ASA Adjudication on Mobility Clearing House Ltd

Ad

A national press ad, for mobility scooters, was headlined “MOBILITY SCOOTER SCRAPPAGE SCHEME”. Text below stated “Is your mobility scooter over two years old? If so … YOU ARE ENTITLED TO CLAIM £1,500 worth of scrappage vouchers today! TO CLAIM YOUR VOUCHERS CALL FREE ANYTIME … ”. Smaller text stated “SCRAPPAGE VOUCHERS CAN BE REDEEMED FOR A LIMITED TIME AGAINST THE PURCHASE OF ANY NEW MOBILITY SCOOTER OR POWERCHAIR FROM PARTICIPATING RETAILERS THROUGHOUT THE UK. TERMS AND CONDITIONS APPLY”.

Issue

Charterwood Mobility challenged whether:

1. the ad was misleading, because they believed it implied the "scrappage scheme" was independently run and vouchers could be redeemed against products other than those offered by the advertiser; and

2. the £1,500 discount was genuine.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

1. Mobility Clearing House Ltd (MCH) said they believed the ad made clear that the vouchers were redeemable only at participating retailers.

2. MCH submitted examples of the vouchers, which included terms and conditions, and said the £1,500 discount was genuine; they believed the ad was not misleading.

Assessment

1. Upheld

The ASA considered the ad made clear the vouchers were redeemable only at participating retailers. However, we noted the ad did not explain which organisation issued the vouchers or who the participating retailers were. We noted the complainant believed the vouchers were issued by MCH and could be redeemed only against their products.

We considered the ad, in particular because it did not identify the advertiser and included the text " ... SCRAPPAGE SCHEME ... " and " ... THROUGHOUT THE UK ... ", was presented in such a way that it implied the scheme was run by an independent organisation. It was likely to be interpreted as suggesting that the vouchers could be redeemed against products other than those offered by the advertisers company or group of companies.

We noted we had not seen evidence that the vouchers were valid against products other than those offered by the advertiser and considered the ad did not make sufficiently clear it was a marketing communication placed by MCH. We concluded that the ad was misleading.

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 and 7.2 (Truthfulness) and 22.1 (Recognising marketing communication and identifying marketers).

2. Upheld

We noted the terms and conditions of the vouchers stated " ... YOUR SCRAPPAGE VOUCHER ALLOWANCE IS BASED UPON THE PRODUCT PURCHASED ... YOUR ALLOWANCE WHEN PURCHASING A NEW SCOOTER OR POWERCHAIR IS AS FOLLOWS: 4 MPH PORTABLE SCOOTER - £500/ 4 MPH NON PORTABLE SCOOTER - £1,000/ 6 MPH PORTABLE OR NON PORTABLE SCOOTER - £1,200/ 8 MPH PORTABLE OR NON PORTABLE SCOOTER - £1,500/ ANY POWERCHAIR - £250".

We considered the ad did not make clear that the discount offered was "up to" £1,500 and therefore the full reduction advertised was not available to all consumers. Moreover, we noted we had not seen any evidence that consumers had achieved the £1,500 discount advertised. We were concerned it was not a genuine discount. We concluded that the ad was misleading.

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

Action

The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told MCH to ensure future marketing communications were designed and presented in such a way that it was clear they were marketing communications. We also told them not to exaggerate likely savings and to ensure they held documentary evidence to demonstrate that advertised discounts were genuine.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)