ASA Adjudication on Paragon Associates

Ad

A radio ad, for Paragon Associates, said "I'm so angry. Dad died years back and Mum's just had to go into a home and now the local authority can enforce the sale of her house to pay for her care. That's money that could have given the grandchildren a good start in life. It's money she needn't have lost. Mum and Dad worked hard for it and we won't get any back, whether she's in care for a day, or a month, or a year".

Issue

Three complainants challenged whether the ad:

1. was misleading and could be substantiated and

2. unjustifiably played on fear.

Response

Saga 106.6FM said the ad had been presented in a serious manner because the issue of residential care had serious consequences for many people.  They asserted that more than 100,000 homes were sold by local authorities every year to cover the costs of care, whether the resident's stay was short or long term.  They argued that national press coverage of the issue had been much more alarming in tone than the ad.  They said Saga was careful when choosing what advertisers to work with and that they had confidence in the service provided by Paragon Associates.

Assessment

Complaint upheld

The ASA understood that local authorities had to disregard the value of a property for the first 12 weeks of a resident's stay in permanent care.  Furthermore, we understood that local authorities could agree to defer the charges by means of placing a legal charge on the property and that local authorities did not hold the total money from the sale of the property, but charged only for the outstanding amount accrued  for the term of a resident's care.  We considered that the claim "we won't get any back, whether she's in care for a day, or a month, or a year" implied that local authorities had the power to enforce the sale of a home as soon as someone entered residential care and that the local authority would keep the proceeds of that sale whether the person remained in care for a short or long time.  Because we understood that was not true, we concluded that the ad was misleading and unjustifiably played on fear.

The ad breached CAP (Broadcast) Radio Advertising Standards Code section 2 rules 3 (Misleadingness) and 16 (Superstition and appeals to fear).  

Action

The advertising must not be broadcast again in its current form.