ASA Adjudication on Norwood Interiors Ltd

Ad

A TV ad, for Norwood Interiors, stated in on-screen text “Free Fitting” and “Free fitting available. Restrictions apply”. The voice-over stated “… Norwood’s summer sale. Free fitting on everything”.

Issue

A viewer challenged whether the ad was misleading, because it appeared from a quote he received that an extra charge for fitting had been included.

BCAP TV Code

Response

Norwood Interiors (Norwood) explained that the company offered a cash discount equivalent to the fitting costs for all projects undertaken during the promotion.  They said all quotations would include installation, but the discount applied would always be, at the very minimum, the cost of fitting.

Clearcast said they approved the ad on the basis of assurances from Norwood that customers would not be charged a fee for fitting.  They submitted samples of contracts from actual sales, which showed that, although a charge for fitting was included in the breakdown of costs, the final price payable was discounted to remove it.

Assessment

Upheld

The ASA understood that the complainant had been given one quote that was inclusive of fitting charges and another, lower quote for supply only if he wished to employ his own fitters.  He, therefore, challenged if fitting was actually "free" as stated in the ad.

We noted the sales data from four examples submitted showed that those customers' initial quotes included the cost of fitting, but that a discount had been applied to the total amount, which resulted in the price payable being reduced by an amount greater than the stated charge for fitting in all cases.  The accompanying documents completed by the agent conducting the sale stated that the sale price payable allowed for all special offers and discounts, and one explicitly stated that a "free fit discount" had been applied.  We considered, however, that those examples were insufficient to demonstrate that fitting was free for all customers who approached Norwood during the promotional period.  In addition, Norwood were unable to explain to our satisfaction why the complainant was offered two prices: one with fitting included and a lower charge to arrange fitting himself.

We concluded that the "free fitting" claim had not been substantiated and could, therefore, mislead.

The ad breached CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 5.1.1, 5.1.2 (Misleading advertising) and 5.3.1 (Accurate pricing).

Action

The ad must not be broadcast again in its current form.  We reminded Norwood to ensure that appropriate evidence was held to support all advertising claims.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Broadcast)