ASA Adjudication on Decidebloom Ltd

Ad

An ad in a free local newspaper was headed “Spring into your next car with Stoneacre Motor Group …” Bold text stated “NO Deposit available on all used cars. OR up to 5 Years 0% APR available. UP TO £500 cashback available on every purchase. FREE insurance subject to terms & conditions. Choose from OVER 300 USED CARS … in our Spring Spectacular.” A number of second-hand cars were pictured, including “07 REG Vauxhall Zafira Cash Price & Total Payable £5495, Customer Deposit NIL 260 weekly payments of £21.13 5 Years 0% APR”; “08 REG Renault Megane Cash Price & Total Payable £4495, Customer Deposit NIL, 260 Weekly Payments of £17.28 5 Years 0%APR” and “07 REG Citroen Picasso Cash Price & Total Payable £4495 Customer Deposit NIL 260 Weekly Payments of £17.28 5 Years 0% APR”. The text “Only £35 per year road tax” appeared in a roundel next to each car.

Issue

1. Two complainants challenged whether the advertiser could substantiate the claims that the cars featured were available at the advertised prices and with the finance offered.

2. The ASA challenged whether the roundels which stated "Only £35 per year road tax" were likely to mislead, because the basis of the claim was not qualified in the ad.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

1. Decidebloom Ltd t/a Stoneacre Motor Group (Stoneacre) said the advertising information was subject to change week by week and it was therefore difficult to supply an ongoing weekly schedule. They provided a list of the cars which they wished to feature in the ad which they had provided to their agency. They added that the cars were in group stock and that was clearly stated in the ad.

2. Stoneacre said that the £35 per year road fund licence was part of the offer; if a customer purchased a car, they would only pay £35 for one years tax.

Assessment

1. Upheld

The ASA acknowledged that the list Stoneacre had produced matched the vehicle and price details in the ad. Although we understood that the vehicles were held in group stock and might not have been available for purchase at that particular branch, but would have been available at a difference branch, we noted that we had not seen any other substantiation, such as order forms or invoices, which showed that the cars were available at any branch and had been sold at the advertised prices. We therefore considered that we had not seen sufficient evidence to support the claims in the ad and concluded that it was likely to mislead.

On that point, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1, 7.2 (Truthfulness) and 15.1 (Prices).

2. Upheld

We noted that we had not seen any evidence which showed that customers who purchased a vehicle would benefit from the £35 per year road tax" finance package. Because we had not seen sufficient evidence to support that claim, we concluded that the ad was likely to mislead.

On that point, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1, 7.2 (Truthfulness) and 15.1 (Prices).

Action

The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told the advertisers to ensure that any advertised vehicles were available for purchase at the advertised price.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)