ASA Adjudication on Eastern & Southern Electrical Connections Ltd
Eastern & Southern Electrical Connections Ltd
Unit 6c
Park Farm Business Centre
Fornham St Genevieve
Bury St Edmunds
Suffolk
IP28 6TS
Date:
22 February 2012
Media:
Direct mail
Sector:
Household
Number of complaints:
1
Complaint Ref:
A11-176453
Ad
A direct mailing for an electrical services company, received in October 2011, was headed "FREE SAFETY CHECK BE SAFE NOT SORRY" and “FREE WIRING SAFETY CHECK". Further text stated "FREE VISUAL ELECTRICAL INSPECTION We will be conducting electrical safety checks during the next few weeks in your postcode area. To qualify for this FREE check you must be the homeowner, and your property must be over 20 years old and not been rewired within the last 20 years. The check will take less than an hour and will not cause any mess. We will visually inspect your fuseboard, earthing and wiring installation to see if these meet the current Wiring Safety Standards and check if the wiring is in a sound condition generally. Any shortcomings identified will be detailed on our report, which will be given to you. You are not obliged to have any remedial work carried out that we may recommend ... PS. Book now for peace of mind"
Text over the page stated "This is a visual inspection only, without the usage of instruments and, as such, has limitations". A modern fuse box was pictured with a large green tick next to it. Three older style fuse boxes were pictured with red crosses next to them. Text stated "Old wiring Do you have the inconvenience and problems of having to replace fusewire or fuses when a fuse blows, rather than simply re-set a switch?"
Issue
The complainant challenged whether:
1. the claims "safety check" and "visually inspect your fuseboard, earthing and wiring installation to see if these meet the current Wiring Safety Standards" were misleading, because he did not believe that a visual safety check could identify whether electrical wiring was unsafe.
2. the red crosses next to images of older style fuse boxes misleadingly implied that older installations were likely to be unsafe and must be replaced.
CAP Code (Edition 12)
Response
1. Eastern and Southern Electrical Connections Ltd (ESEC) said the ad was designed to offer a free safety check to customers and that the offer was genuine and without obligation. They said customers who took up the offer would be visited by one of their electrical surveyors, who at present were all fully qualified electricians. They said they did use instruments in a limited way to clarify the nature of any problems in the electrical installation, but that the ad stated clearly the offer was of a visual inspection only.
ESEC said the claims "safety check" and "visually inspect your fuseboard, earthing and wiring installation to see if these meet the current Wiring Safety Standards" were factual claims explaining what the visual safety inspection involved. They said they aimed to make their advertising clear and communicate electrical issues in terms the average consumer would understand. They said after a visual inspection was carried out they would issue a check list to the customer covering 20 different items, and giving them a priority code 1, 2, 3 or 4 depending on whether they required urgent attention, improvement, further inspection or didn't meet current IEE Wiring Regulations (in this case the form stated "this does not necessarily imply that the electrical installation inspected is unsafe"). They said this form had been in use for a number of years and had previously been approved by the Electrical Contractors Association (ECA). They said ESEC were assessed to install electrical installations in domestic properties in accordance with Wiring Regulations and were registered with ELECSA, part of the ECA.
2. ESEC said the depiction of red crosses next to older style fuse boxes was designed to help customers identify the kind of consumer unit in their property, and therefore assist them in deciding whether a visual inspection was appropriate. They said the ad depicted a modern consumer unit, which complied with the current Wiring Regulations, and three examples of older type consumer units, which did not comply with the current Wiring Regulations.
Assessment
1. Not upheld
The ASA noted the complainant was concerned that a visual inspection of an electrical installation would not be able to identify whether the electrical wiring was unsafe. We considered the ad did emphasise the safety message by stating "FREE SAFETY CHECK BE SAFE NOT SORRY" and "PS. Book now for peace of mind". We considered the ad made clear that the inspection being offered was a visual one only by stating "FREE VISUAL SAFETY INSPECTION". We also considered the letter clearly explained what parts of the installation would be inspected by stating "We will visually inspect your fuseboard, earthing and wiring installation to see if these meet the current Wiring Safety Standards and check if the wiring is in a sound condition generally." We also noted text on the back of the letter stated "This is a visual inspection only, without the usage of instruments and, as such, has limitations". We considered that, although consumers receiving the letter were unlikely to have in depth electrical knowledge, they were likely to be aware that a purely visual inspection would have limitations, and the content of the ad reinforced this.
We noted the Electrical Safety Council (ESC) considered a visual inspection by a competent person was able to identify the condition of some parts of an electrical installation, but not all. We also noted they recommended consumers had a Full Periodic Inspection, as opposed to a purely visual inspection, and they considered an accurate assessment of an existing electrical installation could only be achieved by having a Full Periodic Inspection and Test. We also noted Wiring Safety Standards were not intended to be retrospective, and that just because an installation did not comply with these standards it did not mean it was unsafe.
Because a visual safety inspection was able to identify the condition of some parts of an electrical installation, and the ad made the limitations of the inspection clear, we concluded that the claims were not misleading.
We investigated this point under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 and 3.3 (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 (Substantiation) but did not find it in breach.
2. Not upheld
We noted the complainant was concerned that depicting red crosses next to images of older fuse boxes implied that older installations were likely to be unsafe and should be replaced, as he did not believe that was the case. We noted ESEC said that using the crosses in this way was designed to assist consumers in determining whether they were eligible for a free inspection, and noted the page was headed "Should I request a FREE VISUAL WIRING INSPECTION?". We considered the ad did imply that older fuse boxes might be less safe and that consumers may wish to consider replacing them as it also stated "Old wiring Do you have the inconvenience and problems of having to replace fusewire or fuses when a fuse blows, rather than simply re-set a switch?". We considered consumers would be aware of these differences between older and newer fuse boxes. We noted the ESC considered that installing a Residual Current Device would improve the safety of an installation, and an older style fuse box would not offer this protection, but that this does not necessarily mean than an older style fuse box was unsafe. We also noted Wiring Safety Standards were not intended to be retrospective, and that just because an installation did not comply with these standards it did not mean it was unsafe. We considered the ad implied customers may wish to consider replacing their older style fuse boxes for reasons of convenience and safety, but that it did not imply all older style fuse boxes were unsafe. We therefore concluded that the ad was not misleading.
We investigated this point under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 and 3.3 (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 (Substantiation) but did not find it in breach.
Action
