied if a client cancelled their claim after 14 days. Because there was a potential cost involved if a client decided not to pursue a case, we considered that the ad should have made clear that a client would be liable for certain costs. Because this qualification to the claims "NO WIN NO FEE!" and "strictly no win no fee" was not included, we conclude that the ad was misleading on this point.

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 11) Clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 and 7.2 (Truthfulness).

Action

The ad must not appear again in its present form.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)