Ad description
A website for heat pumps, in May 2011, made a number of claims about the benefits of heat pump technology and compared it to conventional energy sources.
Issue
The complainant challenged whether the following claims were misleading and could be substantiated:
1. "considerable savings in energy bills compared to conventional systems";
2. "for every 1 unit of electricity used, up to 4 units of heat are produced";
3. "energy efficiency average 400% across the year compared to boilers that are typically 70 - 95%"; and
4. "cost effective".
Response
1. Danfoss Heat Pumps UK Ltd (Danfoss) said a well-designed heat pump system, when sized and installed by a Microgeneration Certification Scheme (MCS) accredited installer, would be expected to give savings on less efficient heating systems. Danfoss said actual savings would be influenced by a wide range of factors, such as the efficiency of the existing heating system, individual lifestyles, heat distribution system, the cost of the fuel being replaced and insulation levels in the property. For that reason they had not quoted specific savings amounts on their website.
Danfoss said The Energy Saving Trust had conducted an independent field trial of heat pump installations, which included some Danfoss units, from which they had drawn up a possible savings model based on the typical system efficiencies they had tested. Danfoss provided a copy of that savings model.
2. Danfoss explained that the performance of a heat pump was measured in terms of its COP (Coefficient of Performance), which showed the output energy (KW) that could be achieved against the level of input (KW). For example, a 4.1 COP would produce up to 4 units of heat energy for every 1 unit of energy inputted into the unit.
Danfoss provided a datasheet for their DHP-H Opti Pro range of heat pumps which showed the COP for all models in the range, as well as the test standards used to determine those figures. They said the majority of their heat pumps were also MCS accredited, and that in order to gain accreditation test data had to be submitted for individual product ranges. Danfoss also provided a copy of their MCS certificates for their products.
3. Danfoss said the estimated range for boilers was based on information from SEDBUCK (Seasonal Efficiency of Domestic Boilers in the UK), a government backed initiative developed under the Energy Efficiency Best Practice Programme. They provided a copy of the boiler efficiency band ratings from the SEDBUK website. Danfoss said the COP of 4.1 for their units expressed as a percentage was 400%.
4. Danfoss said the “cost effective” claim related to the capability of some heat pumps to provide both heating and cooling if required. In those cases, because customers would not need to provide the additional investment required for an air conditioning system, the heat pump could be cost effective.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA considered that the claim “considerable savings in energy bills compared to conventional systems” was an absolute claim that consumers would see sizeable savings by installing a heat pump. We understood, however, that potential savings would vary, and depended on many factors such as the price of the fuel being replaced and the price of electricity used to power the pump, the relative efficiencies of the old and the new system, insulation levels, temperature settings and whether the heat pump was used to provide hot water.
We noted that The Energy Saving Trust (EST) guide to heat pumps stated that the running costs associated with heat pumps were unlikely to deliver savings compared to most gas or oil heated systems, but that savings were more favourable when replacing a coal, LPG or electric heating system, although the payback period would still be long. We also noted from the EST savings model provided by Danfoss that the savings from a typical performing heat pump system were £40 per year against a gas system and £50 per year against an oil system; the savings figures from a good performing heat pump system compared to gas and oil systems were £70 and £160 respectively. The savings against electric and solid fuel systems were £420 and £260 respectively with a typical system, and £530 and £370 with a good performing system. Because we considered that the claim implied that all customers would see a large saving in their energy bills, when we understood that was not the case, we concluded that the claim exaggerated the savings that could be achieved and was misleading.
On this point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising), 3.7 3.7 Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation. (Substantiation), 3.11 3.11 Marketing communications must not mislead consumers by exaggerating the capability or performance of a product. (Exaggeration) and 3.38 3.38 Marketing communications that include a comparison with an unidentifiable competitor must not mislead, or be likely to mislead, the consumer. The elements of the comparison must not be selected to give the marketer an unrepresentative advantage. (Other comparisons).
2. Upheld
We understood that the COP rating of a heat pump unit was the ratio of the number of units of heat output for each unit of energy input used to drive the unit. We acknowledged that, unlike conventional fuels, for every unit of electricity used to drive a heat pump, the pump would produce more than one unit of heat, because heat pumps utilised the low grade heat of their water or ground source.
We also understood that heat pump performance was also dependent on the quality of installation and customer usage, and that the COP for the system as a whole, not just the heat pump unit itself, was therefore also important when assessing the energy output. Furthermore, we considered that consumers would understand the energy values and efficiency claims in the ad to relate to the heat pump system working in the home, rather than the heat pump unit only. We noted from the datasheet provided by Danfoss that the COP for the specific models in the DHP-H Opti Pro range were between 3.99 and 4.34, but also noted that the COP ratings related to the units only and not their system performance in the home. We understood from the EST guide that the average system efficiency over the year in the home, including any top-up electricity for water heating, would be less than the quoted COP. We noted from the EST field trials that the existing home installations tested showed a typical COP of 2.5 (250%) for a ground source heat pump and 2.2 (220%) for an air source heat pump. We considered that, because we had not seen robust evidence relating to the COP for the whole system to show the Danfoss heat pumps could produce four units of electricity for every one unit of electricity when used in the home, the claim gave a misleading impression of the likely achievable energy output of the products working in the home.
On this point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising), 3.7 3.7 Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation. (Substantiation) and 3.11 3.11 Marketing communications must not mislead consumers by exaggerating the capability or performance of a product. (Exaggeration).
3. Upheld
We Noted the SEDBUCK boiler efficiency ratings ranged from below 70% for the least efficient boilers to over 90% for the most efficient. However, we also noted that those efficiency ratings were estimates of annual average efficiency when installed in typical domestic conditions in the UK, and considered that it was not appropriate to compare those ratings to the efficiency ratings of the heat pump units, which did not take into account their performance in the home. Moreover, we considered that, for the reasons explained in point 2 above, the claim that Danfoss’ heat pumps had an average efficiency of 400% had not been substantiated. We therefore concluded that the claim “energy efficiency average 400% across the year compared to boilers that are typically 70 - 95%" was misleading.
On this point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising), 3.7 3.7 Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation. (Substantiation), 3.11 3.11 Marketing communications must not mislead consumers by exaggerating the capability or performance of a product. (Exaggeration) and 3.38 3.38 Marketing communications that include a comparison with an unidentifiable competitor must not mislead, or be likely to mislead, the consumer. The elements of the comparison must not be selected to give the marketer an unrepresentative advantage. (Other comparisons).
4. Upheld
We noted the full claim stated “cost effective passive and active cooling available”. However, we considered that consumers were unlikely to interpret the claim to relate to the additional investment required to install an air conditioning system, but would understand it to be a more general claim that heat pumps were cost effective. As explained in point 1 above, we considered that we had not seen sufficient evidence that Danfoss’ heat pumps were more cost effective to install and run than conventional heating, and also noted that we had not seen evidence that they were more cost effective than air conditioning systems in particular. We therefore concluded that the claim had not been substantiated and was misleading.
On this point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising), 3.7 3.7 Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation. (Substantiation) and 3.11 3.11 Marketing communications must not mislead consumers by exaggerating the capability or performance of a product. (Exaggeration).
Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Danfoss to ensure they held robust evidence to substantiate energy and savings claims in future.
