Ad description
A page on the website www.arrowprivatehire.co.uk for private car hire service. Text in the ad stated "TRAVEL HAPPY WITH ARROW CARS. SETTING THE STANDARDS IN PRIVATE HIRE TRAVEL. SERVICING LEEDS, MANCHESTER & EAST MIDLANDS ... EXCLUSIVE DROP OFF AT THE TERMINAL DOORS OVER 100 METRES CLOSER THAN ANYONE ELSE. NO HIDDEN AIRPORT CHARGES...".
Issue
The complainant challenged whether the claim "No hidden airport charges" was misleading and could be substantiated.
Response
Shiny Sky Ltd, t/a Arrow Licensed Private Hire (Arrow) stated that all of their fares from Leeds Bradford International Airport, Manchester Airport and East Midlands Airport were pre-agreed and pre-paid before travel at their airport desks, online or over the telephone.
The airport service rate was calculated from the route between the pickup point and destination point, taking into account any stop-off point in between, and was based on their system mileage. Arrow explained that the calculation of the fare was irrespective of the time taken for the journey, the route taken, diversions and congestions, or the time of day or day of the week. They also said that they did not charge for waiting time, car park charges or other supplementary costs, such as luggage fee.
Arrow further stated that they operated from Leeds, Manchester and East Midlands and that they only applied a single tariff for both airport and non-airport services in Manchester and East Midlands. They stated that they offered a range of services, including both airport and non-airport, in Leeds with different tariffs that reflected the different levels of service. They stated that their standard non-airport private hire service, which charged metered fares, represented a relatively small part of their business and was not offered for airport trips.
Arrow asserted that they did not make claims implying that they offered the cheapest service and believed that the claim challenged did not have any other implications but that they did not apply hidden charges for airport services, as the fares were agreed to and paid for prior to the commencement of the journey, and therefore the claim was not misleading.
Assessment
Not upheld
The ASA noted the complainant's assertion that the claim "no hidden airport charges" implied that Arrow did not charge a higher rate for airport journeys than non-airport journeys of the same distances. We noted the complainant's view that this was not the case in Leeds and that the higher rates charged by Arrow for airport journeys, which the complainant regarded as 'hidden' charges, were to recover airport franchise costs for exclusive drop-off privilege at Leeds Bradford International Airport terminal forecourt. We noted that the complainant believed that the claim also implied that Arrow did not charge certain 'hidden' fees for airport journeys that their competitors applied.
We noted that the wording of the claim did not contain superlatives and was not phrased as a comparison. We understood that there were a number of features included as part of Arrow's standard airport service, such as uniformed drivers and newer vehicles, that were not included in their standard non-airport service, which we considered consumers were likely to understand would warrant higher rates for this service. We also understood that in Leeds, the advertiser also operated three other services that were for executive and corporate business customers, in addition to the standard airport and non-airport services.
We also noted Arrow's comments that fares for their airport service were agreed to and paid for, prior to the journey. Also, they did not charge extra costs for factors as such waiting time, luggage, peak times, whereas fares for their non-airport service were metered which would vary, subject to the route taken. We considered that consumers were likely to understand the term "hidden fees" or "hidden charges" as supplementary charges that were subsequently applied to the initial quoted prices, and the claim "no hidden airport charges" to mean that the advertiser would not charge additional costs to the price agreed to, prior to airport journeys. On this basis and given that the advertiser did not offer airport trips with their metered standard private hire service, we concluded that the claim was not misleading.
The ad was investigated under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading Advertising), 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) and 3.38 3.38 Marketing communications that include a comparison with an unidentifiable competitor must not mislead, or be likely to mislead, the consumer. The elements of the comparison must not be selected to give the marketer an unrepresentative advantage. (Comparisons), but was not found to be in breach.
Action
No further action necessary.
