Background
Summary of Council decision:
Four issues were investigated, all of which were Not upheld.
Ad description
A national press ad for the London Gatwick Obviously campaign stated "GATWICK'S FIVE GUARANTEES TO THE UK". Headings then set out the five guarantees, followed in each case by explanatory text.
Issue
Eighteen readers challenged whether the following claims were misleading and could be substantiated:
1. “Fair to taxpayers," because they understood the new runway would lead to a need for new roads, new homes, schools, hospitals, expansion of railway lines caused by new passengers and workers that would be funded by the taxpayer;
2. “Fair to government," because Gatwick’s runway might cost over £20 billion compared to the £9.3 billion claimed, as suggested by the Airports Commission;
3. “Fair to local people,” because they considered the cash settlement of £1,000 (linked to inflation) per year was too little compensation for the impact it would have on people in the immediately surrounding areas and was not offered to all areas that would be affected; and
4. “Fair to the environment," because the project would destroy listed buildings and woodlands, and increase pollution. They objected that Gatwick did not include road pollution in air quality figures.
Response
1. & 2. Gatwick Airport Ltd said their guarantees and commitments were derived from their submission to the Airports Commission, which had included a detailed business plan and full project financing and costing. They cited the commitments stated in their published literature for contributing to funding towards housing, local road and rail improvements, community infrastructure and the overall cost of expansion at Gatwick.
3. Gatwick said their location in a comparatively less populated area meant that the airport already had a relatively small noise impact on local residents. They cited the commitments stated in their published literature to compensation for noise and reduction in house values and to funding for noise insulation. They said their compensation scheme formed part of their submission to the Airports Commission and was fully costed in their business plan.
4. Gatwick confirmed that their air quality calculations had included road pollution. They cited the measures listed in their published literature which they considered entitled them to claim that they would meet air quality standards.
Assessment
The ASA noted that the ads referred to an airport expansion plan that at the time was being considered by the Airports Commission. We noted that, due to the contentious nature of the issue, the exploration of various airport expansion plans by the Airports Commission had received a lot of press attention. We considered members of the public would therefore recognise the context of the ads and appreciate that they represented the views and expectations of Gatwick Airport Ltd, formed upon a reasonable and robust evidence base.
1. Not upheld
The concerns about the claim had arisen mostly because of the need, that would follow expansion of Gatwick, for transport and housing infrastructure and related services such as health and education, which the complainants believed were likely to be funded publicly rather than privately. The claim went on to state "A privately funded runway ready for take-off in 2025 ... with no need for billions of pounds of public subsidy". We considered readers were likely to expect from the claim, in the context of the explanatory text that immediately followed it, that it was the additional runway itself; associated airport infrastructure such as buildings and roads within the airport confines; improvements to transport links in the vicinity of the airport; and rebuilding, relocation and environmental costs associated with the additional area covered by the airport that would be privately funded, as was reflected in Gatwick's published commitments.
We considered the ad explained the context of the claims, which were supported by Gatwick's publicly-stated commitments. Because of that, we concluded that the claims were unlikely to mislead.
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.
2. Not upheld
The concerns about the claim had arisen because the complainants believed Gatwick had underestimated the cost of the runway, with the shortfall needing to be met by government. The claim went on to state "No public sector risk for Government to carry. Gatwick guarantees that it will bear all the main long-term risks of the expansion programme related to traffic levels, market pricing, construction and operating costs, rather than expecting either passengers, airlines or Government to take these risks". We considered it was clear that the claim, in the context of the explanatory text that immediately followed it, was based on Gatwick's commitment to bear the long-term risks of the expansion programme, such as taking responsibility for unforeseen costs and solving traffic problems in the vicinity. We also noted that Gatwick had committed themselves to the claim in their submission to the Airports Commission.
We considered the ad explained the context of the claims, which were supported by Gatwick's publicly-stated commitments. Because of that, we concluded that the claims were unlikely to mislead.
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.
3. Not upheld
The concerns about the claim arose because complainants believed the compensation proposed by Gatwick was not sufficient for the increased extent of noise and reduction in house values they believed would result from the expansion. The claim went on to state "Cash compensation for those most affected by noise. Gatwick guarantees that it will pay £1,000 (linked to inflation) annually towards the Council Tax of those people currently affected by significant levels of aircraft noise, or who may become affected as soon as a second runway is operational". We considered the context of the claim set out the basis of Gatwick’s guarantee to provide compensation in a way they considered to be fair.
We accepted that views on the amount of compensation that was acceptable and the area across which it should be offered might differ. However, Gatwick had committed themselves publicly to the arrangements in their published literature. There, they re-stated their compensation arrangements and described the expansion of their noise insulation scheme. We acknowledged that the impact of airport expansion on local people was a particularly contentious issue. However, we considered the ad had explained the basis of the claim and we noted that it was backed up by Gatwick's published commitments. Because of that, we concluded that the claim was unlikely to mislead.
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.
4. Not upheld
The concerns about the claim arose because complainants believed Gatwick had not included road pollution in the air quality figures they referred to and because of the listed buildings and woodland that would be destroyed if the expansion went ahead. The claim went on to state “Air quality targets always met. Gatwick guarantees that air quality levels will remain within current legal limits in the area close to the airport …”. We considered it was clear that the claim, in the context of the explanatory text that immediately followed it, related to air quality only, and that readers would understand that expansion was likely to have a negative impact on the environment in other ways, such as the development of woodland and the loss of habitat. We noted Gatwick’s confirmation that road pollution had been included in their calculation, and the measures Gatwick proposed to incorporate to ensure they kept to the claim, which they had publicly committed themselves to in their published literature. Because of that, we concluded that the claim was unlikely to mislead.
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.
