ASA Adjudication on Electro Warm (UK & NI) Ltd

Ad

A leaflet for storage heaters was headlined "Plug in and warm up". Text beneath the headline stated "Innovative storage heating; better for you, your wallet and the environment. Plug in and warm up!" The leaflet featured a numbered list under the subheading "Heating with electricity offers considerable advantages". Point five on the list stated "Overall lifetime costs (Initial investment, maintenance, running costs) lower than other systems". Another list on the reverse of the leaflet, headlined "Advantages", included text that stated "Lower heating costs than other systems - much cheaper than night storage!"

Issue

The complainant challenged whether the claims

1.  "Lower heating costs than other systems - much cheaper than night storage!" and

2.  "better for you, your wallet and the environment" were misleading and could be substantiated.

3.  The ASA challenged whether the claim "Overall lifetime costs (Initial investment, maintenance, running costs) lower than other systems" could be substantiated.

CAP Code

Response

1.  Electro Warm explained that the largest radiator they sold weighed 65 kg and had a maximum storage input of 2.5 kilowatts (kW).  They compared that product with a heater sold by one of their competitors, which weighed 157 kg and had a maximum storage input of 3.4 kW.  They argued that, because their product required a lower input than their competitor's product, it would cost less to run.  They said their product could work on off-peak or on-peak tariffs and asserted that their competitor's product required both.  They argued that, if their product was used on an off-peak tariff only, it would be cheaper to run than products that used electricity at off-peak and on-peak rates.  They said they offered a ten-year guarantee with a promise to exchange any damaged component for free or to replace the heater entirely, but said their competitor only offered a two-year guarantee, after which customers would be required to pay for servicing.  They sent a press release from their competitor which they believed showed that electric heating was cheaper than gas.  They argued that, because their system was cheaper than their competitor's, it was the cheapest system overall.

2.  Electro Warm asserted their heating system was better than other currently available products because:

~  it could be installed without major disruption to the home;

~  it was easy to use;

~  it did not require a boiler, so there was no risk of poisoning or environmental damage by defective, leaking boilers;

~  the combination of radiant and convected heat was healthier;

~  their competitor's product needed a booster at daytime rate running at 3.4 kW to restore a room's temperature if windows were opened, but Electro Warm's radiators only needed an input of 2.5 kW for 15 minutes within any 60-minute period to provide an hour's heating;

~  there were no hidden costs beyond sales and installation cost;

~  there were no service or maintenance charges;

~  its lower storage input ensured a lower contribution to carbon emission;

~  unlike older night storage heaters, their product did not contain asbestos or nickel;

~  the product was easily used with renewable energy sources, such as wind turbines or solar power;

~  unlike other storage heaters, their product did not produce carbon dioxide during usage;

~  night heaters baked a heating block overnight, so that the next day's heating had to be decided the day before, which could lead to waste if there was a sudden change in outside temperature that required either a booster operating at a more expensive day tariff or the opening of windows to let out excess heat.

3.  Electro Warm asserted that, for an average three-bedroom terrace house requiring five heaters, no more than £3,000 would be spent on Electro Warm radiators.  They argued that the initial investment needed for gas or solid/liquid oil heating systems, added to mandatory annual cleaning and maintenance costs and the rising cost of gas and oil, resulted in higher overall lifetime costs.

Assessment

1.  Upheld

The ASA noted Electro Warm's comments.  We considered that, without evidence to show that the products compared had a similar heat output, Electro Warm had not demonstrated that they had compared their product with their competitor's most similar heater.  We did not consider that a comparison with one other product was sufficient to substantiate the claim and were concerned that Electro Warm had not provided comparative data on the cost of currently available heating systems.  We did not consider that a longer guarantee or a press release could demonstrate that Electro Warm's product cost less than other heating systems.  We did not see evidence that showed Electro Warm's product could run on off-peak electricity only, or that other heating systems could not do so as well.  We reminded Electro Warm of their responsibility to hold evidence in support of all claims capable of objective substantiation.  We concluded that the claim was misleading.

2.  Upheld

We noted that Electro Warm had not provided comparative data to demonstrate that their radiators required less input to deliver the same amount of heat to a room or that their radiators could respond more quickly to changes in outside temperature than other systems.  We noted that no new storage system currently available would include asbestos.  We did not consider that Electro Warm had demonstrated that the absence of asbestos or ease of use with renewable energy sources were advantages of their product only.  We concluded that the claim was misleading.

3.  Upheld

We noted that Electro Warm had not sent comparative data that showed their system had lower overall lifetime costs than other heating systems.  We concluded the claim was misleading.

On all points, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness), 19.1 (Other comparisons) and 49.1 (Environmental claims).

Action

We told Electro Warm to remove the claims from future ads and advised them to seek guidance from the CAP Copy Advice team before advertising in future.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)