Background
This ruling forms part of a wider group of investigations on companies offering CPD (Continuing Professional Development) accreditation services.
Summary of Council decision:
Three issues were investigated, all of which were upheld.
Ad description
A website, https://www.centreofcpdexcellence.com/, for Centre of CPD Excellence, a CPD accreditation company, seen in October 2025.
The “Compare CPD Companies” page included a table comparing the Centre of CPD Excellence with named competitors against the following criteria: “Time to complete applications”; “Price for 1-5 course per year”; “Price for 6-10 courses per year”; “Price for 11-20 course per year”; “Price for unlimited courses”; “Wide choice of insurers”; “Student can review your academy on their platform”; “Recognition awards for top performing academies”; “Staff and Students can register for a TOTUM PRO Student card to save £££ off everyday items”; “FREE listing on Salon Industry Directory”; and “Approved by the CPD Regulatory Office”.
The “CPD Accreditation of Training Bodies” page stated, “Centre of CPD Excellence is a specialised CPD accreditation body in that we only accredit training or events within the Hair, Beauty, Holistic and Aesthetics sector. With a panel of specialists, we are able to evaluate and assess the training provider to ensure that they deliver exceptional standards in education”. It further stated, “When an organisation has been accredited by an CPD accreditation body, it has been assessed against internationally recognised standards to demonstrate competence, impartiality, and performance capability […] Centre of CPD Excellence is unique in that we constantly assess and evaluate our approved training providers, unlike other CPD accreditation bodies”.
The “Why choose us?” page stated, “What makes Centre of CPD Excellence unique: […] A panel of independent industry experts means we can check all types of courses to ensure they meet a set minimum standard where they fall outside of our expertise. Any expert is bound by our non-disclosure agreement. […] Centre of CPD Excellence is the only accreditation company that has a review function for our accredited academies. This means students can leave reviews, increasing bookings as students feel more confident in your academy. The only accreditation company that has an awards system. We recognise all our top performing academies. This helps to boost your presence online and increases students confidence in your training”.
The “Insurance Partners” page stated, “Getting insured for your business is the same as getting car insurance […] Please see below the list of insurers that you can recommend to your student’s [sic] post-training”.
Issue
The CPD Register Ltd challenged whether the claims:
- in the comparison table were misleading and could be substantiated;
- in the comparison table were verifiable; and
- that the Centre of CPD Excellence had a panel of “specialists” and “independent industry experts” and offered insurance providers to its students, implying an official relationship with insurance partners, were misleading and could be substantiated.
Response
1., 2. & 3. The Centre of CPD Excellence said that they believed their advertising complied with all relevant rules, regulations and procedures. They said they followed a structured internal compliance process before developing and publishing the materials, including checks against relevant CAP guidance and ASA requirements. They said that they aimed to ensure claims were accurate, substantiated where needed and presented clearly in a way that was not misleading to consumers.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The CAP Code stated comparisons with identifiable competitors must not mislead, or be likely to mislead, about either the advertised product or the competing product. It also stated that marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims likely to be regarded as objective and that were capable of objective substantiation.
We considered the comparison table in the “Compare CPD Companies” page made claims about the Centre of CPD Excellence and identifiable competitors, including price and service features, which the audience would be likely to regard as objective. As the Centre of CPD Excellence had not provided substantiation for the comparative claims, we therefore concluded that they were misleading.
The ad breached CAP Code rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation), 3.32 (Comparisons with identifiable competitors) and 3.39 (Price comparisons).
2. Upheld
The CAP Code stated that comparisons with identifiable competitors must objectively compare one or more material, relevant, verifiable and representative features of those products. That meant an ad which featured a comparison with an identifiable competitor, needed to include, or direct the audience to, sufficient information to allow them to understand the comparison, and be able to check the claim was accurate, or ask someone suitably qualified to do so.
The “Compare CPD Companies” page did not explain, or clearly signpost, where the audience could locate details of, for example, the features included by each provider or the dates and sources for each competitor’s pricing. Because the page did not provide, or include clear links or directions to information that would allow the audience to check each element of the comparison, or understand how any figures were calculated, we concluded that the comparison was therefore not verifiable.
On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 3.34 (Comparisons with identifiable competitors).
3. Upheld
The “CPD Accreditation of Training Bodies” page stated that the Centre of CPD Excellence had “a panel of specialists” and described its accreditation as being assessed against “internationally recognised standards” demonstrating “competence, impartiality, and performance capability”. The “Why choose us?” page further stated it had “a panel of independent industry experts”. We considered these claims were likely to give the audience the impression that the Centre of CPD Excellence worked with relevant specialists or independent experts in the industry, and that their accreditation was based on internationally recognised standards. We had not seen evidence to clarify who those specialists and industry experts were, substantiation of the Centre of CPD Excellence’s relationship with such experts, or to demonstrate that CPD Excellence had met internationally recognised standards and therefore concluded that the claims were misleading.
We also noted that that the “Insurance Partners” page, stated “Please see below the list of insurers that you can recommend to your student’s [sic] post-training”. We considered those claims implied a direct relationship with the “insurance partners” listed. However, as we had not seen evidence confirming that, we concluded the claims were likely to be misleading.
On that point the ad breached CAP Code rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 (Substantiation).
Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told the Centre of CPD Excellence to ensure that future comparative claims, including price comparisons, made with identifiable competitors were not misleading, were supported by documentary evidence and could be verified by the audience. We further told them not to make claims about having panels of specialists, independent industry experts, accreditation against internationally recognised standards, or imply official relationships with insurance partners unless they held adequate documentary evidence to substantiate those claims.
