ASA Adjudication on Belron UK Ltd

Ad

A radio ad and a TV ad for Autoglass Ltd:

a. The radio ad stated, "There are lots of reasons why a chipped windscreen could ruin your day ... a customer last week had left a little chip because he thought nothing of it, but when he put his car in for his MOT; fail. That little chip stopped the car passing ... He called Autoglass directly and I went out and repaired the chip ... He still had to waste more time and money retesting his car but at least he now knows to call the experts at Autoglass the moment he sees a chip ... Don't let a chip cost you your MOT".

b. The TV ad stated, "If there's a chip on your windscreen, it could be the difference between your car passing its MOT and failing. Why risk that hassle and expense? Call the experts at Autoglass directly and we’ll normally repair the chip without replacing the screen ... Don't risk failing your MOT. Call Autoglass". The ad depicted a car, which had a chip on the windscreen on the driver's side, failing an MOT. Later an Autoglass repairer fixed a similar chip for a different customer. The repair demonstration showed the chip being covered in a gel-like substance and then appearing to disappear.

Issue

Glass Doctors challenged whether:

1. radio ad (a) was misleading because it implied Autoglass fixed windscreen chips in vehicles that had failed an MOT;

2. the claim, "Call the experts at Autoglass directly and we'll normally repair the chip without replacing the screen" in TV ad (b) was misleading, because only chips under a specific size could be repaired, depending on their position on the screen.

3. Glass Doctors, in relation to both ads, and two members of the public, in relation to ad (b) only, challenged whether the advertiser misleadingly implied that any windscreen chip would result in MOT failure.

BCAP Code

Response

Autoglass said the message of the ads was to draw motorists attention to the potential hazards in ignoring windscreen damage and that repair was a fast, more effective and efficient alternative to windscreen replacement. They explained that windscreen damage in particular zones and of a certain diameter would result in MOT failure. They said they complied with British Standard AU242A (the British Standard) which proscribed repairing windscreen damage in some circumstances. They said, because they complied with the British Standard, they only repaired damage that was, in itself, not sizeable enough to cause MOT failure. They said they still considered repair the preferable option because, if left unattended, the damage could spread and become a reason for MOT failure.

Autoglass acknowledged that the scenario described in ad (a) of a windscreen being repaired after the car had failed its MOT, did not accurately reflect the action they took in those circumstances. They said they withdrew the ad after three days due to this concern and had no intention of using that particular language again. Notwithstanding this, they considered the message of ad (a), when taken in its entirety, was not materially misleading or detrimental to motorists, because it was better to have damage checked before risking failing an MOT.

Autoglass said they had only limited time in both ads to get their message across and therefore could not explain the different types and sizes of damage that could and could not be repaired within the limits set by the British Standard. Autoglass said the ads did not imply they repaired all damage regardless of position or size. They said they were not always able to repair damage, which was why the ad said "Well normally repair the chip without replacing". They claimed qualified language was used throughout ad (b) to draw attention to the potential dangers of not attending to windscreen damage.

They provided a spreadsheet that showed, over a 10-month period, the number of jobs they originally classified as windscreen replacement jobs and glass repair jobs. The information also showed the number of times the nature of the work was switched from windscreen replacement to repair glass and vice versa.

They said they had not implied that any chip would result in failure and pointed out that ad (b) stated "Why risk that hassle and expense" and "Dont risk failing your MOT". Autoglass believed the language used was appropriately qualified so that motorists would understand they were being alerted to a potential, rather than a certain, danger.

The RACC, in relation to ad (a), endorsed Autoglass response. They believed the average motorist would be aware of the effect of windscreen chips on MOT outcomes and therefore, taken as a whole, ad (a) was not materially misleading.

Clearcast said ad (b) claimed Autoglass would "normally" repair damage which did not mean they would always do so. They also said the ad claimed chips "could" result in MOT failure, but did not make an absolute claim that all chips would.

Assessment

1. Upheld

The ASA noted Autoglass complied with the British Standard and, as a consequence, if a chip was large enough to result in MOT failure, they would not repair it. Notwithstanding their argument that it might be in motorists own best interest to have damage inspected prior to an MOT test, we considered that listeners would infer from the ad that Autoglass repaired chips that had caused MOT failure. Because we understood this was not the case, we concluded that the ad was misleading.

On this point ad (a) breached BCAP Code rules 3.1 and 3.2 (Misleading advertising), 3.9 (Substantiation) and 3.10 (Qualification).

2. Not upheld

We noted ad (b) stated Autoglass would "normally" repair glass damage and considered viewers would not infer from the claim that Autoglass would always repair damage in all circumstances. We acknowledged the British Standard advised against repair in some circumstances. We noted it was Autoglass policy to follow the recommendations of the British Standard. We also noted the spreadsheet submitted by Autoglass showed that in the majority of cases when they classified a job as glass repair work, this was the action they took. Although we noted a small percentage of glass repair jobs were later converted to windscreen replacement jobs, we also noted a small percentage of jobs were converted in the opposite direction. Because it was Autoglass policy to repair glass damage within the recommendations of the British Standard and we had seen evidence demonstrating this was their practice, we concluded that the ad was not misleading.

On this point we investigated ad (b) under BCAP Code rules 3.1 and 3.2 (Misleading advertising), 3.9 (Substantiation) and 3.10 (Qualification) but did not find it in breach.

3. Not upheld

We noted ad (a) claimed a chipped windscreen "could ruin your day". We also noted ad (b) claimed "if" a windscreen was damaged, it "could" result in MOT failure. We concluded that both ads sought to alert motorists to the potential dangers of not having damage checked but neither ad implied that every chip would result in MOT failure.

On this point we investigated ads (a) and (b) under BCAP Code rules 3.1 and 3.2 (Misleading advertising), 3.9 (Substantiation) and 3.10 (Qualification) but did not find either ad in breach.

Action

Ad (a) should not appear again in its current form. No further action necessary for ad (b).

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Broadcast)