ASA Adjudication on kgb (UK) Ltd
kgb (UK) Ltd
Cardiff Gate Business Centre
20 June 2012
Internet (sales promotion)
Number of complaints:
An offer on a daily deal website, seen on www.kgbdeals.co.uk, stated "£99 for a two-night Lake District break for two at the Windermere Manor Hotel worth £273 - save 64% on bed, breakfast, leisure facilities and a bottle of wine on arrival".
The complainant challenged whether the ad was misleading, because it failed to make clear that it was for a specialist hotel for visually impaired people.
CAP Code (Edition 12)
kgb (UK) Ltd (kgb) said, although the hotel had specialist facilities for visually impaired individuals, it did not cater exclusively for such customers. They referred to the hotel's own website which made clear that they sought to attract customers who were not visually impaired, as well as remain faithful to those who were. They said the manager of the hotel informed them that last year the proportion of visually impaired to non-visually impaired visitors was approximately 50/50 and that, while the hotel facilities were designed to accommodate visually impaired individuals, the adjustments were not such that they would prevent non-visually impaired individuals from taking full advantage of them, or enjoying their stay. They also said the manager said the hotel had received favourable feedback on review sites from both visually impaired and non-visually impaired customers.
The ASA noted Windermere Manor Hotel was part of Vision Hotels, whose website stated that they operated like a commercial business but were different, because they were a non-profit organisation and were part of Action for Blind People. It also indicated that they provided holiday experiences that everyone could enjoy, but that understanding the needs of visually impaired people was at the core of all their services and activities.
We acknowledged that adjustments made to the hotel for visually impaired individuals would not necessarily prevent non-visually impaired individuals from taking advantage of its services. However, we considered that information relating to the hotel's primary service, as a specialised venue designed specifically to accommodate visually impaired individuals, was likely to affect a consumer's decision about whether to book with that particular hotel. Because significant information had been omitted from the ad, we concluded that it was misleading.
The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 and 3.3 (Misleading advertising) and 3.9 (Qualification).
The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told kgb to state significant limitations and qualifications in future.