Ad description
A TV ad, seen on 26 May 2016, promoted the website checkedandvetted.com. The ad stated, "We interview all our tradesmen ... we check references, trade qualifications and insurance”.
Issue
The complainant challenged whether the following claims were misleading and could be substantiated:
1. "We interview all our tradesmen"; and
2. "we check references, trade qualifications and insurance”.
Response
1. Christine York t/a Checked and Vetted said a tradesperson had to undergo a process that included an interview in order to join as a member. They were required to provide trade and customer references, as well as any qualifications or trade memberships they claimed to have. Checked and Vetted would then investigate and verify provided details where appropriate.
Checked and Vetted said it was not possible to join their organisation without having an interview, because they needed to ensure that the tradesperson was who they said they were and that they understood the tradesperson’s business sufficiently to present them in the correct categories on their website. They explained that they had staff dedicated to going out and meeting with potential members.They provided an example of a list of appointments for a number of interviews that had taken place.
2. Checked and Vetted said checking references, qualifications and insurance was part of their established vetting process.Any qualifications had to be verified before they could be published. They required that a new member had Public Liability Insurance before joining, and they held copies of every member's certificate. They said if a tradesperson's insurance expired during their membership, it was shown as “out of date” on the Checked and Vetted website until they received a copy of a new certificate. They checked all claims to be “Gas Safe” before the tradesperson was allowed to appear in gas searches and before the relevant logo could appear in the accreditations section of their profile page. They provided examples from their internal vetting system, as well as a copy of their internal vetting procedure. Finally, they said every entry in the accreditations section of a tradesperson's profile was manually verified by a member of staff.
Clearcast said they had sought confirmation for both of the challenged claims and that Checked and Vetted had supplied a statement for each, confirming that those were correct and accurate. They determined that the claims were correct and sufficiently substantiated.
Assessment
1. & 2. Not upheld
The ASA considered that consumers would understand from the ad, and specifically the claims that Checked and Vetted interviewed tradespeople and checked references, qualifications and insurance before allowing them to join as members, that each of those steps were taken for all tradespeople and that the information provided about those tradespeople on the Checked and Vetted website had therefore been verified.
We noted the evidence of appointments to meet prospective members in person. We considered that Checked and Vetted’s internal vetting procedure was clear regarding the steps required to verify the information provided by prospective members, including references, qualifications and insurance. The procedure was categorical that no information should be published on the website if those steps had not been successfully completed, and it stated that only the Senior Vetting Officer could make members’ information go live on the website. That followed a process whereby information collated by a Vetting Officer was reviewed and, if necessary, amended by a separate Validating Officer. It was clear from the information provided by Checked and Vetted that they met with prospective members and that they had robust procedures in place to ensure that information about their members was verified before it appeared on their website. We therefore concluded that the ad was not misleading.
On both points, we investigated the ad under 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), but did not find it in breach.
Action
No further action necessary.
