ASA Adjudication on Dunn Motor Traction Ltd
Dunn Motor Traction Ltd t/a
yourbus
Heanor Gate Industrial Estate
Heanor Gate Road
Heanor
Derbyshire
DE75 7RJ
Date:
19 October 2011
Media:
Leaflet
Sector:
Holidays and travel
Number of complaints:
1
Complaint Ref:
A11-156921
Ad
A leaflet, for a bus company, in April 2011, was headlined "thank you! from your local bus company". Text below stated "Thanks for supporting us over the past 12 months. It's just over a year since we started operation on the Y36 and we've gone from strength to strength during this time to offer you a reliable, friendly, affordable way from Chilwell and Beeston to the City Centre. We operate just as many departures as our competitor and by catching us you'll keep bus fares low on this route ... It's worth knowing that we're a local family company. Unlke our competitor, we're not funded by the tax payer. We're a private company that is passionate about providing your community with a a friendly dependable service". Large text at the bottom of the leaflet stated "y36 Chilwell - Beeston - QMC - City every 10 mins, 7 days a week".
Issue
Nottingham City Transport (NCT), who operated a service on the same route, challenged whether the following claims were misleading and could be substantiated:
1. "We operate just as many departures as our competitor", because they believed that their own service ran more frequently;
2. "we're not funded by the tax payer", because they understood that the advertiser also benefitted from public money; and
3. "we're a local family company", because they understood that the advertiser had the support of a larger, national company.
CAP Code (Edition 12)
Response
1. Dunn Motor Traction (DMT) said, when the leaflet was designed, both they and NCT operated the Y36 and 36 services every 10 minutes from Monday to Saturday daytimes and both services were registered as “frequent” services with the Traffic Commissioner. They explained that a “frequent” service was one that operated every 10 minutes or better and for which the operator did not have to publish a timetable, just the minimum frequency of arrivals. They said, from 27 March 2011, NCT increased their service to operate up to every 7/8 minutes from Monday to Saturday daytimes.
2. DMT said they did not wish to comment on this point.
3. DMT said their company had been founded in April 2009 by Bob and Scott Dunn after they had been involved for the previous three years with a Birmingham-based company called Rotala PLC (Rotala). They said Scott Dunn had been MD of Rotala’s subsidiary, Diamond Bus. DMT said some of their current management had previously worked at Diamond Bus and subsequently helped set up DMT before going to work there full-time. They said DMT had never been part of Rotala and was a completely independent company. They said, when some of DMT’s current management had been employed by Rotala they had learnt about vehicles that were being sold and that they had taken steps to buy what they considered to be good vehicles from Rotala, when they had the opportunity.
DMT said they had now withdrawn the leaflet and did not intend to use it again.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA considered that the claim "We operate just as many departures as our competitor" was a claim capable of robust substantiation with a comparative analysis of recent timetable and punctuality data for the services offered by both DMT and NCT and which showed that both companies offered the same number of departures. While we noted DMT’s explanation of the registered frequency of both services we noted that we had not seen evidence of that registration, or any timetable and punctuality data. In any case, we noted that DMT were aware that, from 27 March 2011, NCT increased their service and operated more departures than DMT. We concluded that the claim had not been substantiated and was misleading.
On this point the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation) and 3.33 (Comparisons with Identifiable Competitors).
2. Upheld
We noted the complainant’s concern that the claim was inaccurate because they believed that the advertiser benefitted from a grant and concessionary fare income provided from public funds. We noted that we had explained those concerns to DMT and had encouraged them to provide information about what, if any, public money they received but that they had not done so. In the absence of that information we were unable to determine whether the claim that DMT were not funded by the tax payer had been substantiated and therefore concluded that it was misleading.
On this point the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 (Substantiation).
3. Upheld
We noted that the complainant believed that the advertiser had links with a bigger transport company called Rotala from which it had obtained vehicles and systems, and therefore that DMT could not reasonably describe itself as a “local, family company”. We noted that, again, we had explained the complainant’s concerns to DMT and had provided them with detailed guidance as to how they might wish to respond. We noted however that, while they had provided some background information and asserted that they were independent of Rotala, they had not provided the level of explanation or evidence that we had requested in order that we could come to an informed view on the relationship between the two companies. In the absence of that, we concluded that the claim that DMT were a small, family company had not been substantiated and was misleading.
On this point the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 (Substantiation).
Action
The ad must not appear in its current form.
