1. Not upheld

The ASA noted that BMV said  the reference to a "Hands free investment" was made because the property was fully managed by the in-house development management company, which dealt with all aspects of letting and servicing the property, including finding tenants. We considered that members of the public would understand a "hands free investment" to be one with which they did not need to actively manage or be involved.

We considered that the involvement of an in-house management company meant that customers would not need to be actively involved with their investment, and the statement in the ad "Fully Let, Fully Managed & Fully Serviced" supported that impression and was not misleading.

On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 (Substantiation) but did not find it in breach.

2. & 3. Upheld

We noted that BMV stated that it did not take a deposit to reserve or secure a property, and that a finance company provided short-term bridging loans of up to 100% financing, subject to customer status and property valuation. BMV said that the ad contained the statement "Subject to Lender & Status", and that finance availability in property purchase transactions was always subject to the applicant's own circumstances and credit status.

We considered that the ad text "No deposit required" did not make sufficiently clear to consumers the financial arrangement into which they would potentially enter if they purchased a property. The ad did not refer to the need for those who opted to seek 100% finance to enter into an arrangement with a finance company for a short-term bridging loan to obtain finance for the purchase. We considered this arrangement meant the traditional deposit which the ad said was not necessary was in reality replaced with a bridging loan

Although we considered that consumers might understand that the potential availability of property purchase finance was normally subject to valuation and borrower circumstances and credit status, we also considered that the ad was not sufficiently clear about the method of obtaining 100% finance which was being offered. We considered that the ad should have clearly stated both the relationship of BVM with the credit provider, and that the offer of finance was based on an initial short-term bridging loan. We noted that a bridging loan was a secured loan and similar, in that sense to a mortgage. However, we considered that the need for a bridging loan represented a significant condition of which consumers should have been made aware in the ad. We further considered that the ad, which described the property throughout as an investment opportunity, should have made clear that the loan would be a buy to let bridging loan, rather than a residential bridging loan or any other type of loan.

We concluded that the use of the phrase "No deposit required" was misleading and that the absence of reference to the short-term bridging loan in connection with the statement "100% Finance Available" was misleading.

The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 3.1 and 3.7 (Misleading advertising).

4. Upheld

We noted that BMV said its market valuation was estimated, and based on recent market sales and land registry entries. BMV provided evidence which showed properties sold between 2008 and 2011. We considered that properties sold during 2008 achieved a market value of £100,000, but that more recently properties sold for amounts significantly less than £100,000.  We concluded that the use of an estimated market value figure in the ad, when used together with the text "Fantastic 25% Discount. Instant Equity of £25,000" was misleading, and the reference to a current market value of £100,000 in the ad was unsubstantiated.  

The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 and 3.7 (Misleading advertising).