Note: This advice is given by the CAP Executive about non-broadcast advertising. It does not constitute legal advice. It does not bind CAP, CAP advisory panels or the Advertising Standards Authority.
Foreword: The Unfair Commercial Practices (UCP) provisions in the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCCA) replaced and updated the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (the CPRs) - the legislation from which the majority of the CAP and BCAP rules on misleading advertising derived. Relevant amendments were made to the CAP Code, which came into force on 7 April 2025. The advice below may be informed by ASA rulings that predate the introduction of the UCPs. Rather than removing such advice, where the underlying principles still align with the updated rules, it has remained included for educational and illustrative purposes. Marketers are also advised to review the resources Amendments to the Advertising Codes following review in response to the DMCCA 2024 and the CAP Code archive.
Some services involve a “call-out”, which involves a professional travelling to a caller’s home or other premises to assess the work needed. Often, these marketers claim that they do not charge a “call-out” fee, cost, or charge.
Marketers should only make such a claim if they do not charge for the time spent traveling to the premises and for the initial diagnosis of the problem during that initial visit, or any other charge prior to work being agreed, no matter what it is called. If there is an unavoidable fee for the consumer, this must be stated clearly.
Can customers decline work without incurring a cost?
Unless customers can decline work without incurring a cost, advertisers claiming "No call-out charge" or similar should not charge for the time spent traveling to the customer’s home and the initial diagnosis of the problem (Academy Maintenance Group, 18 March 2015).
“Assessment” or “diagnostic” fees that are imposed if customers do not have remedial work carried out are likely to be seen as equivalent to a call-out charge. In 2020, the ASA considered that "No Call Out Charge" was misleading, because the advertiser charged for time spent diagnosing a problem, and was silent as to whether consumers would be charged if a problem was diagnosed, a quote was provided, but no work was undertaken (Rightio Ltd, 25 November 2020).
Earlier in 2020, in a similar case, the ASA found another ‘No Call Out Charge’ claim to be misleading. Once again, the advertiser failed to show that consumers could decline work without incurring a cost for the initial diagnosis of the problem (Town Force Ltd, 4 November 2020). See also Property Improvement & Maintenance Services Ltd t/a Wandsworth Plumbers, 9 October 2019.
When investigating the claim “No Call Out Charge … Diagnostic work charged unless work undertaken”, the ASA concluded that the sub-heading contradicted, rather than clarified, the headline, and was therefore misleading (Premier Electrics, 4 August 2004).
Is extensive diagnostic work needed?
If the marketer can show that a diagnostic charge is levied only in exceptional circumstances in which it is impossible to identify or locate the problem without considerable work, the ASA is likely to consider the claim “No Call-Out Charge” acceptable. Any charges that are necessary as a result of extensive diagnostic work should be made only with the prior agreement of the caller.
Are there any alternative claims?
Claims such as “Call-out charge off-set against cost of work” are likely to be acceptable if advertisers will discount the price of the call out fee from the bill. Marketers would have to show that the cost of the call-out was redeemed, and that they had not simply inflated their prices to cover the ‘discount’ offered.
Compulsory costs and charges: General may also be of use.