Background
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated, of which one was Upheld and one was Not upheld.
Ad description
A press ad for an electric heating system, seen in August 2017, stated "CLEAN AGE HEATING. TIME TO GO ELECTRIC WITH SUNFLOW ... Pollution is a big issue and with the passing of an act of Parliament (5th Carbon Amendment July 2016) we await the governments [sic] intentions on how they will tackle our dirty air. Time to replace gas and oil heating? ... burning fossil fuels in our homes and offices is a big part of the problem. Even boilers with claims of 90% efficiency are sending out huge quantities of unburnt gas and oil (as well as toxic fumes) in and around where we live and work ...".
Further text stated "An alternative to night storage heaters. Our heaters are nothing like the old style, high consumption, manual night storage heaters. Time and temperature controlled for ultimate accuracy and efficiency, Sunflow's [sic] have a blend of radiant and natural convection, so no excessive air movement. All this with a much reduced power rating ...".
Issue
The complainant challenged whether the following claims were misleading and could be substantiated:
1. "Even boilers with claims of 90% efficiency are sending out huge quantities of unburnt gas and oil (as well as toxic fumes)" because they believed it implied that 10% of the fuel was not burnt and they understood that was not true; and
2. that the product had "a much reduced power rating", because they understood that all electric heating was 100% efficient.
Response
1. Sunflow Ltd did not agree with the complainant's interpretation of the claim that it implied that 10% of the fuel was not burnt. They said the ad did not state that all of the pollutant emissions from such boilers consisted of unburnt gas and oil. They pointed out that the claim also referred to toxic fumes. They explained that the combustion process produced volumes of gases such as carbon dioxide and other pollutants and compounds. They said the balance of toxins were from unburnt gas or oil plus other impurities within the original gas or oil. They believed that even the harmless steam from the water in the gas or oil (or moisture in the air), pluming out of the boiler's flue, could be acidic and corrosive.
They provided a body of evidence in support of their claim.
2. Sunflow pointed out that the ad referred to "old style, high consumption, manual storage heaters" and that was the basis of their comparison. They said that in the last 15 months they had replaced that style of heater with their Sunflow heaters in at least 100 properties. They had recorded the power rating (in watts) for each of the heaters that were removed and had compared the power rating to their own heaters which replaced them. They provided 25 examples which included the addresses of the properties surveyed, and were willing to provide all 100 if necessary. They believed that was adequate substantiation for the claim and pointed out in some cases the reduction in power rating was above 42%. They explained that the reduction in power rating was due to the fact that they could manufacture smaller heaters for smaller spaces. Their heaters also had an internal power reduction, apart from the general control, which reduced electricity input to 25% so that the heater could more accurately reach a target temperature and maintain a room temperature.
They also provided a document from a manufacturer of manual night storage heaters.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA considered that consumers were likely to interpret the claim to mean that high efficiency gas and oil boilers (i.e. those which claimed to be 90% efficient) were emitting very large quantities of pollutants in the form of unburnt gas and oil as well as toxic fumes. We did not consider consumers would necessarily infer from the claim that 10% of the fuel used by the boiler would not be burnt. We considered that to substantiate the claim, the advertiser needed to show that high efficiency gas and oil boilers emitted large quantities of pollutants in the form of unburnt fuel and toxic fumes.
We assessed the evidence provided. Several news articles regarding the dangers of carbon monoxide poisoning from gas boilers, and the European patent documentation for the product were not relevant to the claim. A PowerPoint presentation by a consultancy company specialising in air quality and climate change emissions was not adequate substantiation. The advertiser provided three reports and we noted that none of those reports provided emissions data for the type of boiler referred to in the ad (gas or oil boilers that were 90% efficient). We noted that one of the reports stated that there was a lack of research into emissions from smaller combustion sources, such as domestic boilers. We also noted that one of the reports stated that newer, high efficiency condensing boilers (which achieved efficiencies of around 90%) performed significantly better than older-style non-condensing boilers (which achieved efficiencies of around 70%) in terms of emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and local air pollutants such as nitrogen oxides.
For those reasons, we concluded that the claim had not been substantiated and was misleading.
On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (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).
2. Not upheld
We considered that consumers were likely to interpret the term "power rating" to mean how much electricity was needed to operate the appliance, which was measured in watts. Therefore, consumers were likely to interpret the claim to mean that Sunflow's electric heaters had a much lower power rating (in watts) than the old style manual storage heaters.
We noted that one of the documents provided appeared to be a PowerPoint presentation which had been prepared for a manufacturer of manual night storage heaters. It did not appear to compare the power rating of Sunflow's electric heaters with the power rating of old style manual storage heaters and, therefore, was not directly relevant to the claim. Given that it was a PowerPoint presentation we also considered it was not adequate substantiation.
We considered the research that had been carried out by Sunflow. We noted that for each of the properties surveyed, the total power rating of the manual storage heaters that had been removed was at least 70% higher than the total power rating of the Sunflow heaters that replaced them. We considered that was adequate substantiation for the claim that Sunflow heaters had a much reduced power rating compared to the old style manual storage heaters and concluded that the claim was not misleading.
On that 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. (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
The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Sunflow Ltd to ensure that they held adequate substantiation for their objective claims in future.
