Background
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated, both of which were Not upheld.
Ad description
A website for a motorcycle training course included the claims "The Harlow site has one of the largest training pads in the country and certainly the largest in the area" and "We are the only company in Harlow to be able to mock up the Module 1 in real size".
Issue
RAKtrain Ltd challenged whether the following claims were misleading and could be substantiated:
1. "The Harlow site has one of the largest training pads in the country and certainly the largest in the area"; and
2. "We are the only company in Harlow to be able to mock up the Module 1 in real size".
Response
1,.& 2.
Camrider Ltd (Camrider) stated that it was correct that CAM Rider Harlow had one of the largest approved training pads in the country and that this could be verified by the Driving Standards Agency (DSA). They stated that the process for licensing involved the DSA visiting and inspecting the proposed site and then issuing a licence for a certain number of people to train simultaneously.
They stated that the Harlow site had been approved by the DSA for 14 persons and that this was considered 'exceptional' by the DSA because a DSA approved training pad in the London area was more commonly licensed for approximately four to eight people. They believed that they also had a larger training pad than that of their nearest competitor and stated that this was based on information taken from their (RAKtrain's) own website which stated that it had a 10,000 square foot training pad. Camrider stated that their training pad was significantly larger at 21,975 square feet. They stated that their nearest ten competitors did not have the same facilities as their Harlow site and they believed it was therefore reasonable to use this as unique selling point. They also provided evidence from the DSA which stated that the training pad at Harlow was within the largest 7% of sites in the UK and that it was the largest in the Harlow area.
They said that it was also accurate to state that they were able to mock up Module 1 in real size and that the site had been measured by the DSA and it was found to be compliant in size and tarmac conditions in order to be able to provide the DSA with Module 1 tests, subject to some minor changes. They stated that they were the only motorcycle training company in the London area where this approval had been formally completed by the DSA. They stated that they were also the only company within a 15-mile radius to have a site of sufficient size and quality of tarmac, to be able to mock up a Module 1 test in full size.
They stated that the ad did not identify any competitors but that they believed there were ten training companies with multiple training pads located within a 15-mile radius of their own site and that none of these sites had been measured and approved by the DSA and none offered to mock up a DSA module 1 test to DSA standards and parameters.
Assessment
1. Not upheld
The ASA noted Camrider had demonstrated that it had been approved by the DSA to train 14 people at any one time (across its three tracks) and that they believed this to be more people than any other training pad in the area had been approved to train. We also noted it provided evidence from the DSA that demonstrated it had a larger physical training pad than that of its nearest competitors in Harlow and had the 73rd largest training pad in the country, putting it in the top 7% in terms of size. We therefore considered that the claim "the Harlow site has one of the largest training pads in the country and certainly the largest in the area" had been substantiated and was not misleading.
On this point we investigated the ad under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising), 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) and 3.33 3.33 Marketing communications that include a comparison with an identifiable competitor must not mislead, or be likely to mislead, the consumer about either the advertised product or the competing product. (Comparisons with identifiable competitors) but did not find it in breach.
2. Not upheld
We understood that the practical motorcycle test was split into two separate modules – the off-road module and the on-road module – and that in order to obtain a full motorcycle licence, an individual needed to obtain both. We understood from the DSA that Module 1 related to off-road manoeuvres including U-turns, cornering and emergency stops and that training pads needed to be of a minimum size and dimensions in order for training to be offered in such a way that the full Module 1 test could be replicated. We therefore understood that although it was not necessary to obtain a DSA licence to offer any training for Module 1, in order to mock up the test in real size, it would be necessary to have a facility with the same minimum dimensions as those laid out by the DSA for the actual tests. We understood from the DSA that where a rectangular training pad was not of a sufficient size, an irregular 'hockey stick' shape could be used, providing the track met specifications in relation to width and length in order for all manoeuvres to be carried out. We understood that this included an area of track (for fast turns and slalom moves) which was at least 12 m in width and 100 m in length. We noted Camrider's training pad was within the minimum dimensions required by DSA to mock up the Module 1 test in real size and noted the evidence provided by Camrider demonstrated that although many of the individual manoeuvres could be carried out on Raktrain's site, the size of training pad and road track were not of sufficient width/length to carry out all of the individual manoeuvres that would appear within the Module 1 test. We therefore considered that the claim "We are the only company in Harlow to be able to mock up the Module 1 in real size" had been substantiated and was not misleading.
We investigated the ad under CAP Code (Edition 12) 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising), 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) and 3.33 3.33 Marketing communications that include a comparison with an identifiable competitor must not mislead, or be likely to mislead, the consumer about either the advertised product or the competing product. (Comparisons with identifiable competitors) but did not find it in breach.
Action
No further action required.
