ASA Adjudication on Cascade Financial Ltd
Cascade Financial Ltd t/a
Daddy Cash for Gold
3rd Floor, St James Building
79 Oxford Street
13 June 2012
Internet (on own site)
Number of complaints:
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated all of which were Upheld.
Claims on www.daddycashforgold.co.uk, for postal cash for gold services, featured a calculating tool which enabled potential customers to value their gold before sending it to the advertiser. Text stated "Use Daddy's Gold Calculator to find out what your gold could be worth. Request a FREE gold pack, send your item through to us, and we'll get back to you with an offer within 24 hours."
The complainant challenged whether:
1. the gold calculator misleadingly exaggerated the value of the gold and how much consumers would be paid for it; and
2. the claim "we'll get back to you with an offer within 24 hours" was misleading and could be substantiated, because, having sent their gold to Daddy Cash for Gold, it had taken three weeks for them to respond.
CAP Code (Edition 12)
Daddy Cash for Gold did not respond to the ASA's enquiries.
The ASA was concerned by Daddy Cash for Gold's lack of response and apparent disregard for the Code, which was a breach of CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 1.7 (Unreasonable delay). We reminded them of their responsibility to respond promptly to our enquiries and told them to do so in future.
We noted text above the calculator stated "CALCULATE THE VALUE OF YOUR GOLD!" and provided a price once details of the weight and quality of the gold were entered. We understood the complainant had received much less than the calculator had stated but noted that the ad did not make clear whether the amount received could be lower than that given by the calculator. We therefore considered, particularly in the context of a cash-for-gold service, consumers would understand the calculator to provide an accurate quotation of the price they would receive for their gold. Because Daddy Cash for Gold did not provide any evidence to demonstrate that was the case, we concluded that the gold calculator was likely to mislead.
On this point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 and 3.3 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation) and 3.9 (Qualification).
Because Daddy Cash for Gold did not provide any evidence to demonstrate that they provided an offer within 24 hours of having received an enquiry, we concluded that the claim had not been substantiated and was likely to mislead.
On this point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 (Substantiation).
The ad must no longer appear. We referred the matter to CAP's Compliance team and told Daddy Cash for Gold to ensure they hold robust substantiation to support their future marketing claims.