ASA Adjudication on BGR Bloomer

Ad

A radio ad for BGR Bloomer, a personal injury law firm, began with a man saying "I was working for a tyre fitting company. I was underneath a lorry, the jack collapsed. Basically the full weight of the lorry landed on my back". A voice-over then said "If you've been injured in an accident on the street, in a shop or at work and it wasn't your fault you could get compensation. Call BGR Bloomer on 0800 XXX XXXX. Their service is absolutely free. BGR Bloomer". The first man then said "I could phone them at any time, they were really professional" and the voiceover said "Fast, friendly and free. 0800 XXX XXXX".

Issue

1. Four listeners objected that the ad was misleading because it suggested that someone could survive the weight of a lorry falling on top of them. They believed that the testimonial was exaggerated and not genuine.

2. Another four listeners objected that the ad was misleading because existing safety regulations meant that the lorry would have been supported by additional steel axles or 'stools'. They believed that the personal injury claim described in the ad would not have been covered by the law firm because the accident described was as a result of the tyre fitter's negligence.

BCAP Radio Code

Response

1. BGR Bloomer (BGR) said the testimonial was accurate and that it was based on the genuine recollection of an accident experienced by a former client. They supplied a copy of the Accident Questionnaire completed by the individual featured in the ad as part of the personal injury claim.

Global Radio UK said they understood that the testimonial featured in the ad was genuine and that the ad been cleared by the Radio Advertising Clearance Centre (RACC) for broadcast.

The RACC said they took the view that the ad was simply illustrative of a workplace accident that might qualify for compensation.

2. BGR said the mere existence of safety regulations did not mean that employers necessarily complied with them and that in this case the defendant's insurers would not have settled the claim had the necessary regulations been followed by the injured individuals employers. They supplied evidence to demonstrate that the individual featured in the ad had received an insurance payment as a result of the accident.

The RACC said the ad stated that people could claim compensation if the accident was not their fault and that therefore a claim would be invalidated if the claimant was negligent.

Assessment

1. Not upheld

The ASA noted the testimonial was based on one of BGR's Accident Questionnaires which had been completed by an injured individual. We considered that the testimonial featured in the ad summarised the accident described in the insurance document and concluded that the ad was unlikely to mislead.

On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP (Broadcast) Radio Advertising Standards Code rules 2-3.1 (Misleadingness) and 2-18.1 (Testimonials) but did not find it in breach.

2. Not upheld

We acknowledged that the individual had received an insurance payment as a result of the accident described in the ad and that BGR had acted on their behalf. We concluded that the ad was unlikely to mislead as to the circumstances in which a claim might be successful.

On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP (Broadcast) Radio Advertising Standards Code rules 2-3.1 (Misleadingness) and 2-18.1 (Testimonials) but did not find it in breach.

Action

No further action required.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Broadcast)