Ad description
A website, www.drivinginstructortrainingcourse.co.uk, seen on 11 August 2017 featured text that stated “Tri-Coaching Partnership (TCIT) Approved Members of The Driver & Vehicle Standards Agency Official Register of Driving Instructor Training …”. The ad also included a logo with text that stated “OFFICIAL REGISTER OF DRIVING INSTRUCTOR TRAINING ORDIT FOR GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND”.
Issue
The complainant, who understood that the advertiser was not a member of The Driver & Vehicle Standards Agency Official Register of Driving Instructor (ORDIT) challenged whether the claim “Tri-Coaching Partnership (TCIT) Approved Members of The Driver & Vehicle Standards Agency Official Register of Driving Instructor Training” and the use of the ORDIT logo were misleading.
Response
Tri-Coaching Partnership stated that they were are an ORDIT Registered organisation and provided a copy of their certificate to support this.
They had received a complaint from a Government organisation in September 2017 regarding the way they were advertising the use of their ORDIT registration, because it implied that all their licensed trainers were on the ORDIT register when that was not the case. They responded to that complaint by amending their advertising accordingly, to which the Government body had acknowledged. Tri-Coaching Partnership provided a trail of emails with the Government organisation that had complained to support this.
Assessment
Not upheld
Having seen a copy of their ORDIT certificate, the ASA acknowledged that Tri-Coaching Partnership was an organisation that appeared on The Official Register of Driving Instructor Training.
We considered that consumers would interpret the claim “Tri-Coaching Partnership (TCIT) Approved Members of The Driver & Vehicle Standards Agency Official Register of Driving Instructor Training” along with the ORDIT logo, that Tri-Coaching Partnership was an organisation that was a registered member of ORDIT.
Therefore, because we considered Tri-Coaching Partnership had provided adequate evidence showing that they were a member of ORDIT, we concluded that the claim and the use of the ORDIT logo were not misleading.
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 3.50 3.50 Marketing communications must not display a trust mark, quality mark or equivalent without the necessary authorisation. Marketing communications must not claim that the marketer (or any other entity referred to), the marketing communication or the advertised product has been approved, endorsed or authorised by any public or other body if it has not or without complying with the terms of the approval, endorsement or authorisation. (Endorsements and testimonials), but did not find it in breach.
Action
No further action necessary.
