The ASA was concerned by Morrisey Roofing Contractors Ltd's lack of response and apparent disregard for the Code, which was a breach of CAP Code (Edition12) rule1.7 (Unreasonable delay). We reminded them of their responsibility to respond promptly to our enquiries and told them to do so in future.

1. Upheld

The ASA noted that the website featured numerous images of roofing work under the headings “Just some of our work” and “Photos Of Our Work”. We noted that the complainant had challenged whether MRC could substantiate that the images were of their own work. We also noted that the complainant had claimed that reverse image software identified that the original sources of a significant number of the images were other websites not owned by MRC. We noted that rule 3.7 of the Code stated “Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation.” Because the website claimed that the images were of their own work, but MRC failed to provide any evidence that this was the case, we concluded that the claims were unsubstantiated and therefore misleading.

On this point the website breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 (Substantiation).

2. Upheld

We noted that the video on the home page of the website claimed that MRC had been trading for over 30 years. We considered that this was an objective claim capable of substantiation with documentary evidence. In the absence of this evidence we concluded that the claim was unsubstantiated and therefore misleading.

On this point the website breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 (Substantiation).

3. Upheld

We noted that the website stated that MRC were "approved by most local authorities”. We considered that this was an objective claim capable of substantiation with documentary evidence. In the absence of this evidence we concluded that the claim was unsubstantiated and therefore misleading.

On this point the website breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 (Substantiation) and 3.50 (Endorsements and testimonials).

4. Upheld

We noted that the gallery section of the website featured the logo of the BBA. We considered that this implied that MRC were members of the BBA. We noted that the complainant said they had checked the member search on the BBA’s website and could not find MRC listed as a member. We also checked the website and could not find MRC listed as a member, under any known trading name. We noted that under rule 3.7 of the Code the responsibility was on the marketer to provide documentary evidence in support of objective claims. In the absence of this evidence we considered that the implied claim that MRC were members of the BBA was unsubstantiated and therefore misleading.

On this point the website breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation) and 3.50 and 3.51 (Endorsements and testimonials).

5. Upheld

We noted that the website featured several testimonials. We also noted that Code rule 3.45 stated “Marketers must hold documentary evidence that a testimonial or endorsement used in a marketing communication is genuine, unless it is obviously fictitious, and hold contact details for the person who, or organisation that, gives it”. Because we had not seen evidence that the testimonials were genuine, we concluded that the website breached the Code.

On this point the website breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation) and 3.45 (Endorsements and testimonials).

6. Upheld

We noted that the website’s home page was headed with “Morrisey Roofing - Manchester, Bolton, Wigan, Preston”. We considered that without further explanation this text implied that MRC had offices in each of these places. We also noted that the website had specific home pages for the Manchester, Bolton and Wigan areas, and that each of these home pages featured the respective city name next to the MRC logo. We also noted that when clicking on the ‘Contact Us’ tab, from one of these location specific home pages, consumers were taken to a contact page that featured a local telephone number and a ‘head office’ address in Manchester. We considered that referring to a head office address on these pages implied that they had offices in Bolton and Wigan also. Because we had not seen any evidence that MRC had offices in these areas from which they worked, we concluded that implied claims were unsubstantiated and therefore misleading.

On this point the website breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 and 3.3 (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 (Substantiation).

7. Upheld

We noted that the home page prominently featured the logo of MMA Insurance. We considered that this implied that MRC were covered by MMA Insurance. We considered that this was an objective claim capable of substantiation with documentary evidence. In the absence of this evidence we concluded that the claim was unsubstantiated and therefore misleading.

On this point the website breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 (Substantiation).