Ad description

An ad on the Teletext Holidays website, visited on 5 November 2011, stated "RIU Papayas Hotel Playa del Ingles, Gran Canaria. 7 nights Half board departing 7th December 2011 £235pp ... Quote ref: ATU-3M007AEA053".

Issue

The complainant, who had been unable to book the holiday at the advertised price, challenged whether the quoted price was misleading.

Response

Chadwell Travel Ltd t/a A1Travel (Chadwell) said they understood that Teletext Holidays had provided the ASA with screen shots that showed the offer was available on the morning of 7 November and the holiday was then offered to the complainant by Teletext, but he decided not to book. Chadwell said they understood that the prices had changed on several occasions on 6 November. They said the advertised holiday was made up of two components, flights and hotel, and that both of those elements were provided by third-party suppliers. They said that, as an agent, they were not fully in control of prices and if a supplier decided to put their prices up, that made their offer out of date, which was unfortunately commonplace. They said it took several hours to update their offers and that at busy, peak times they also experienced price changes during the actual booking process.

Teletext Ltd (Teletext) said they were an advertising medium and there were numerous different holiday companies promoting their offers on the Teletext service. They were not the advertiser and did not load any of the offers advertised on to their service. They said the offers were loaded by a number of different advertisers and Teletext required the correct prices to be displayed by all advertisers at all times. They said that all offers on the Teletext service must be available and they had processes in place to ensure that was the case.

Teletext said they understood the offer related to a request received on 6 November 2011, in response to an ad loaded by Chadwell for a holiday to the Riu Papayas Hotel on a half board basis, departing on 7 December from Birmingham Airport for two adults, priced at £235. They said they had received a direct complaint that that offer had not been available as advertised. They therefore contacted Chadwell on the morning of 7 November regarding that offer, and Chadwell proceeded to check their system and found that the offer was still available as advertised. Teletext provided screen shots showing the availability on the system on 7 November. Teletext therefore subsequently advised the complainant that the offer was still available to book and provided him with a direct sales contact at Chadwell to use should he still wish to book the offer, but made clear he should not delay contacting Chadwell, as they could not say how long the holiday would remain available at £235. The complainant contacted Teletext again on 8 December, stating that he had been unable to secure the holiday at the advertised price. They said that by that time the ad was no longer live on the website and the holiday was no longer available to book at £235. Teletext said they assisted the complainant further at that stage by finding another agent who was able to sell the same holiday; however, the complainant decided not to proceed. Teletext therefore believed they had done everything they could to assist the complainant in obtaining the holiday that he required.

They added that Chadwell Travel's offers no longer appeared in the main Teletext database, and therefore when customers searched for holidays on the Teletext website they would not see any Chadwell offers in the results. Chadwell were now only permitted to advertise offers on their TV service, through banners (generic adverts) and newsletter advertising (single offers).

Assessment

Upheld

The ASA noted that Chadwell Travel's offers were no longer searchable via the main Teletext database.

We noted that Teletext had provided a screenshot from their logging system, which showed that the holiday was available at the advertised price of £235 per person on the morning of 7 November. We understood they had also informed the complainant at that time that he should contact Chadwell as soon as possible, in order to obtain the holiday at that price, as Teletext could not guarantee how long the price would remain available. We noted, however, that the complainant had first attempted to obtain the holiday on 5 November and then again on 6 November, but that we had not seen any documentation showing that the holiday was available on those dates. We also noted the process by which Chadwell calculated and advertised the price of their holiday offers and understood that they could not ensure that the advertised price would always be available and that the price could fluctuate depending on factors outside of their control, such as flight prices. We considered that the ad did not make clear that the advertised prices might therefore be extremely limited or unavailable.

Although we noted that we had seen evidence that the holiday had been available at the advertised price of £235 per person at one period in time, we considered that, in the absence of qualifying information explaining that the availability of the offer at that price was extremely limited, the ad misleadingly exaggerated the availability of the holiday at the advertised price and was in breach of the Code.

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  3.17 3.17 Price statements must not mislead by omission, undue emphasis or distortion. They must relate to the product featured in the marketing communication.  (Prices).

Action

The claim must not appear again in its current form. We told Chadwell that they should ensure that their ads made clear that their advertised prices were extremely limited.

CAP Code (Edition 12)

3.1     3.17     3.7    


More on