ASA Adjudication on Roger Poat & Partners
Roger Poat & Partners
Duck Lane
Midhurst
West Sussex
GU29 9DE
Date:
16 March 2011
Media:
Directory, Magazine
Sector:
Business
Number of complaints:
1
Complaint Ref:
142837
Ad
A regional magazine ad for a funeral director, stated "Professionally Managed Funeral Directors & Monumental Masonry Consultants". It also stated "Roger Poat & Partners is a family owned and professionally managed funeral service. It is in partnership with Michael Miller's of Petersfield".
Issue
A complainant challenged whether the claims:
1. "family owned" and
2. that the company had been, "in partnership with Michael Miller's of Petersfield"
were misleading and could be substantiated.
CAP Code (Edition 12)
Response
Roger Poat & Partners (Roger Poat) said the statement 'family owned' was a historical statement. They said the business was now not family run and the statement 'family owned' was not used in any current advertisements.
They said Roger Poat was a wholly owned subsidiary of Michael Millers & Partners, who provided facilities, resources, vehicles and personnel to Roger Poat & Partners. They believed that the statement "in partnership" appropriately described the relationship between the two businesses.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA noted Roger Poat acknowledged that the claim "family owned" was no longer applicable and was being removed from current advertising. Whilst we welcomed Roger Poats commitment to bringing their advertising into line with the Code, we concluded that the ad was misleading.
On this point the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 and 3.3 (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 (Substantiation).
2. Upheld
We noted that Michael Miller & Partners Ltd shared resources with Roger Poat. We also noted that Roger Poat was a wholly-owned subsidiary of Michael Millers & Partners Ltd. We considered that viewers would infer from the ad and the claim "It is in partnership with Michael Millers of Petersfield", that the two businesses were independent but worked together. Because we considered that the claim implied Roger Poat was independent and this was not the case, we considered that it was misleading.
On this point the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 and 3.3 (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 (Substantiation).
Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form.
Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)
