Background
Summary of Council Decision:
Three issues were investigated and all were Upheld.
Ad description
Claims on www.spectusconservatories.co.uk, a website for a company which sold conservatories, visited in January 2012, stated "Spectus Conservatories are a well established company who offer a 10 year insurance backed guarantee with deposit indemnity ... Spectus Conservatories have over 50 years [sic] experience in designing, manufacturing & installing conservatories. Spectus are a family run company, with old fashion [sic] values because of this most of our business comes by way of recommendations ...". A page headed "Recommendations" featured text stating "We are delighted that the majority of our business comes from customers [sic] recommendations. Please find below a brief selection of the letters that we receive" followed by two testimonials from "Mr & Mrs B. Stockport" and "Mr G. Mc".
Issue
The complainant challenged whether:
1. the claim "Spectus Conservatories ... offer a 10 year insurance backed guarantee with deposit indemnity" was misleading and could be substantiated;
2. the claim "Spectus Conservatories have over 50 years [sic] experience in designing, manufacturing & installing conservatories" was misleading and could be substantiated, as they understood that Spectus had only been trading since November 2010; and
3. the testimonials on the "Recommendations" page were genuine, because they understood that both testimonials had appeared on other conservatory companies' websites.
Response
Spectus Conservatories (Spectus) did not respond to the ASA's enquiries.
Assessment
Upheld
The ASA was concerned by Spectus's lack of response and apparent disregard for the Code, which was a breach of the CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 1.7 1.7 Any unreasonable delay in responding to the ASA's enquiries will normally be considered a breach of the Code. (Unreasonable delay). We reminded them of their responsibility to respond promptly to our enquiries and we told them to do so in future.
1. Upheld
Because we had not seen any evidence that Spectus offered a 10-year insurance backed guarantee with deposit indemnity, we concluded that the claim had not been substantiated and was therefore misleading.
On this point, the claim breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising) and 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).
2. Upheld
We noted the complainant believed Spectus had only been trading since November 2010 and that we had not seen any evidence from Spectus that they had over 50 years' experience in designing, manufacturing and installing conservatories as claimed. We therefore concluded that the claim had not been substantiated and was misleading.
On this point, the claim breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising) and 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. Upheld
We noted that the testimonials appeared word-for-word on another website for a different conservatory company. In light of this, and the fact that we had not seen any evidence from Spectus that the testimonials were genuine and related to Spectus Conservatories, we concluded that the testimonials therefore breached the Code.
On this point, the testimonials breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.45 3.45 Marketers must hold documentary evidence that a testimonial or endorsement used in a marketing communication is genuine, unless it is obviously fictitious, and hold contact details for the person who, or organisation that, gives it. and 3.46 3.46 Testimonials must relate to the advertised product. (Endorsements and Testimonials).
Action
The claims and testimonials must not appear again in their current form. We told Spectus to ensure that they hold adequate substantiation for objective claims they make in their advertising in future and to ensure that they hold documentary evidence to show their testimonials are genuine, including contact details for the people who gave them. We referred the matter to CAP's Compliance team.
