Although land investments generally fall outside of traditional financial regulation (see further examples here), marketing communications related to these investments are covered by the CAP Code.  The ASA will consider complaints about these ads under the financial rules, as well as the wider Code.

• If your ad promotes land as an investment, it must make clear that the value of investments are variable and, unless guaranteed, can go down as well as up (see rule 14.4 and rulings here and here).
• Ads that give examples of historical performance must make clear that past performance does not necessarily give a guide for the future and examples of past performance or experience should not be unrepresentative. (see rule 14.5 and ruling here).
• If the purchase of land or property involves non-optional taxes, duties, fees or charges that apply to all or most buyers, rule 3.18 states that prices in ads must include them. Rule 3.19 adds that if charges cannot be calculated in advance, the ad must make clear that they are excluded from the advertised price and state how they are calculated. An ad for a luxury lodge that stated, “Invest from £295,000 breached the Code because it did not make clear that a service charge, utilities fee and insurance had to be paid after purchasing the property.
• If you make claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective in your ads, rule 3.7 requires you to hold documentary evidence to prove them. Three ads for a land development and mentorship company made various profit claims, including that an individual client had made £350,000 on a land deal and that collectively their clients had made £6 million. However, the advertiser provided no evidence to the ASA and so the claims were in breach.
• Additionally, a land auction website claimed that consumers could get a return on investment of “10-30%” and that when “selling land at auction you can actually achieve more than you would with a local estate agent.” The advertiser provided two case studies to support the return on investment claim. However, the ASA concluded that only two examples, including one dating back to 2021, was not enough to substantiate the claim. In addition, case studies to support the claim that selling at auction was more profitable than local estate agents were not sufficient. While they showed estate agent valuations that were considerably lower than the final sale price, the evidence did not show that the increase in the sold prices could be attributed to the method of sale. or that selling prices achieved by estate agents for equivalent plots of land were generally lower than those sold at auction.

If you invest in these top tips your ads should land you on firm foundations.

 

---

More on

• Financial products and services
• Misleading
• Mailings, email, phone/fax and messaging
• Newspapers, magazines and printed materials

---