Ad description
A website, www.victoriaplumb.com, that offered bathroom furniture, featured a banner that stated "AUTUMN Savings EVENT". Text at the foot of the ad stated " ... Special offer ends 14/11/13. Event ends 24/11/13".
The website included text on the "Bologna Wall Mounted Basin" product page that stated "now £39 was £119 save £80". Text on the "Escala Waterfall Basin Mixer Tap" product page stated "now £59 was £149 save £90".
Issue
The complainant challenged whether the "was" prices were misleading, because they understood that the advertised products had not been sold for those prices previously.
Response
Victoria Plum Ltd said the prices were genuine. However, they did not provide documentary evidence to support that.
Assessment
Upheld
The ASA noted the industry best practice regarding price comparisons as outlined in the Pricing Practices Guide (the Guide) from the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS). The Guide was not binding on traders, the Courts or the ASA, but was to be taken into account in marketing communications, as made clear in the CAP Code. The Guide recommended that comparisons with a trader's own previous price should generally use, as the basis for comparison, the most recent previous price for the product, which should have been available for at least 28 consecutive days and last offered no more than six months earlier.
We considered that Victoria Plumb needed to provide documentary evidence showing that the items had been sold at the higher prices listed in the ad for a sufficiently long period to ensure that they were genuine retail prices and that consumers were not misled by the savings claims. Because we had seen no evidence to demonstrate that, we concluded that the "was" prices had not been substantiated and were therefore misleading.
The claims 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 (Substantiation), 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) and 3.40 3.40 Price comparisons must not mislead by falsely claiming a price advantage. Comparisons with a recommended retail prices (RRPs) are likely to mislead if the RRP differs significantly from the price at which the product or service is generally sold. (Price comparisons).
Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form.
