Ad description
A leaflet and prospectus for the West Hampstead International School Campaign:
a. The leaflet included text which stated "Run together with not-for-profit professional partners".
b. The prospectus included text at the bottom of the front cover which stated "WHIS is a not-for-profit state school delivered in partnership with: Dame Alice Owen's School, Watford Grammar School for Boys, Watford Grammar School for Girls, Queen Elizabeth School, Barnet, Mount Grace School, The Wroxham Primary School". Further text included "The West Hampstead International School will enjoy the full support of the Advanced Learning Alliance (ALA), a group of[... schools based in North London and Hertfordshire, including Dame Alice Owen's and Watford Boys' and Girls' Grammar Schools. The ALA schools will provide staff, resources, training, technology and expertise to help ensure the successful delivery of an ambitious programme of study and enrichment".
Issue
The complainant challenged whether the claims "Run together with not-for-profit professional partners" in ad (a), "WHIS is a not-for-profit state school delivered in partnership with [various schools]" in ad (b) and references to the Advanced Learning Alliance (ALA) misleadingly exaggerated the support being offered to the school by the ALA.
Response
The West Hampstead International School Campaign (WHIS) said they were a campaign, run on a voluntary basis, for a new free school in West Hampstead. They explained that at the time the ads were seen, the school was a proposal only. In order to demonstrate local support for the proposal they had sought signatures for a series of petitions.
WHIS acknowledged the ads indicated a strong level of support from the ALA. They said there was not currently a contract between the ALA and WHIS for two reasons. Firstly, WHIS was not a corporate entity at the time the ads appeared, it was merely a campaign group, and was therefore incapable of entering into a contract. Secondly, free school campaigns were expressly discouraged from entering into contracts or promises of payment ahead of their approval and constitution as a school. However, they believed the claims were justified, even without such a contractual framework. They said that one of the positions on the school's governing body was reserved for a representative of the ALA and, as was usual for such a position, the role would be carried out pro-bono and no contract used. In addition to this they said they had a great deal of evidence that they had the full support of the ALA. They said they had express verbal agreements from a number of ALA head teachers supporting their campaign and that they had exchanged numerous emails with various ALA head teachers, a selection of which they provided. They said the emails demonstrated that: they had met with the head teachers in questions to obtain further advice; one head teacher had appeared at one of their open public meetings; the head who intended to take the position on the governing body had undertaken formal conversations with his school governors consenting to his involvement and the support of his school; agreement regarding ALA's involvement with WHIS had been sought from the other ALA schools; one ALA head teacher had participated in a mock interview with a charity which provided support to free schools as part of WHIS's 'core group' which was the lead organising body for their campaign; that head teacher was due to attend Department for Education interviews in the same capacity, should they take place; approval of the prospectus had been sought and received from various ALA head teachers; and, a potential contract between ALA and WHIS had been provided by the ALA, although for the reasons previously outlined it had not been signed.
An ALA head teacher also provided a response and said that the ALA had been working very closely with WHIS to set up the free school. They said the ALA intended to be represented pro-bono on the school's governing body and to provide expert advice during the bid, setting up and opening and early running of the school. They said the ALA were fully committed to providing quality education and whilst they anticipated a commercial relationship for some aspects of their involvement, to recoup the time spent by the ALA members, they were also committed to the principle of providing high quality education for children. They said the ALA's governing body had confirmed their commitment to WHIS, and the governing body of his own school had done the same.
Assessment
Not upheld
The ASA understood that no contractual relationship existed between WHIS and the ALA at the time the ads appeared, because WHIS were not a corporate entity and because free school campaigns were discouraged from entering into contracts until the school was approved. However, we considered that the evidence supplied by WHIS, and the email from an ALA head teacher, demonstrated that the ALA were providing support and expertise to WHIS and that this was expected to continue should the school be approved, including an ALA member on the board of governers. We noted that a proposed contract had been prepared to this effect. We considered that those reading the ads were likely to understand that until the school received formal approval a contractual relationship was unlikely to exist between WHIS and the ALA. We also considered that readers would understand that the provision of services, such as staff, resources and training, from the ALA would involve payment. We concluded that the claims "Run together with not-for-profit professional partners" and "WHIS is a not-for-profit state school delivered in partnership with [various schools]" had been substantiated, and that the references to the ALA did not misleadingly exaggerate the support being offered to WHIS by the ALA.
We investigated ads (a) and (b) 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
3.11
3.11
Marketing communications must not mislead consumers by exaggerating the capability or performance of a product.
(Exaggeration), but did not find them in breach.
Action
No further action necessary.
