Ad description
A TV ad for Harris Fowler personal injury solicitors showed a wheel coming off a barrow causing the man pushing it to fall and to tip its contents onto a road. The ad then showed another man walking along the pavement while other incidents occurred around him, including a car driving into the back of a stationary vehicle and a man falling off a ladder propped against a street lamp. A presenter shown walking along the pavement stated, "Have you thought of claiming compensation after an accident? If you've had an accident at work, or a road traffic accident - an accident anywhere it's your right to claim. You could be entitled to thousands of pounds in compensation. Talk to Harris Fowler's friendly and professional team on [number]." The presenter continued, "it's no win no fee ... you've got nothing to lose and perhaps a lot to gain. Harris Fowler, the personal injury solicitor."
Issue
The complainant, a commercial insurance broker who believed the ad implied it was possible to make a claim for compensation after any accident, whereas there would have to be some form of negligence for a valid claim, challenged whether the claim "an accident anywhere it's your right to claim" was misleading.
Response
Harris Fowler Ltd said the ad had been on air since 2009 and they were not aware of any similar complaints received since then. They said the wording "an accident anywhere it's your right to claim" was not intended to imply that a claim could be made in the event of a non-fault accident, but to indicate a generalisation of location. They said the ad visuals showed 'fault' accidents. The wheel coming off the barrow causing a man to fall showed an accident at work where the employee was using faulty equipment. The car driving into the back of a stationary vehicle showed an example of a 'fault' road traffic accident and the man falling off a ladder propped against a street lamp showed unsafe working practices, being the fault of the employer.
Clearcast said the ad invited viewers to consider whether they might have a case for compensation, and did not believe it exaggerated their chances of success. They believed the ad made clear that the chance of a successful compensation claim was not absolute but conditional on the details of the claim. In some cases the negligence that caused the accident would be obvious to the victim, but in many cases it might not be, and therefore the victim could need the help of a solicitor in assessing whether or not they had a valid compensation claim. They believed this was reinforced by the visuals that depicted accidents which could appear to be due to bad luck, but could very conceivably be due to negligence. They said the words "an accident anywhere" was not intended to refer to fault, but to communicate that Harris Fowler could handle different types of accident in the sense of location and category – e.g. traffic accidents, workplace accidents, accidents that occurred in public places. They said this was reinforced by the visuals and words which came before it, "If you've had an accident at work, or a road traffic accident − an accident anywhere it's your right to claim".
Assessment
Not upheld
The ASA considered that most viewers would be familiar with the concept of personal injury compensation and the services offered by personal injury solicitors. They would therefore have a general awareness that to have a valid claim there would have to be some degree of fault or negligence by a third party. However, it would not always be obvious to a consumer whether or not they had a valid claim in their particular circumstances.
We considered that, in the context of the ad and the various accidents shown, consumers would understand from the claim "an accident anywhere it's your right to claim" that if they had been involved in any accident they might be able to make a claim, and they could therefore contact Harris Fowler for further advice and to potentially pursue a claim. The ad said consumers "could" be entitled to compensation and "perhaps" had a lot to gain, which emphasised compensation was not guaranteed. We did not consider that the claim implied compensation claims would be valid even when no fault could be established and therefore concluded that the claim was not misleading.
We investigated the ad under BCAP Code rules
3.1
3.1
Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
and
3.2
3.2
Advertisements must not mislead consumers 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 consumers need in context to make informed decisions about whether or how to buy a product or service. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead consumers depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the advertisement is constrained by time or space, the measures that the advertiser takes to make that information available to consumers by other means.
(Misleading advertising) but did not find it in breach.
Action
No further action necessary.
