Background
THIS RULING REPLACES THAT PUBLISHED ON 3 JANUARY 2018. THE WORDING OF THE ASSESSMENT ON POINT ONE HAS CHANGED BUT THE DECISION TO UPHOLD ON THIS POINT REMAINS.
Ad description
The website www.servicingstop.co.uk for the car servicing company Servicing Stop:
a. The home page of the website, seen in February 2017, included the claim “up to 60% off” and then listed their servicing discounts for a Kia Sedona car: “Full service £114.92” with the price “£287.30” struck out alongside text which stated “60% February Sale discount on services has already been applied”. Small text above the reference to the offer stated “*Up to 60% off main dealer prices”. A countdown timer was displayed beneath text stating “this week’s promotion ends in …”.
b. The home page of the website, seen over the Easter period 2017 included the claim “70% off” and then listed various services for a for a Kia Sedona car where a discount had been applied alongside text stating “70% Easter Sale discount on services has already been applied”; “Full service £114.92” with the price “£383.06” struck out. Smaller text beneath the “NEXT” button included “Specialist Oil may be required for your vehicle this is a set cost of £24.00 + VAT”.
Issue
The ASA received two complaints.
1. One complainant, who believed that Servicing Stop continuously charged the ‘sale’ price for their services and that the savings were therefore not genuine, challenged whether the savings claims quoted within the ads were misleading and could be substantiated.
2. One complainant, who believed that the make and model of an owned Honda CRV car always required the use of the specialist oil which cost an additional amount, challenged whether the price quoted in ad (b) was misleading because it omitted that cost.
Response
1. Servicing Stop Ltd provided evidence of the sale dates and unit sales for the “full” servicing of the Kia Sedona car over a six-month period from August 2016 to March 2017. They explained that typically there would be a sale held for seven to ten days within each month. They said that they did not consider that their previous sale periods for full services on Kia Sedona’s were relevant to determining the original full price. They said that there were significant numbers of services sold at the higher price and that higher prices were offered throughout 2016 and 2017 with short intermittent sales.
2. Servicing Stop Ltd stated it would be misleading to suggest that the make and model of the complainant’s Honda CRV always required the use of specialist oil and because they had not been provided with the vehicles specific details it would be difficult for them to comment on that particular vehicle. They provided a report that indicated that 20% of Honda CRV’s they had serviced had been charged for specialist oil, which they believed refuted the suggestion that all Honda CRVs required specialist oil.
They said they had informed their clients there might be a charge for specialist oil by providing information relating to oil costs and by highlighting in their terms and conditions that there might be an additional charge for specialist oil, whereby they would be informed of that cost on the day of their service. They also said that, in their booking calls with customers, they stated long-life and specialist oils were charged at an additional fee. They felt, therefore, they had attempted to be clear that there might be additional oil costs for their client’s vehicles.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA considered that consumers would understand the claims “up to 60% off” in ad (a) and “70% off” in ad (b) to mean that services included in the sale would be discounted by a maximum of 60% or 70% against Servicing Stop’s usual selling price of the full service for the Kia Sedona at the time the ads appeared. We also considered that they would understand the crossed out prices shown in the ads to represent their usual selling price for those services. We noted that ad (a) did contain small text stating that the discount was “off main dealer prices” which was ambiguous, but considered that the overall impression was of a comparison with their own usual prices.
The sales data provided by the advertiser covered a six-month period from August 2016 to March 2017. We noted that during this time services were offered at a promotional price for around seven days each month. For the remaining period non-sale prices ranged from £287.30 to £414.92, with significant variation in the precise price charged.
Ad (a), dated February 2017, featured a crossed out price of £287.30 for a full service for the Kia Sedona. Ad (b), from March 2017, featured a crossed out price of £383.06 for the same service. We considered that this significant change in the ‘was’ price presented raised questions about whether they did represent a genuine usual selling price for the service.
With regards to ad (a) where the quoted “was” price was £287.30 we noted that in the six months prior to the February 2017 sale services were sold at £287.30 or higher, apart from during the sale periods, although the exact price of £287.30 had only been offered on two occasions. We considered the fact that many services had been sold at prices higher than the “was” price referenced in the ad was unlikely to undermine the claim that there was a reduction against a price of £287.30, given that this price represented the lowest non-sale price charged. However, we also considered that a number of other factors were relevant in determining whether that price was misleading or not. The pricing history for the service showed that its price had consistently fluctuated on a monthly basis, and that the higher prices had not been charged for any significant, continuous periods of time. The February sale in ad (a) appeared to have started on 9 February, and the previous sale appeared to have ended recently on 17 January.
With regards to ad (b) where the quoted “was” price was £383.06, we noted that the discounted price had remained at £114.92, despite the claimed saving being greater. There were two instances of the service being sold at the crossed out price of £383.06 between August 2016 and March 2017. Whilst some services were sold at a higher price than that, the majority of the non-sale prices charged in that period were lower than £383.06.
Given that sales were so regular and that the “was” prices were therefore only charged for short periods at a time, we considered that if consumers had been aware of that pattern it was unlikely they would view either £287.30 or £383.06 as the usual selling price of the service. We considered the cyclical nature of the pricing and lack of usual selling price would be likely to affect consumers’ perceptions of the value of the offer, and whether or not the claimed savings were genuine.
Because consumers were likely to understand that the claimed savings in ads (a) and (b) represented a genuine saving against the usual selling price of the product, and because that was not the case, we concluded that the savings claims were misleading.
On this point ads (a) and (b) breached 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 3.17 3.17 Price statements must not mislead by omission, undue emphasis or distortion. They must relate to the product featured in the marketing communication. (Prices).
2. Not upheld
We understood that not all makes and models of the Honda CRV would require the use of specialist oil and only 20% of Honda CRV’s serviced by the advertiser had previously incurred a charge for specialist oil. We acknowledged that the advertiser had included a set price cost for specialist oil in ad (b). We considered that by prominently displaying the specialist oil price on the home page of the website above the “buy now” click-through button, it was clear to consumers that the charge might be applicable to their booking, although it would not be applicable for all models of the vehicle. We therefore concluded that the ad was not misleading.
On this point, we investigated ad (b) under CAP Code 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 3.17 3.17 Price statements must not mislead by omission, undue emphasis or distortion. They must relate to the product featured in the marketing communication. (Prices), but did not find it in breach.
Action
We told Servicing Stop Ltd to ensure that future savings claims did not misleadingly imply savings against the usual selling price of the product if that was not the case.
