Ad description

Claims in two brochures and on a website for a construction company:

a.  A brochure stated, "… a family owned business ... Now entering the 4th generation with over 60 years [sic] presence in farm building construction".

b.  The website, www.robinsons.com, stated "Robinson Structures have been manufacturing steel frame farm, industrial & storage buildings for well over 50 years".

c.  A subsequent brochure, which included a visual of a grain store under construction stated, "Construction started in September 2008 ... Robinson supplied and erected over 750 tonnes of steelwork, concrete panels and claddings ...".

Issue

The complainant challenged whether:

1.  the number of years the company had been in operation in ads (a) and (b) were misleading and could be substantiated; and

2.  the claim that Robinson Structures had started construction on the stated building was misleading and could be substantiated, because the complainant believed it had not been initiated by the current company.

Response

1.  Robinson Structures Ltd confirmed that the current company was relatively new. They said the original company S. Robinson & Sons (Engineers) was set up several decades ago, and was sold in late 2010 to an investment company.  However, due to financial issues, that company was put into administration.  They said that one arm of the business (Robinsons Agriculture Ltd) was then transferred to a new Limited Company, which Robinson Structures Ltd later purchased from the administrators and was now managed by members of the immediate family.  

They supplied a copy the Change of Company Name document from Companies House which they said supported the name change.  

Robinson Structures said as part of the transfer of that section of the original business, the goodwill of that arm was passed down to them and because of this, they had the right to represent themselves as a continuation of the business that was supported by an Asset Purchase Agreement which they supplied.

2.  Robinson Structures said the building shown was constructed during the time the company was owned by the investment company and that part of the business was not transferred to Robinson Structures.

Assessment

1.  Upheld

The ASA acknowledged the Asset Purchase Agreement which referenced the transfer of goodwill and the trading name from S. Robinson & Sons (Engineers) Ltd to Robinsons Agriculture Ltd and we understood that referred to the purchase of part of the original business from the administrators.  We also noted the certification of name change from Robinsons Agriculture Ltd to Robinson Structures Ltd.  We noted that both documents post-dated the period when the company was in administration.

We considered that the claims "over 60 years [sic] presence in farm building construction" and "Robinson Structures have been manufacturing … for well over 50 years" would be understood by consumers to mean that they had a continuous trading history for the stated periods of time.  In order to claim continuous trading, the ASA considered that Robinson Structures needed to show they had a continuous trading history dating back over 60 years.  

We were not presented with evidence that the trading history of the original company had begun over 60 years ago and we noted that because of the sale of the original business and the subsequent period of administration, Robinson Structures did not have a continuous trading history.  Because of this we therefore concluded that the claims were misleading.  

On this point the ads breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules  3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.  and  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).

2.  Upheld

We noted that the image was of a grain store that was constructed during a period when the original company was owned by an investment company which was not subsequently transferred to the current company Robinson Structures Ltd.  We considered consumers would understand that because the building featured in a brochure from Robinson Structures, they were likely to assume they had constructed it.  However, because the building was constructed by a company that was not owned by them, we concluded the brochure was misleading.

On this point 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) and  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).

Action

The ads must not appear again in their current form.  We told Robinson Structures Ltd not to state or imply they had a continuous trading history dating back over 50 or 60 years, or to use visuals of constructions they had not built.

CAP Code (Edition 12)

3.1     3.3     3.7    


More on