1. Upheld

The ASA noted that the claim "UP TO 10% HIGHER SALE PRICES THAN OTHER LOCAL ESTATE AGENTS*" was qualified by the text "*We are able to provide a number of examples where we have completed sales on properties with a sale price of up to 10% higher than the figure at which other local estate agents initially valued the property". Although we noted that the basis of the comparison was set out in the ad, we also understood that a valuation price could often differ from the final sales price achieved and therefore did not consider that it was a fair comparison. In light of that, we considered that the qualifying text contradicted the main headline claim "UP TO 10% HIGHER SALE PRICES THAN OTHER LOCAL ESTATE AGENTS".

We also noted that the documentation provided consisted of testimonials from some vendors regarding the valuations others agents had given them and considered that those testimonials should have been supported with independent evidence showing the initial valuations received. We also noted that the claim was based on 13 sales only, which we considered was a small sample in the context of property sales.

Because we did not consider that comparing initial valuations to completed sales prices was a fair comparison, and because we did not consider that we had seen sufficient documentation to support the claim "UP TO 10% HIGHER SALE PRICES THAN OTHER LOCAL ESTATE AGENTS", we concluded that the ad was misleading.

On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.3 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation), 3.11 (Exaggeration) and 3.38 (Other comparisons).

2. Upheld

We understood that the advertisers had delivered the leaflet to properties with Chalfont St Peter postcodes, but not properties with Gerrards Cross postcodes. We noted however that Chalfont St Peter and Gerrards Cross were very near to each other and considered that, in the absence of text which clarified what area or town was meant by "local", some consumers might infer that "We are the only local estate agent open seven days a week" would include those based in Gerrards Cross, where we understood that a number of estate agents were based.

We understood that Hamptons International and other agents based in Gerrards Cross were open on Sundays. Because of that and because the ad did not clarify what area was meant by "local", we considered that the claim "We are the only local estate agent open seven days a week" was ambiguous and concluded that the ad was likely to mislead.

On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.3 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation), 3.11 (Exaggeration) and 3.38 (Other comparisons).

3. Not upheld

We understood that Hamptons International maintained that the advertisers could exclude other agents' properties when leafleting properties, as applications existed which showed which properties were instructed to which agents. We understood that the advertisers had not specially targeted customers of Hamptons' International, but noted that some Hamptons' International customers in the local area targeted could have received the leaflet. We did not consider that it was in and of itself inappropriate for the advertisers to have delivered the leaflet to consumers who might be customers of Hamptons' International.

We understood that the Office of Fair Trading's (OFT) Estate Agency guide set out the terms of business for estate agents and the explanations that must be provided to vendors, for example with regard to 'Sole selling rights' or 'Sole agency'. We therefore considered that any consumers who were considering appointing a sole agent would be made aware of the relevant provisions when entering into that process and that those consumers who had appointed Hamptons International as a sole agent would have already been made aware of the potential liability for a vendor to pay two sets of fees in the event of a sole agent having already been appointed. In light of that, we did not consider that the potential liability for the vendor to pay two sets of fees in the event of a sole agent having already been appointed was a significant term that should be included in the leaflet distributed by the advertisers and therefore concluded that, on that point, the ad was unlikely to mislead.

On that point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.3 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation), 3.11 (Exaggeration) and 3.38 (Other comparisons), but did not find it in breach.