Background
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated, both of which were Upheld.
Ad description
Three paid-for search results on Google for vehicle checking services provided by Cazana:
a. The first ad, seen on 19 January and 22 February 2018, was headed "Total UK Car Check - £3.99. | UK's Most Comprehensive Check" and linked to the website www.cazana.com.
b. The second ad, also seen on 22 February 2018, was headed "Total UK Car Check - £1.79. | 1 in 4 Has Outstanding Finance" and linked to the website www.pay.ukvehicle.com.
c. The third ad, seen on 19 January 2018, was headed "Complete UK Car Check - £3.99. | UK's Most Comprehensive Check" and linked to the website www.cazana.com.
Issue
1. One complainant challenged whether the claim "UK's Most Comprehensive Check" in ads (a) and (c) was misleading and could be substantiated.
2. Both complainants, who understood that the checks described were not available for the advertised prices, challenged whether ads (a), (b) and (c) were misleading.
Response
1. UK Vehicle Ltd t/a Cazana said that a "car check" typically referred to provenance checks against standard database content from the DVLA, DVSA, police and insurers. Cazana maintained that, in addition to those checks, theirs were the only checks that showed the previous sales history and images of vehicles and a retail valuation sourced from the details of vehicles that were currently for sale.
2. Cazana said they would remove the term "total" from where it appeared in the ads. They believed "complete" carried the same meaning as "comprehensive" and was therefore supported in their response to point 1 above.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA considered consumers would interpret the claim to mean that the vehicle check undertaken by Cazana covered more aspects of the vehicle and its history and provided more information than checks undertaken by other providers. To substantiate the claim, we expected Cazana to hold information that compared Cazana's checks with those provided by their competitors and which showed that Cazana's checks covered more aspects and provided more information. Because Cazana did not hold that information, we concluded that the claim was misleading.
On that point ads (a) and (c) 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 3.33 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).
2. Upheld
We considered consumers would expect the prices quoted in the ads to relate to the specific products being advertised ("Total UK Car Check" in ads (a) and (b) and "Complete UK Car Check" in ad (c)). Furthermore, we considered they would interpret the terms "total" and "complete" (and the description "UK's Most Comprehensive Check" in ads (a) and (c)) to mean that those checks provided all the information that it was possible to obtain and that there was no additional information that other checks would provide. We understood from one complainant, however, that the check advertised for £1.79 in ad (b) did not include the finance check that the ad referred to, and from the second complainant that the "Total" or "Complete" checks offered for £3.99 in ads (a) and (c) respectively did not provide a number of additional checks that were included in the "gold check" offered by Cazana for £9.99. Because the advertised checks were not available for the prices shown in the ads, we concluded that the ads were misleading.
On that point ads (a), (b) and (c) 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 3.17 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).
Action
The ads must not appear again in the forms complained of. We told UK Vehicle Ltd t/a Cazana not to make claims about the extent of their checks in comparison with those of their competitors unless they held adequate evidence, and to ensure that, if ads suggested that a check was available at a particular price, that was the correct price for that check.
