1. Upheld

The ASA noted that the address of the cmRENT Chelmsford office was stated in large print at the top of the ad, and that the Chelmsford office telephone and e-mail contact details were provided at the bottom of the ad, and we therefore considered that consumers would understand the claim "cmRENT have let 331* properties since 4 January 2011" to refer to properties let by the Chelmsford office. We noted from the lettings schedule provided that the figure of 331 properties related to lettings made by both cmRENT's Chelmsford and Braintree offices since January 2011, and that the number of properties let by the Chelmsford office only since that date was significantly less than the 331 properties claimed in the ad. Because we considered consumers would understand the claim to relate to the Chelmsford office only, when that was not the case, we concluded that the claim was misleading.

On this point, ad (a) breached CAP Code (Edition12) rules 3.1 and 3.3 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation) and 3.11 (Exaggeration).

2. Upheld

For the reasons explained in point one above, we considered that consumers would understand the claim in the press ad (a) to refer to properties available to rent through the Chelmsford office only. We understood, however, that the figure of 35 properties stated in the ad referred to the total number of lettings available through cmRENT's Chelmsford and Braintree offices. We considered that, without any qualifying text that explained the basis for the number of available properties quoted in the ad, the claim in ad (a) was likely to mislead consumers.

We also understood that the number of available rental properties quoted in the Twitter feeds was the total for both the Chelmsford and Braintree offices. We noted that the Twitter feeds were sent from a generic cmRENT address and linked to the cmRENT website for both offices, and we considered that it would therefore be clear to consumers that the available rental figures referred to the total number of rental properties available across the cmRENT office network. However, we also noted that the claimed number of rental properties included properties that were under referencing or under offer, and were therefore not available to be viewed by consumers. We considered that, unless otherwise stated, consumers would expect the advertised number of rental properties quoted in the Twitter feeds to refer to the most up-to-date number of untaken or unreserved properties that were potentially obtainable by them. Because they did not we concluded that the claims in ad (b) were misleading.

On this point, ads (a) and (b) breached CAP Code (Edition12) rules 3.1 and 3.3 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation) and 3.11 (Exaggeration).