Ad description

A TV ad, for a personal injury claims company, stated "National Accident Helpline's legally trained advisors will tell you within minutes whether you could make a claim. So don't get treated like an underdog.  Call National Accident Helpline ...".

Issue

The complainant challenged whether the reference to "legally trained advisors" was misleading, because they believed it implied that when consumers called the advertiser they would speak to someone with legal qualifications, when they understood that was not the case.

Response

National Accident Helpline (NAH) said all their call centre advisors received legal training regarding the claims process and the criteria necessary to assess whether there could be a possible claim, and whether NAH could assist, as part of their induction process.  They said they had first provided substantiation to Clearcast in June 2010 which demonstrated that all their advisors had undergone legal training. They said that substantiation still applied.

NAH believed the term "legally trained advisors" did not imply that their advisors held formal legal qualifications; referring to their call handlers as 'advisors' made a distinction between them and lawyers.  They compared this to first aiders, who could be described as 'medically trained' without implying that they were doctors.

Clearcast endorsed NAH's response and provided a copy of the June 2010 substantiation, which stated that at that time 84% of NAH's call centre advisors had some form of legal qualification, ranging from AS in law to a Masters degree and the GDL (a course which converted a non-law degree into a law degree).  All advisors were also given legal training as part of the induction process.  Clearcast said that, when approving the claim in 2010, they felt that viewers would understand that call centre advisors would not be lawyers but would have had some measure of legal training.  They said they had sought assurances from NAH that the position remained unchanged when going through the approval process for the claim in 2012.

Assessment

Not upheld

The ASA considered that viewers would understand the claim "legally trained advisors", in the context of an ad for a personal injury claims company, to mean that the people answering calls would have received legal training which would enable them to make informed decisions, based on the law, about whether callers might be able to make a personal injury claim.  We also considered that viewers would understand it was unlikely that they would be able to speak directly to a practicing lawyer when making an initial enquiry about a claim.

We understood that, in 2010, 84% of NAH's call centre advisors had some form of qualification in law.  However, we noted that NAH had referenced various qualifications which would be unlikely to have given their advisors the kind of specific and detailed knowledge which would enable them to successfully assess whether callers were eligible to make a personal injury claim, such as AS-levels and A2-levels, diplomas and undergraduate degrees in other subjects which included one or more modules in law.  We considered that those qualifications alone would not have been sufficient to substantiate the claim that NAH's advisors were "legally trained". Nonetheless, we understood that all NAH call centre advisors received legal training in the claims process and the criteria necessary to assess whether a claim could be made as part of their induction process, and we considered it was therefore not misleading to refer to them as "legally trained".  We concluded the ad did not breach the Code.

We investigated the ad under BCAP Code rules  3.1 3.1 Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.  and  3.2 3.2 Advertisements must not mislead consumers by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.
Material information is information that consumers need in context to make informed decisions about whether or how to buy a product or service. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead consumers depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the advertisement is constrained by time or space, the measures that the advertiser takes to make that information available to consumers by other means.
 (Misleading advertising),  3.9 3.9 Broadcasters must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that the audience is 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  3.12 3.12 Advertisements must not mislead by exaggerating the capability or performance of a product or service.  (Exaggeration), but did not find it in breach.

Action

No further action necessary.

BCAP Code

3.1     3.12     3.2     3.9    


More on