Ad description
A clothing retailer's website, www.princesvintage.com, stated under the heading "Delivery ... We want you to be delighted with your purchase. If not and you need to return an item? No problem, we have a full 14 day no quibble returns policy. Click on the FAQ page for our Full [sic] RETURNS POLICY".
Issue
The complainant challenged whether the returns policy was misleading because they said their return was refused.
Response
Draycott Investment Group Ltd t/a PrincesVintage (Princes Vintage) said the business had changed hands recently and they were unaware of the customer's details. They also said the claim "no quibble money back guarantee" had been revised to "We want you to be delighted with your purchase. If not and you need to return an item? No problem, we have a 14 day returns policy."
Assessment
Upheld
The ASA was concerned that Princes Vintage had not retained the customer's details and could not therefore supply evidence of why a refund was not provided. We acknowledged that Princes Vintage had revised the "no quibble" claim, however, we considered the wording still gave consumers the impression that any item could be returned easily.
We noted the website included a link "Returns Policy", which customers were not explicitly directed to, which stated "Please note: we cannot accept returns unless ... The tamper-proof security seal is still attached ... The goods are in the same condition as they were sent to you ... The original Princes Vintage tag is still attached". However, we noted Princes Vintage directed customers to their returns policy on their FAQ [Frequently Asked Questions] page. That stated "If you're not completely satisfied with your purchase, simply return it to us in its original condition* within 14 days of receipt using the returns form enclosed ... *PLEASE NOTE: all postage costs are non-refundable". We considered that this page did not sufficiently explain the returns policy, because additional conditions applied when returning goods.
Because we had not seen any evidence supporting the claim that Princes Vintage offered a refund, and because their returns policy was ambiguous, we concluded the ad breached the Code.
The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules
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),
3.9
3.9
Marketing communications must state significant limitations and qualifications. Qualifications may clarify but must not contradict the claims that they qualify.
and
3.10
3.10
Qualifications must be presented clearly.
CAP has published a Help Note on Claims that Require Qualification.
(Qualification),
3.54
3.54
Marketing communications must make clear each significant limitation to an advertised guarantee (of the type that has implications for a consumer's rights). Marketers must supply the full terms before the consumer is committed to taking up the guarantee.
and
3.55
3.55
Marketers must promptly refund consumers who make valid claims under an advertised money-back guarantee.
(Guarantees and after-sales service).
Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Princes Vintage to ensure customers were given a refund if they complied with their returns policy and to ensure their returns policy was explained clearly in future.
