ASA Adjudication on RSPCA

Ad

A TV ad, for the RSPCA pet re-homing service, featured a woman at home with her pets. She said “Our pets bring such laughter into our lives, the least we can do is make sure that they're properly looked after if anything should happen to us. Too many cats and dogs are left homeless after their owners pass away. That's why the RSPCA have a free service called 'home for life'. It means the RSPCA will do all it can to find a new loving home for your pet if you should die. It's free, it’s simple and it gives you peace of mind. So with 'home for life' you can sit back and enjoy all the wonderful moments you spend with your pets. Reward a lifetime of love and laughter with a home for life. Whether it's for you or for someone you know, just call 0800 ... for a free information pack …”

Issue

The complainant challenged whether the ad was misleading, because it did not make clear that animals might be put down if they could not be re-homed or were deemed unsuitable for re-homing.

BCAP TV Code

Response

The RSPCA explained they were a charity that sought to re-home all animals that came into their care, because they believed that long-term confinement in RSPCA shelters was potentially mentally damaging to animals.  They said the Home for Life scheme existed specifically to take on bereaved animals and find them new homes.

The RSPCA said the TV ad did not state, either explicitly or implicitly, that all pets that came to them under the scheme would definitely be re-homed.  They believed the inclusion of full details of their re-homing policy had to be balanced against the potential for those details to cause unnecessary distress to viewers.  The RSPCA said they believed the phrase "... the RSPCA will do all it can to find a loving home for your pet if you should die" achieved that balance.  

The RSPCA explained that the ad was a precursor to the dissemination of further information about the scheme and believed the tone of the ad was in keeping with that objective.  They said those members of the public who responded to the ad were sent a "Peace of Mind" booklet, as well as other information.  The RSPCA sent the ASA a copy of their "Peace of Mind" booklet and a copy of their re-homing policy and practice guidelines.  They pointed out that the booklet included the phrase "... we'll do our best to look after your beloved pets, and do everything we can to find them loving new homes."  The RSPCA said the booklet also stated "Rehoming [sic] of animals will fall in line with RSPCA rehoming [sic] policies and practices, which are available on request" but pointed out that their policies and practices were guidelines only; they explained that each case was considered individually and told us that they re-homed approximately 70,000 animals each year.  The RSPCA believed the inclusion of full details of their terms and conditions in the ad had the potential not only to distress viewers, but also to give the misleading impression that their re-homing policy was comprised of definitive and inflexible rules and procedures.    

The "Rehoming [sic] requirements" section of the re-homing policy and practice guidelines stated "No animal with a known serious medical history will be rehomed [sic], unless specifically agreed with the new owner and on veterinary advice; nor will an animal, considered to have an unsound/ aggressive temperament or deemed to be unsuitable for any other reason, be rehomed [sic].  The general condition of animals offered for adoption is important.  All too often when an animal with known problems is rehomed [sic] the new owner is faced with expensive veterinary fees which he/she finds difficult to pay".

The RSPCA explained their interpretation of those guidelines: they did not unnecessarily prolong the lives of sick or injured animals that came into their care under the scheme, but there were circumstances where potential new owners were willing to take on a terminally ill animal.  If an animal's behaviour was deemed unsound or aggressive when initially assessed, the animal underwent behavioural training. In many scenarios, the animal could be re-trained to an extent where it was re-homable, but if the animal was severely distempered and could cause harm to the new owner, it would not be re-homed and the RSPCA might have to make a decision about whether it should be euthanased.

The RSPCA said they sheltered healthy animals until a home was found for them; cost was not a determining factor in how long they sheltered animals.  They explained that they were proactive in seeking new homes for animals: they advertised in local newspapers and media to raise the profile of their centres and occasionally moved animals around the country, because re-homing figures could sometimes fluctuate by region and by time of year. They said that when an animal was in their care for a prolonged period they would monitor its wellbeing to ensure it was not suffering mentally.  The RSPCA explained that they sought to prevent suffering of any kind, but in the rare circumstances where an animal had not been re-homed and was deemed to be suffering, they had to make decisions based on the well-being of the animal; that could sometimes involve making a decision about whether the animal should be euthanased.  In spite of that, the RSPCA told the ASA that animals were usually re-homed quickly and none of the animals taken in under the Home for Life scheme had been put down; all had been successfully re-homed.  

The Broadcast Advertising Clearance Centre (BACC) said they reviewed the terms and conditions of the RSPCA re-homing policy as part of the clearing process.  They had noted, in certain extreme, and therefore uncommon, circumstances, it may be difficult to re-home a pet.  The BACC therefore requested that the voice-over be amended to state "the RSPCA will do all it can ...".  They believed that statement indicated that there may be instances in which a pet could not be re-homed.  The BACC disagreed that the ad was misleading; they argued that it merely informed viewers of a free service offered by the RSPCA and invited them to find out more.

Assessment

Not upheld

The ASA noted the comments of the RSPCA and the BACC.  We also noted the ad included a freephone telephone number and a website address where viewers could obtain further information about the scheme.  

We considered that viewers were likely to understand the statement "the RSPCA will do all it can ..." to mean that efforts would be made to re-home an animal wherever possible, but we considered that they would also understand that there might be instances where animals could not be re-homed because of behavioural or health problems, for example.  We understood that the RSPCA would not put an animal down merely because a home could not be found for it.  We also understood, however, that the RSPCA acted with an animals best interests in mind.  We noted that, if an animal became mentally ill through a prolonged period of confinement, they had to make a decision about whether to end its suffering.  The only further circumstances where an animal that came to the RSPCA under the Home for Life scheme might theoretically be put down were if it was physically suffering because of serious or terminal illness (although we noted new owners were sometimes willing to take on terminally ill animals) or if it was aggressive and could cause harm to others (although we noted adverse temperament was often successfully addressed with behavioural training).  We nevertheless noted no animals that had come to the RSPCA under the Home for Life scheme had been put down and all had been successfully re-homed.

We noted the objective of the ad was to raise awareness of the pet re-homing service and also noted a free information pack was available.  We considered that the decision of pet owners to have their animal re-homed in the event of their death was not likely to be taken lightly and that would make them more likely to study the follow-up literature.  We noted the literature made clear in the "Rehoming [sic] requirements" section, that it was possible that some animals would not be re-homed.  We considered that most viewers would expect conditions to be attached to the re-homing of a pet and therefore concluded that the ad, which merely introduced the free re-homing service and invited viewers to find out more, was acceptable.  Because it was highly unlikely that animals that came to the RSPCA under the Home for Life scheme would be put down and, if they were, it would be to relieve their suffering or to avoid them causing harm to others, we considered that it was not necessary for the ad to refer to the potential for animals to be put down.  

We investigated the ad under CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 5.1 (Misleading advertising) and 5.2.3 (Qualifications) but did not find it in breach.

Action

No further action necessary.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Broadcast)