Ad description
Three press ads, a radio ad and the advertiser's website, for Peter Vardy car dealerships:
a. A regional press ad, for Peter Vardy Motherwell, published on 3 August 2011, covered two pages of the newspaper. The first page was headed "AVAILABLE ON ALL NEW CARS NO DEPOSIT TO PAY + 5 YRS 0% APR + CASHBACK FOR YOUR CAR" and featured three cars, including a Vauxhall Corsa. Text above an image of the car stated "NEW CAR CORSA 1.0S ecoFLEX 3DR". Further text stated "£0 DEPOSIT + 5 YRS 0% INTEREST = £29.99 PER WEEK + CASHBACK FOR YOUR CAR". Text in a box stated "REPRESENTATIVE EXAMPLE 260 x weeks £29.99 Customer deposit £0 Peter Vardy deposit £750 Credit fees £0 Cash price £8,547 Total credit £7,797 Total payable £8,547 Final payment £0 Rate of interest FIXED 0% Representative APR 0%".
The second page was headed "SCOTLAND'S BESTBUYS THE WEB'S BEST VALUE USED CARS NO DEPOSIT TO PAY + PAY £0 TILL 2012* + CASHBACK FOR YOUR CAR". The page listed the prices of a number of cars. Small print at the bottom of the page stated **Prices include partners and ***PV allowance or loyalty discounts." Smaller print stated "**Partners includes employees of General Motors their family, friends, a full list is available at [website]. ***The PV allowance is based on the value of your trade in vehicle which must have been registered in the name of the customer for a minimum of 90 days and customer must be able to produce vehicle registration document (V5C) and a valid MOT certificate. Trade in vehicle must have been registered in the UK 7 years prior to order date ... Vehicles shown for illustrative purposes only. Prices are subject to change and availability. For full terms and conditions see in-store or visit [website]."
b. A national press ad, published on 7 August 2011, featured three cars including a Vauxhall Corsa 1.0S ecoFLEX 3DR. The information about the Corsa was the same as in ad (a).
Small print at the bottom of the page stated "*Prices shown on new cars include partners and **PV allowance or loyalty discounts". Smaller print was the same as in ad (a).
c. A regional press ad, for Peter Vardy Perth, published on 19 August 2011, covered two pages of the newspaper. The first page was headed "AVAILABLE ON ALL NEW CARS NO DEPOSIT TO PAY + 5 YRS 0% APR + CASHBACK FOR YOUR CAR" and featured three cars, including a Vauxhall Astra. Text above an image of the car stated "6I PLATE ASTRA 1.4 EXCLUSIVE 5DR". Further text stated "£499 DEPOSIT (optional) + 5 YRS 0% APR REPRESENTATIVE + CASHBACK FOR YOUR CAR = £177.99 PER MONTH".
The second page was headed "SCOTLAND'S BESTBUYS THE WEB'S BEST VALUE USED CARS NO DEPOSIT TO PAY + PAY £0 TILL 2012* + CASHBACK FOR YOUR CAR". The page listed the prices of a number of cars under price headings. Small print at the bottom of the page stated **Prices include partners and ***PV allowance or loyalty discounts". Smaller print was the same as in ads (a) and (b).
d. The radio ad, broadcast in the week commencing 22 August 2011, stated "Every new Vauxhall with no deposit, 5 years 0% finance, cashback and more? Woah! Yes, right now only at Peter Vardy, get every brand new Vauxhall in the range with no deposit, 5 years 0% finance, a free lifetime warranty and cashback for your old car".
e. The website ad, viewed in the week commencing 19 September 2011, stated "Astra SRi Sporthatch 1.6 SRi ... Save over £10,000 on cost new! List Price £19,410 Our Price £8,999 Price includes Partners and Peter Vardy part exchange allowance discount. This amazing offer on a Brand New 61 Plate Astra Sportshatch 1.6 SRi gives you and [sic] incredible specification and none of the cost. ... Please contact us today as this unbeatable offer won't be around for long! Its [sic] not everyday [sic] that we can offer a whopping 57% saving.
A yellow box to the right of the page featured an image of an Astra. Text stated "BRAND NEW ASTRA 1.6 SRi SPORT HATCH LIST PRICE £19,410 NOW £8,999 SAVE £10,411 SAVE 57% on list price ... Prices include partners and PV allowance or loyalty discounts."
At the bottom of the web page, small print stated "*Prices include partners, PV minimum part exchange allowance and loyalty discounts where applicable. ... | Partners discount includes employees of General Motors and associated companies as well as selected family members (Full details: [website]) The PV allowance is a minimum part exchange allowance worth either £1000, £500 or £250 on vehicles of less than that value depending on age. Vehicle must have been registered in UK at least 7 years prior to order, registered to the customer a minimum of 90 days & who must be able to produce a valid V5C & MOT certificate. Loyalty discounts are only available to Vauxhall owners or a spouse living at the same address (Full details [website]). Vehicles shown for illustrative purposes only ...".
Issue
The ASA received five complaints.
1. One complainant challenged whether ad (a) was misleading, because it did not make clear that in order to be able to purchase the Corsa at the stated price, customers must qualify for the Vauxhall Partners Programme discount, the Vauxhall Loyalty discount and the Peter Vardy allowance.
2. One complainant challenged whether ad (b) was misleading, because it did not make clear that in order to be able to purchase the Corsa at the stated price, customers must qualify for the Vauxhall Partners Programme discount, the Vauxhall Loyalty discount and the Peter Vardy allowance.
3. One complainant challenged whether ad (c) was misleading, because it did not make clear that in order to be able to purchase the Astra at the stated price, customers must qualify for the Vauxhall Partners Programme discount, the Vauxhall Loyalty discount and the Peter Vardy allowance.
4. One complainant challenged whether ad (d) was misleading, because they understood that in order to qualify for the offer consumers must work for certain companies and exchange a car of a certain age.
One complainant challenged whether ad (e) was misleading, because:
5. it did not make clear that in order to be able to purchase the Astra SRi at the stated price, customers must qualify for the Vauxhall Partners Programme discount, the Vauxhall Loyalty discount and the Peter Vardy allowance;
6. they understood that the Astra SRi featured was only available in metallic paint, at a higher cost than the stated price; and
7. they understood the image of the car was not the same model as that described in the text.
Response
Peter Vardy said that ads (a) to (d) referred to an offer on new cars which had run since late July 2011. They said the offer did not have any terms and conditions and anyone could qualify for it. They explained that the prices stated in ads (a), (b), (c), and (e) reflected the price at which customers could purchase the featured cars so long as they qualified for three discount schemes: the Vauxhall Partners discount (available to employees, members, and pensioners of Vauxhall and their family members, as well as employees, members and pensioners of other selected organisations); the Vauxhall Loyalty discount (available on new Corsa, Astra and other models to current Vauxhall owners); and the Peter Vardy (PV) allowance (part exchange cashback on vehicles over seven years old).
1., 2., & 3. Peter Vardy said that although ad (a) stated at the bottom of the ad that the prices included all relevant discounts, they stopped running that particular version of the ad after advice from Trading Standards. They said they sought approval from them on a new version and had been running the revised ad ever since. They provided copies of their correspondence with their local Trading Standards department.
Peter Vardy confirmed that the Corsa and the Astra were available to consumers at the stated prices, so long as they qualified for both the Partners and Loyalty discounts and the PV allowance. They provided copies of sales administration forms for one customer purchase of the Corsa and one customer purchase of the Astra featured in the ads. The form for the Corsa showed that the customer had qualified for a Partners discount of £1,021.78, a Loyalty discount of £750 and a PV allowance of £1,100. It showed that the customer would pay £7,799.40 in total for the car, in 60 £130 monthly instalments. The form for the customer purchase of the Astra showed that the customer had qualified for a Partners discount of £1,591.50, a Loyalty discount of £1,000 and a PV allowance of £1,000. It showed that the customer would pay £10,397.50 in total for the car, in 60 £173.30 monthly instalments.
4. Peter Vardy said the offer described in the ad was open to all customers regardless of whether they qualified for the Partners and Loyalty discounts and PV allowance. They said that all customers were eligible for the offer, and that the cashback offer applied to any car of any age.
The ASA informed the advertiser that the complainant had attempted to take up the offer at a Peter Vardy dealership but had been informed that in order to do so they must be an employee of one of a range of companies, and that they must be exchanging a car of a certain age. Peter Vardy said that it appeared that there had been a miscommunication between their sales staff and the complainant. They confirmed that the complainant was eligible to take up the "no deposit, 5 years 0% finance [and] cashback" offer, but that they might not have been able to take advantage of additional savings relating to the Partners and Loyalty discounts or PV allowance.
The RACC said they understood that no terms and conditions applied to the offer.
5. Peter Vardy said ad (e) was no longer running as they had sold out of the Astra SRi. They said the web page did state that the PV allowance was included in the price of the car. They said that the full terms and conditions relating to the offer were listed at the bottom of the web page.
6. Peter Vardy said the Astra SRi was available in a choice of colours, both metallic and non-metallic. They said they only had a small number of the cars and the offer ran for only a short period, so it may have been the case that when the complainant enquired about the car there were only metallic paint cars left. They said they tried to update their offers as often as possible as stock was sold, but there might be times when they were unable to update the website as quickly as they sold the cars.
7. Peter Vardy said the car featured in the image was an Astra SRi 3-door Sports Hatch, as described in the accompanying text, although the colour of any particular car offered to a customer might be different. They said they always stated in small print that the image was for illustration purposes only.
Assessment
1., 2., & 3. Upheld
The ASA noted Peter Vardy had made amendments to ad (a) after advice from their local Trading Standards department. However, because the complaint we received was about the original version of the ad, we considered that version of the ad rather than any amended version.
We noted that small print at the bottom of the second page of ads (a) and (c), and at the bottom of ad (b), stated "*Prices shown on new cars include partners and ** PV allowance or loyalty discounts" and smaller print provided more information with regard to those discounts. We noted, however, that the only place in the main body of ads (a) and (c) which included an asterisk to draw the reader's attention to the small print was at the top of the second page, where they stated "SCOTLAND'S BEST BUYS THE WEB'S BEST VALUE USED CARS NO DEPOSIT TO PAY + PAY £0 TILL 2012* + CASHBACK FOR YOUR CAR". We noted that the offer described in those headers related to used cars, and that all the cars listed on the second page of the ads were used cars, whereas the asterisks drew the reader's attention to small print which stated "Prices shown on new cars ...". We considered that the small print in ads (a) and (c) therefore contradicted rather than clarified the header on the second page of the ads.
Furthermore, we noted that nowhere on the first page of ads (a) and (c), which related to the offer on new cars, and nowhere in ad (b), were there asterisks to draw the reader's attention to the small print. We considered it was therefore not clear that the small print referred to qualifications to the advertised prices for the cars. We concluded that the qualifications in ads (a), (b) and (c) were not presented clearly.
We also noted that, whilst the small print in ads (a), (b) and (c) gave information with regard to the Partners discount and the PV allowance, it did not give any information with regard to the Loyalty discount. Because we understood that the prices stated in the ads were based on consumers qualifying for both discounts and the PV allowance, but the details of one of those discounts were not stated in the small print, we concluded that ads (a), (b) and (c) did not state a significant qualification to the offer.
Notwithstanding the above, we noted that in order to qualify for the prices listed in the ads, consumers must qualify for both the Partners and Loyalty discounts, as well as for a £750 PV allowance in the case of ads (a) and (b). We noted that the information with regard to the Astra in ad (c) did not include any information with regard to the level of PV allowance used to calculate the price of the car. We noted that Peter Vardy had provided documentary evidence which showed that one customer had qualified for all three discounts on the Corsa advertised in ads (a) and (b), and one customer had qualified for all three discounts on the Astra advertised in ad (c). We noted that, although the customer who had purchased the Corsa had opted to pay for the car over 60 weeks and therefore had higher weekly payments than that stated in ads (a) and (b), in total they would pay less than the total price stated in the ads. We also noted that the customer who had purchased the Astra paid less per month than stated in ad (c). We noted that two consumers had, therefore, been able to purchase the cars at less than the advertised prices.
However, we noted that all three complainants had visited Peter Vardy showrooms on the basis of the ads but had been told they did not qualify for the prices stated in the ads. We considered that, like the complainants, it was unlikely that the majority of consumers would qualify for both the Partners and Loyalty discounts and the PV allowance and therefore the majority of consumers would not be able to purchase the cars at the advertised prices. We considered that advertising the discounted prices rather than the prices before discounts was misleading to the average consumer and was likely to result in them taking transactional decisions they otherwise would not have taken. We concluded the ads breached the Code.
On these points, ads (a), (b) and (c) breached CAP Code rules
3.1
3.1
Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
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),
3.9
3.9
Marketing communications must state significant limitations and qualifications. Qualifications may clarify but must not contradict the claims that they qualify.
3.10
3.10
Advertisements must state significant limitations and qualifications. Qualifications may clarify but must not contradict the claims that they qualify.
(Qualification) and
3.1
3.1
Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
(Prices).
4. Not upheld
We understood the complainant had complained about the radio ad because, having visited a Peter Vardy dealership after hearing the ad, they had been told that there were terms and conditions to the offer which meant that they were not eligible. We understood, however, that there were no terms and conditions to the "no deposit, 5 years 0% finance [and] cashback" offer described in the ad, although if customers were eligible for the Partners and Loyalty discounts and PV allowance they would also be able to take advantage of those offers when purchasing a car. Because the offer described in the ad did not include any terms and conditions, we concluded the ad was not misleading.
On this point, we investigated ad (d) under BCAP Code rules
3.1
3.1
Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
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) and
3.10
3.10
Advertisements must state significant limitations and qualifications. Qualifications may clarify but must not contradict the claims that they qualify.
(Qualification), but did not find it in breach.
5. Upheld
We noted the main text in the ad stated "Price includes Partners and Peter Vardy part exchange allowance discount" but did not refer to the Loyalty discount. We considered that claim implied that the price was based only on the Partners and PV allowance. We noted the text in the yellow box stated "Prices include partners and PV allowance or loyalty discounts", which we considered implied that the price was based on the Partners discount, as well as either the PV allowance or the Loyalty discount. Finally, we noted that the small print at the bottom of the web page stated "*Prices include partners, PV minimum part exchange allowance and loyalty discounts where applicable", which we considered implied that the price was based on customers qualifying for both discounts and the PV allowance. Because the three references to the price of the car made conflicting statements with regard to the combination of discounts on which the price was based, we concluded that the qualifications to the offer were not presented clearly and the ad breached the Code.
Furthermore, whilst the small print at the bottom of the web page did provide information about the Partners and Loyalty discounts and the PV allowance, and also provided website addresses where consumers could find more information about the Partners and Loyalty discounts, we noted that there were no asterisks or other links in the main text of the ad which directed consumers to that information in the small print at the bottom of the page. We therefore concluded that the qualifications were also not presented clearly in that regard.
Notwithstanding the above, we also considered that, for the reasons stated above in relation to points 1, 2 and 3, ad (e) also breached the Code because the price stated was not available to the majority of consumers.
On this point, ad (e) breached CAP Code rules
3.1
3.1
Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
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),
3.9
3.9
Marketing communications must state significant limitations and qualifications. Qualifications may clarify but must not contradict the claims that they qualify.
3.10
3.10
Advertisements must state significant limitations and qualifications. Qualifications may clarify but must not contradict the claims that they qualify.
(Qualification) and
3.1
3.1
Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
(Prices).
6. Upheld
We noted Peter Vardy's explanation that they had both metallic and non-metallic paint cars available at the start of the offer, but that they may have run out of the non-metallic paint cars by the time the complainant responded to the ad. However, we noted we had not seen documentary evidence to substantiate that they had had non-metallic paint Astra SRi's in stock at any point.
Furthermore, we understood that metallic paint finishes on Astra SRi's were optional at extra cost to the consumer, and therefore understood that the metallic paint version of the Astra SRi advertised in the ad would have cost more than both the "List Price" and the Peter Vardy price stated in the ad. We considered that was significant pricing information which should have been included in the ad. Notwithstanding that we considered the price in ad (e) was misleading for the reasons stated at point 5 above, we also concluded the ad was misleading because it did not make clear that the car featured in the ad would cost more if it had metallic paint.
On this point, ad (e) breached CAP Code rules
3.1
3.1
Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
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),
3.9
3.9
Marketing communications must state significant limitations and qualifications. Qualifications may clarify but must not contradict the claims that they qualify.
(Qualification), and
3.1
3.1
Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
(Prices).
7. Not upheld
We understood the complainant believed that the car pictured in the ad was an Astra SRi XP rather than an Astra SRi, and the image was therefore misleading because SRi XP's had a higher specification. We understood, however, that there were only two external differences between the standard specifications of the two cars: standard SRi XP's had 18-inch alloy wheels with five spokes, whereas standard SRi's had 16-inch alloy wheels with seven spokes; and SRi XP's had spoilers, skirts and side sills in the same colour as the rest of the bodywork, whereas SRis did not.
We noted the image on the website was very small and considered it was not clear whether the car was an Astra SRi or an Astra SRi XP. We also noted that the text in the ad made clear that the price referred to an Astra SRi, including listing some of its features. For those reasons, we concluded the image was unlikely to mislead consumers.
We investigated ad (e) under CAP Code rules
3.1
3.1
Advertisements 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), but did not find it in breach.
Action
Ads (a), (b), (c) and (e) must not appear again in their current form. We told Peter Vardy that their ads should state all significant limitations and qualifications to their offers, and that those limitations and qualifications should be presented clearly and must not contradict the claims they clarified. We also told them that the prices stated in their ads should be the pre-discount prices of their vehicles if those discounts were only available to a few customers.
