Background
Summary of Council decision:
Three issues were investigated, two of which were Upheld and one Not upheld.
Ad description
A TV ad for Motorama, a car leasing website, seen in September 2018. A voice-over stated, "At Motorama, we want you to stop buying cars. Stop spending more than you want. Stop paying eye-watering deposits. We think it's time to stop buying, start leasing. With Motorama, you can lease a brand new Range Rover Evoque for just £355 a month. Go to motorama.com. You'll never buy a car again." On-screen text stated "18+. Initial rental £2,130. Term 47 months. 8,000 miles per year. T&Cs apply".
Issue
The complainant challenged whether:
1. the ad was misleading because it did not make the nature of the financial product sufficiently clear;
2. the ad was misleading because it did not make clear that Motorama was a third-party broker and not the leasing provider; and
3. the claim "Stop paying eye-watering deposits" was misleading, because they understood that consumers were required to pay an initial fee of at least three months' rental in advance.
Response
Autorama UK Ltd t/a Motorama said they offered personal contract hire (PCH) as opposed to personal contract purchase (PCP), which was the traditional means of leasing a car. They felt there was a knowledge gap in consumer awareness around leasing, which they were trying to address through marketing.
1. Motorama said that they explicitly stated throughout the ad that they offered a “leasing” product. The dictionary definition of “leasing” was “a financial arrangement in which a person, company, etc. pays to use land, a vehicle, etc. for a particular period of time”. By stating that the company was offering a leasing service, with clear initial rental and monthly payment figures alongside term length and mileage allowances, they were by default making clear that it was a financial credit product. They said that the Money Advice Service website’s advice on car leasing did not explicitly mention that PCH was a financial credit agreement. Therefore they did not think it was necessary for Motorama to do so.
Clearcast said that they had received the full terms and conditions for the claims being made in the ad, and were therefore satisfied with the information that had been included in the on-screen text. The advertiser confirmed they were FCA regulated and Clearcast took this as further substantiation that the ad was not in breach of the Code. Clearcast said they believed that the ad made clear that the product offered was a leasing product.
2. Motorama said that this element of the ad was not intentionally misleading as they were not withholding information from the consumer that would be relevant to their arrangement. They worked with a range of funders and presented the best price to the consumers – where the price originated from generally was not a concern for the consumer.
Motorama said they wanted to avoid overwhelming the customer with unnecessary information. They believed that this was in accordance with Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) Conduct of Business rules. They did not consider the fact that they were a credit broker was material at the point that the consumer viewed the ad; however, it would be material when they visited the website. This was why the call to action was explicit – to visit the website www.motorama.com (with no phone number listed) where the full terms and conditions were readily visible on the website for consumers to see. The terms and conditions made clear that the customer was entering into a credit agreement. The landing page and each subsequent page on the website also featured a disclaimer which included the text “Autorama UK Ltd is a credit broker and not a lender, we can introduce you to a group of selected lenders”. The information was also included in the Initial Disclosure Document which was supplied to consumers when they submitted an enquiry to the website.
Clearcast said that at no stage did they feel that Motorama were omitting the fact that they were credit brokers or misleading consumers into thinking they were lenders.
3. Motorama said that although they had the capacity to offer a far cheaper deal than that which was advertised, they had chosen to communicate the average in a fair and transparent way. They said that 30% of their customers leased with just one month’s initial rental, and many other organisations within the industry did not offer this as an option. Taking the advertised initial rental as an example, when comparing the same vehicle with the same mileage and contract term length as a PCP deal on the manufacturer’s website, Motorama’s initial rental was over 50% lower. According to the Money Advice Service, the deposit when purchasing a car on a PCP finance deal was “usually 10% of the value of the vehicle”. By contrast, Motorama offered a deposit of 6.8–30% lower. They believed that their offers could therefore be regarded as having no “eye-watering deposits”, when looking at a direct comparison.
Clearcast said that the on-screen text stated that there was an initial fee that needed to be paid in advance.
Assessment
1. Not upheld
The ad stated “Stop buying, start leasing” and “you can lease a brand new Range Rover Evoque for £355 a month”. The ASA considered that the ad was most likely to be of interest to those consumers who were already considering vehicle ownership or long-term lease, and who were likely to have some knowledge of the different types of arrangements available. We considered that consumers would understand that “leasing”, in this context, referred to the long-term rental or hiring of a vehicle payable by regular instalments for the use of the vehicle. We concluded that the ad was not misleading and did not breach the Code on that point.
On that point, the ad was investigated under BCAP Code rules
3.1
3.1
Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
and
3.2
3.2
In setting or revising any such standards, Ofcom must have regard, in particular and to such extent as appears to them to be relevant to the securing of the standards objectives, to each of these matters:
a) the degree of harm or offence likely to be caused by the inclusion of any particular sort of material in programmes generally, or in programmes of a particular description;
b) the likely size and composition of a potential audience for programmes included in television and radio services generally, or in television and radio services of a particular description;
c) the likely expectation of the audience as to the nature of a programme's content and the extent to which the nature of the programme's content can be brought to the attention of potential members of the audience;
d) the likelihood of persons who are unaware of the nature of the programme's content being unintentionally exposed, by their own actions, to that content;
e) the desirability of securing that the content of services identifies when there is a change affecting the nature of a service that is being watched or listened to and, in particular, a change that is relevant to the application of the standards set under this section...".
Section 319(4).
(Misleading advertising), but was not found in breach.
2. Upheld
The BCAP Code stated that ads must not mislead consumers by omitting material information. For ads that quoted prices for an advertised product or service, material information included the main characteristics of the product or service. We considered that the fact that the consumer would not be entering into an agreement with Motorama, but rather with a third-party leasing provider, was material information that was likely to affect their transactional decision to enquire further in response to the ad. However, there was no information in the ad itself to make this clear. The ad gave the impression that consumers would be entering into a contract directly with Motorama. We concluded that the ad was misleading and breached the Code on that point.
On that point, the ad breached BCAP Code rules
3.1
3.1
Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
3.2
3.2
In setting or revising any such standards, Ofcom must have regard, in particular and to such extent as appears to them to be relevant to the securing of the standards objectives, to each of these matters:
a) the degree of harm or offence likely to be caused by the inclusion of any particular sort of material in programmes generally, or in programmes of a particular description;
b) the likely size and composition of a potential audience for programmes included in television and radio services generally, or in television and radio services of a particular description;
c) the likely expectation of the audience as to the nature of a programme's content and the extent to which the nature of the programme's content can be brought to the attention of potential members of the audience;
d) the likelihood of persons who are unaware of the nature of the programme's content being unintentionally exposed, by their own actions, to that content;
e) the desirability of securing that the content of services identifies when there is a change affecting the nature of a service that is being watched or listened to and, in particular, a change that is relevant to the application of the standards set under this section...".
Section 319(4).
3.3
3.3
Ofcom must ensure that the standards from time to time in force under this section include:
a) minimum standards applicable to all programmes included in television and radio services; and
b) such other standards applicable to particular descriptions of programmes, or of television and radio services, as appeared to them appropriate for securing the standards objectives."
Section 319(5).
3.3.1
3.3.1
the main characteristics of the product or service
(Misleading advertising),
3.10
3.10
Advertisements must state significant limitations and qualifications. Qualifications may clarify but must not contradict the claims that they qualify.
and
3.11
3.11
Qualifications must be presented clearly.
BCAP has published Guidance on Superimposed Text to help television broadcasters ensure compliance with rule
3.1
3.1
Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
. The guidance is available at:
http://www.cap.org.uk/~/media/Files/CAP/Help%20notes%20new/BCAP_Advertising_Guidance_Notes_1.ashx
(Qualification).
3. Upheld
The voice-over stated, “Stop paying eye-watering deposits.” We considered that the majority of consumers would understand this to mean that they would have to pay very little or no money up front when undertaking a lease through Motorama. We understood from Motorama that the claim was based on a comparison between the initial payments they offered on their leasing services, and those offered by PCP leases, which they said were often higher. However, while we noted that the ad made multiple references to “buying” in contrast with the “leasing” service offered by Motorama, we considered that consumers would not necessarily appreciate that this was specifically a reference to PCP leasing deals. Many would understand that it was a reference to purchasing a car outright.
Overall we considered that the claim was presented in a confusing manner. It would be understood by the majority of consumers to mean that they would need to pay very little or no money up front, which was not the case. We concluded that the claim was misleading and breached the Code.
On that point, the ad breached BCAP Code rules 3.1 3.1 Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising) and 3.9 3.9 Broadcasters must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that the audience is 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 the form complained about. We told Autorama UK Ltd t/a Motorama to ensure they made clear that they were a third-party leasing broker and not to imply that consumers would be entering directly into a contract with Motorama. We also told them not to state or imply that consumers would need to pay very little or no money up front, if that was not the case.
BCAP Code
3.1 3.10 3.11 3.2 3.3 3.3.1 3.9
