Ad description
The website www.motorcheck.co.uk, seen in January 2017, offered a car history checking service. Text stated "SAVE 40% ON CAR CHECKS - * Minimum saving compared against 20 checks per month with Experian or HPI - Jan 2017".
Issue
Cap HPI challenged whether the claim "SAVE 40% ON CAR CHECKS - * Minimum saving compared against 20 checks per month with ... HPI" was misleading and could be substantiated.
Response
MotorCheck said the Cap HPI price data they had used in the comparison originated from Cap HPI. They supplied a copy of a quotation supplied by Cap HPI in response to an enquiry for a Trade Service Account, which showed the fixed fee and excess rate for five, ten and 15 checks per month respectively. The document stated that, in addition, there was a one-off joining fee of £75.83 and a monthly subscription fee of £7.08. Mileage checks were charged at £2.60 each or, for National Mileage Register members, £1 each plus a monthly membership fee of £9.95. Mileage investigations were around £24 each or, for National Mileage Register members, approximately £12.
MotorCheck supplied two spreadsheets that showed a comparison between MotorCheck and Cap HPI of the costs of running 20 vehicle data checks per month. One spreadsheet ran the comparisons with membership of the National Mileage Register and the other ran the comparison without membership. The comparisons assumed that each of the 20 checks included car history and mileage, with one of the checks also including a mileage investigation. A list of definitions underneath each spreadsheet defined "mileage investigations" as "A process whereby previous mileage readings are individually verified where possible with the organisation who provided the record and / or the previous owner(s) of the vehicle".
Assessment
Not upheld
The ASA considered traders would interpret the ad to mean that, if they ran 20 vehicle checks per month with MotorCheck, they would make a minimum 40% saving compared with running similar checks with HPI.
We noted that part of the basis of Cap HPI's complaint was the contractual requirement that HPI's customers were not permitted to share details of the cost of HPI's products with competitors. They therefore questioned how reliable the evidence MotorCheck relied on to support the claim was likely to be. We noted, however, that MotorCheck had been sent the pricing information direct from HPI following an anonymous enquiry. We had no reason to think that this would not be a valid reflection of the cost of HPI's products. When drawing up the comparison, MotorCheck had taken into account the one-off joining fee charged by Cap HPI (as traders who were not currently with Cap HPI would need to pay it). They had incorporated that into the price comparison in the first month and then had listed a separate comparison for the subsequent months in which the joining fee did not need to be paid (as traders would only pay the joining fee once). Finally, MotorCheck had calculated the average monthly figure over the course of a year, which took into account the initial month in which the joining fee was paid and the subsequent months. In all of those situations, they had then run further comparisons with and without membership of the National Mileage Register. Each of the comparisons showed a saving of more than 40% for MotorCheck against HPI's products. We acknowledged that slightly different savings ratios might result according to the number of car checks that a trader actually ran, but we considered that MotorCheck had supplied a reasonable basis for the claim and that the ad explained it sufficiently clearly. We therefore concluded that it did not breach the Code.
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. (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 3.33 3.33 Marketing communications that include a comparison with an identifiable competitor must not mislead, or be likely to mislead, the consumer about either the advertised product or the competing product. (Comparisons with identifiable competitors), but did not find it in breach.
Action
No further action necessary.
