Background
Summary of Council decision:
Three issues were investigated, all of which were Upheld.
The ASA has previously investigated ads by companies trading under the name 'Mantrav International'; those companies were identified on our website as Mantrav International Ltd, Mantrav International Tours Ltd and Mantrav International (UK) Ltd. We understand the first of those companies is now dissolved, and that at the time of publication of this adjudication the second and third are under proposal to be struck off the Companies House register.
The company responsible for the ad which is the subject of this adjudication is trading under the trademarked name 'Mantrav International' but has refused to provide their registered company name. However, we understand the proprietor of the trademark is GLG and Co Ltd. We have therefore listed the advertiser in this adjudication as GLG and Co Ltd, trading as Mantrav International.
Ad description
A website for a travel agent, www.mantrav.co.uk, included a web page headed "About us". Text stated "Mantrav International was founded in California in 1990 and we've been based in the UK since 2001 ...". Each web page included text which stated "Fully Bonded and Secure FULLY BONDED All flights and holidays protected 100% financial protection by First Fidelity Trust. We act as agents for ATOL holders. This only applies to bookings that include flights. ATOL does not cover non-flight inclusive bookings".
Issue
The ASA received three complaints:
1. KwikChex Ltd and two members of the public challenged whether the claim "100% financial protection by First Fidelity Trust" was misleading and could be substantiated;
2. one member of the public also challenged whether the claim "We act as agents for ATOL holders" was misleading and could be substantiated; and
3. KwikChex Ltd also challenged whether the claim "Mantrav International ... [have] been based in the UK since 2001" was misleading and could be substantiated.
Response
1. Mantrav said the bond with First Fidelity Trust was against their insolvency, and for the protection of company assets; they believed consumers would not interpret the claim to mean anything more than that, because consumers could take out travel insurance to protect their holidays. They said they held documentary evidence to prove they held a bond but did not provide it. Following receipt of the complaint, they amended the claim so that it stated "Fully Bonded and Secure FULLY BONDED All flights and holidays protected Financially protected by First Fidelity Trust * (see About Us page)". Text added to the "About Us" web page stated "* First Fidelity Trust is a bond provided to our holding company for protection in the event of insolvency".
2. Mantrav said that, since the introduction of changes to ATOLs (Air Travel Organisers' Licensing), they no longer booked flights for their customers. They said that previously all their flights were booked through various agents that did hold ATOLs. They said they had letters from the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), which administered ATOLs, which authorised the wording in the ad, but they did not provide copies. They said they had now removed the claim from the website.
3. Mantrav said their company had changed hands over the years but they had traded under the trademarked name 'Mantrav International' in the USA and Amsterdam since 1993, and in the UK since 2001. They said that could be proved by the first person who booked a holiday with them, although they did not provide any details or information about that booking. They also referenced other evidence but did not provide it. They said they had now amended the claim so that it stated "Mantrav International was founded in 1990 and traded in the UK since 2001...".
Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA noted Mantrav's explanation that the bond with First Fidelity Trust was against insolvency and for the protection of company assets. However, we considered the claim as it originally appeared implied a greater level of protection than just against Mantrav's insolvency. We therefore considered the claim, as it originally appeared, was misleading. Notwithstanding that, we noted Mantrav had not provided any documentary evidence which demonstrated that they, or their holding company (which they would not identify), had a bond with First Fidelity Trust, or any other bonding company. We therefore considered that all references to a bond with First Fidelity Trust were misleading, because we had not seen evidence that one existed.
On this point, 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) 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 Mantrav said they used to book flights for their customers through ATOL-holding agents, but they no longer did so since the introduction of changes to the ATOL. However, we noted they had not provided any documentary evidence to demonstrate that, when they had booked flights, they were booked through ATOL-holding agents in such a way as the flights would be covered by an ATOL. We therefore concluded the claim had not been substantiated and was misleading. Notwithstanding that, we understood that the changes to ATOLs came into force on 30 April 2012 but Mantrav's website had continued to refer to ATOL protection until at least 15 May 2012. We considered the claim was also therefore misleading because it continued to appear on the website after the point at which Mantrav had said they no longer booked flights for their customers.
On this point, 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) 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 Mantrav had amended the original claim that they had been "based in" the UK since 2001 to state that they had "traded" in the UK since 2001. We considered that consumers would be likely to interpret both claims to mean that one company called Mantrav International, or one company trading under that name, had been trading continuously in the UK since 2001. We noted Mantrav had not provided any documentary evidence to substantiate that was the case and, further, we understood that the name Mantrav International had not been registered as a trademark in the UK until 2009. Furthermore, we understood that a number of different companies registered in the UK had traded under the Mantrav International name for varying lengths of time, but that none of them had traded continuously since 2001. We understood Mantrav refuted that any of those companies had traded under the Mantrav International name, but noted that despite stating they held evidence to substantiate that, they did not provide it, nor did they confirm which company or companies had traded under the name Mantrav International since 2001. We concluded the claim was misleading and had not been substantiated.
On this point, 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) 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).
Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Mantrav their advertising should not state, or imply, that their company or their customers were financially protected if they did not hold documentary evidence to substantiate that was the case. We told them they should not refer to ATOLs unless they held substantiation that flights they booked on behalf of customers were ATOL-protected. We also told them they should not state, or imply, that Mantrav International was one company which had been trading continuously in the UK since 2001 unless they held documentary evidence that was the case.
