ASA Adjudication on Home Inspector Training Ltd

Ad

An ad in the local press for a Home Inspector training course stated "Up to 2 million properties being sold every year are starting to need Home Information Packs which must include an Energy Assessment carried out by a newly trained Home Inspector or Energy Assessor. Thousands of these new professionals are needed and thousands more will be needed next year when Government requires another 1.6 million properties being let to also have Energy Assessments. This provides new, lucrative and interesting career opportunities and people are urgently needed now to train as Home Inspectors in their spare time. No previous surveying experience is required. Fee earning expectations are £80 to £120 for Energy Assessments and £200 to £300 for optional Home Conditional Reports that can also be included in the packs. Up to 15 Assessments or 6 Reports are anticipated to be carried out in a week, depending on size of properties and supply. Applicants should apply now for a limited number of training places with the UK's only national Home Inspector training organisation ... Its course is unique, subsidised and usually done in spare time [sic] as it consists of 7 separately bookable weeks taken over up to 10 months ... On qualifying you are awarded the Government's ABBE Home Inspector Diploma and can carry out Energy Assessments and Home Condition Reports on your own or be available for potentially carrying these out for Home Inspector Training's in-house Home Information Pack providing company and qualify for a course subsidy".

Issue

1. Some complainants challenged whether the ad was misleading because it exaggerated the earnings potential for Home Inspectors.

2. Some complainants challenged whether the ad was misleading because it implied that the subsidy would mean lower course fees.

3. One complainant challenged whether the ad was misleading because it did not make clear that being available to work for Home Inspector Training's in-house company, and therefore qualify for a subsidy, entailed a four-year commitment.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

1. Home Inspector Training Ltd (Home Inspector) said they had been careful not to exaggerate earnings by not stating any weekly, monthly or annual earnings, by only quoting fees for each individual Energy Assessment or Home Condition Report, and by making clear that these fees were only "expectations". They argued that they had quoted conservative figures below what their own Home Information Pack (HIP) Providing Company had been paying since the inception of the HIP legislation in August 2007. Home Inspector said the figure of "£80 to £120 for Energy Assessments" quoted in the ad was below the £100 to £160 their HIP Provider had paid their Energy Assessors since August and that they had no plans to reduce that fee. They said despite that they had revised that amount in a more recent version of the ad to '£60 to £100' taking into account very early market trends.

Home Inspector explained that the figure of "£200 to £300 for optional Home Condition Reports" given in the ad was what their HIP Provider had been paying since August. They said they expected to increase that fee shortly because of supply and demand pressures caused by a shortage of Home Inspectors.

Home Inspector said, now that hundreds of Energy Assessments and Home Condition Reports had been carried out, they were able to establish that it took up to two hours to carry out an Energy Assessment and up to five hours to carry out a Home Condition Report, depending on the size of the property. They explained that that included average travelling time and associated paperwork. Home Inspector argued that they had been careful in the ad to state "up to" regarding the number of Assessments or Reports that could be carried out each week, and by quoting only figures that would take 30 hours in a whole week. For example, they quoted "up to 15 Assessments" at two hours each and "or 6 Reports" at up to five hours each, both of which totalled only 30 hours. Home Inspector pointed out that the ad stated that those figures were dependent on both the size of the property and the "supply" of enough Energy Assessments or Home Condition Reports to be carried out.

Home Inspector submitted a copy of a report from the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) on the 'Number of Home Inspectors required from Introduction of Home Information Packs'. They explained that the DCLG report concluded that between 1.5 and 2 Home Condition Reports could be carried out per day by home inspectors, which equated to between 7.5 and 10 Home Condition Reports per week. Home Inspector argued that, by stating "up to ... 6 Reports are anticipated to be carried out in a week" in their ad, they had not exaggerated the number of Reports that could be carried out, but had actually provided a conservative number based on government figures.

Home Inspector explained that there was no similar government information relating to Energy Assessments, because the government had initially planned for those to be undertaken as part of the Home Condition Report. Home Inspector said, however, that their experienced in-house assessors had carried out a detailed analysis of the component parts of an Energy Assessment to assess how long those would take, compared to a Home Condition Report. Home Inspector provided a copy of that analysis, which they said showed that an Energy Assessment took slightly under two hours to complete, including travelling time and associated paperwork, and that around 20 could be carried out in a forty-hour week. They argued they had been conservative in the ad by only stating that "up to 15 Assessments" could be undertaken per week.

2. Home Inspector explained that the subsidy reduced the course fee by £4,000. They said, if selected for training, trainees had the option of either paying the full price for the course (£10,800 for 37 days training), in which case they could work for whoever they liked, or they could opt to pay £6,800 with the rest of the fee subsidised by Home Inspector's HIP Provider, in which case they needed to be available to work some of the time for that HIP Provider. Home Inspector submitted copies of invoices, which showed that some of the trainees registered on their course had paid the full price for that course. They also submitted invoices that showed that other trainees had paid the subsidised price for the course.

3. Home Inspector said the ad made clear that, on qualifying, trainees could either work on their own or "potentially" work for their HIP Provider and receive a subsidy. They said that, because the latter was not compulsory they did not go into more detail, and that it was not possible to in a small ad. Home Inspector said everything was explained to potential trainees in a 45-minute, one-to-one interview and that no one was offered training on the spot. They said potential trainees were also required to sit an aptitude test and would be informed whether they had been offered a training place some time after the interview process. They said that, if interviewees were offered a training place, they would be required to visit the Home Inspector centre a second time, in order to go through the details of the training on a one-to-one basis again before finally signing up for the course.

Home Inspector said they went to great lengths to ensure that trainees clearly understood the nature of the training course before they committed to it. They explained that part of the information given during the initial 45-minute interview was about the subsidy. They said potential trainees were informed that if they opted for the subsidised course fees they must be available to carry out a certain number of Energy Assessments or Home Condition Reports for their HIP Provider for four years. Home Inspector explained that, during those four years, assessors and inspectors could also work on their own or for other HIP providers, providing they carried out work for their own HIP Provider when called upon to do so. Home Inspector said Assessors or Inspectors could end this arrangement at any time by repaying the subsidy. Home Inspector said that a more recent version of the ad now contained the wording "full details will be given at interview".

Assessment

1. Not upheld

The ASA noted that Home Inspector had used qualifying text such as "expectations", "up to" and "anticipated" in the ad. We also noted that the ad made clear that those fee-earning estimates were dependent on the size and supply of properties. We understood that Home Inspector had based their figures relating to the number of Reports that could be carried out each week on the numbers stated in the DCLR report, and we acknowledged that the estimate of "up to 6 Reports" made in the ad was lower than the government's projections. We also understood that there were no similar government figures for Energy Assessments. However, we recognised that Home Inspector had taken steps to assess the time input of an Energy Assessment, and that that analysis had been carried out by an experienced Energy Assessor. We noted that that analysis took into account an assessor's travelling time and the time taken on post-visit administrative work, as well as the length of time it took to carry out the actual property inspection. We acknowledged that the figure of "up to 15" Assessments given in the ad was lower than the 20 Assessments per 40-hour week estimated by Home Inspector on the basis of their in-house analysis. We also noted that earnings figures quoted in the ad were below those actually paid to Home Inspectors and Energy Assessors by their HIP Provider. Because of that we concluded that on this point the ad was unlikely to mislead.

On this point we investigated the ad under CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 52.2 (Employment and business opportunities) but did not find it in breach.

2. Not upheld

We noted that the invoices submitted by Home Inspector showed that some trainees had opted to pay the full course fees. We also noted that Home Inspector had provided documentation that showed that, during the same period, other trainees had paid the course fees at the subsidised rate. We acknowledged that the invoices showed that those trainees had paid £4000 less than the trainees who had opted to pay the course fees in full. We recognised that the ad stated "Its course is ... subsidised", and considered that most people would not necessarily expect the course fees to be low as such, but that instead they would merely expect Home Inspector Training to subsidise the cost. We considered that the lower subsidised course fees offered by Home Inspector's HIP Provider were genuine, and concluded that on this point the ad was unlikely to mislead.

On this point we investigated the ad under CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) but did not find it in breach.

3. Not upheld

We noted the ad stated that qualification for the subsidy was dependent on trainees agreeing to be available to work for Home Inspector's in-house HIP Provider after they had completed the course. We acknowledged Home Inspector's argument that further details of the subsidy, and the employment commitment it entailed, were explained to candidates during their first interview and again at their second interview. We recognised that, although required to be available to work for Home Inspector's HIP Provider for four years after they had qualified, trainees could also work on their own or for other HIP Providers during that period. We also acknowledged that a more recent version of the ad included text that stated "full details will be given at interview". We considered that Home Inspector had taken steps to ensure that potential trainees were made fully aware of the conditions of employment attached to the course subsidy before they committed to taking up a place on the training course: readers of the ad would be aware that qualifying for a subsidy entailed a commitment to being available to work for Home Inspector's in-house HIP provider, and that it was reasonable for interested candidates to find out during an interview that that commitment was for four years. We therefore concluded that on this point the ad was unlikely to mislead.

On this point we investigated the ad under CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness) but did not find it in breach.

Action

No further action necessary.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)