Ad description

The home page of the website www.comparethecarhire.co.uk was headed "Compare the Car Hire Independent reviews of car hire companies across Yorkshire". Claims below stated "Compare the Car Hire is a totally independent service set up to offer impartial advice and comparisons on Car Hire Companies in Leeds. Consumer testimonials, star ratings, service and prices are all compared to bring the latest information to you the customer. Having Compared lots of Hire Car Companies in Leeds and Yorkshire we have composed a list of the very best and broken it down into a top 10 list. We look for car hire availability, car hire stock holding, types of cars available for hire, prices, customer service, car hire delivery & collection services, consumer testimonials, car hire special offers and discounts and finally location. We rate each company based on a 5 Star rating system".

Claims under the heading "How are stars awarded?" stated "Young Drivers Premium; Delivery and Collection Services; Range of Cars and Vans Available; Customer Service e.g. Out of hours; Free Additional Extras e.g. Sat Nav. baby seats etc.". Below, under the heading "This Months [sic] Top 10 Car Hire Companies in Leeds & Yorkshire" was a list of car hire companies in rank order with the top three given as "Nationwide Car Hire UK" (NCH), "Leeds Car Hire UK" (LCH) and "Funky Car Monkey" (FCM).

Issue

The complainant, who believed that the site was operated by the companies ranked as the top three in the list, challenged whether the claims that the site was "independent" and "impartial" were misleading.

Response

Pollyesther UK Ltd (Pollyesther) said comparethecarhire.co.uk was owned by an individual who worked for Pollyesther who had nothing to do with the car hire companies on the website.

The said comparethecarhire was started several months before the complaint was raised and they hoped to contact local companies from other industries who may wish to advertise on the site to generate income. They said rankings were decided on several key factors which were explained on the site. They said NCH, LCH and FCM remained at the top of the rankings because they were cheaper on price and offered more services than the rest. As soon as any of the other car hire companies beat them on price and service, the site would be adjusted accordingly.

Assessment

Upheld

The ASA noted that the site claimed to be independent and impartial. However, the same three companies consistently occupied its top three rankings, while other car companies filled the ranks below and we noted that remained the case during the course of our investigation.

We noted that each company's listing was accompanied by a star rating and that each star appeared to be awarded for a different quality, i.e. "Young Drivers Premium; Delivery and Collection Services; Range of Cars and Vans Available; Customer Service e.g. Out of hours" and "Free Additional Extras e.g. Sat Nav. baby seats etc.". However no explanation was given as to what criteria had or had not been met in consideration of whether or not each company should be awarded a star in each of those categories. We also noted that the listings appeared also to be ranked in order of cost (lowest first) of hiring a small compact car. However, no information was given on when those quotes had been obtained or what variables, in terms of driver, location, etc. had been used to calculate them. We conducted searches on the websites of the top three companies for bookings that, as far as possible, matched that criteria however the prices that were returned did not match the prices quoted in the rankings. We also noted that all three companies appeared to share a booking system and that they were all registered on Companies House at the same address. We asked CTCH for a full explanation of how the rankings were decided but they referred us back to the site itself.

We also noted that the site featured a number of banner ads which were again just for NCH, LCH and FCM and that, in text below the rankings, further endorsements were given for NCH and FCM. We noted that Pollyesther's response also appeared to indicate that those ads did not provide any revenue for them.

Taking that information as a whole, we considered that the site appeared to be operating primarily as a marketing communication for NCH, LCH and FCM. In that context we considered that the onus was on Pollyesther to provide us with a credible explanation as to how the site could be "independent" and "impartial" while also primarily dedicated to promoting three specific companies for no reward. Because they had not done so we concluded that the claims that they were "independent" and "impartial" had not been substantiated and were misleading.

The claims breached under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules  2.3 2.3 Marketing communications must not falsely claim or imply that the marketer is acting as a consumer or for purposes outside its trade, business, craft or profession; marketing communications must make clear their commercial intent, if that is not obvious from the context.  (Recognition of marketing communications)  3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.  and  3.3 3.3 Marketing communications must not mislead the consumer by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.
Material information is information that the consumer needs to make informed decisions in relation to a product. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead the consumer depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the marketing communication is constrained by time or space, the measures that the marketer takes to make that information available to the consumer by other means.
 (Misleading advertising).

Action

We told Pollyesther not to claim or imply that they were independent or impartial unless they were able to demonstrate convincingly that was the case.

CAP Code (Edition 12)

2.3     3.1     3.3    


More on