Background
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated, both of which were Not upheld.
Ad description
The home page of the website www.a1-lofts.co.uk showed certificates for Federation of Master Builders (FMB) Master Builder of the Year awards for 2005 and 2008 at the bottom of the page.
On a page headed "About A1" text stated "A1 is a family business."
Issue
A complainant, who had had work done by the advertiser, challenged whether:
1. the references to the awards FMB Master Builder of the Year 2005 and 2008 were relevant to loft conversions; and
2. the claim "A1 is a family business" was misleading and could be substantiated.
Response
1. A1-Lofts.co.uk specified which photograph of a loft conversion on their website related to the 2005 award. They said the award related to commitment to sustainability in conjunction with their sister architectural practice. They said they were a loft and extension company and that clients increasingly had plans for extensive refurbishment work in their homes. They said the 2008 award therefore referred to their refurbishment and extension skills.
2. A1 Lofts supplied documentation which showed how shares in the company were distributed among the different shareholders.
Assessment
1. Not upheld
The FMB awards covered a number of categories of building work but none related specifically or exclusively to loft conversions. The logos appeared on the home page underneath A1 Lofts' contact details and on a general page headed "About A1," and fuller details of the accreditations were given when clicking on links on the page headed "About A1." Although most of the testimonials and project case studies related to loft conversions, there was also a section of the website that related to extensions. The ASA considered that the claim suggested A1 Lofts had been given the FMB awards because of the standard of their work in loft conversions and other projects they had carried out for customers. Although we considered it would have been preferable if the ad had made immediately clear what the awards were for, we considered the use of the references was not misleading for awards that related to energy efficiency for loft conversion and other building projects that A1 Lofts had undertaken. Because of that, we concluded that the references were not misleading.
On this point we investigated the ad under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules
3.1
3.1
Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
and
3.3
3.3
Marketing communications must not mislead the consumer by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.
Material information is information that the consumer needs to make informed decisions in relation to a product. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead the consumer depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the marketing communication is constrained by time or space, the measures that the marketer takes to make that information available to the consumer by other means.
(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
3.9
3.9
Marketing communications must state significant limitations and qualifications. Qualifications may clarify but must not contradict the claims that they qualify.
(Qualification) but did not find it in breach.
2. Not upheld
The documentation A1 Lofts had supplied showed that the founder of the business and his wife between them owned the majority shareholding of the business and that they and other family members held key positions in the business. We considered A1 Lofts had demonstrated that a single family owned and took part in the running of the business. Because of that, we concluded that they had substantiated the claim and that it was not misleading.
On this point we investigated the ad under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules
3.1
3.1
Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
and
3.3
3.3
Marketing communications must not mislead the consumer by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.
Material information is information that the consumer needs to make informed decisions in relation to a product. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead the consumer depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the marketing communication is constrained by time or space, the measures that the marketer takes to make that information available to the consumer by other means.
(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), but did not find it in breach.
Action
No further action necessary.
