Background
Two issues were investigated and were Not Upheld.
Ad description
A TV ad for a financial claims management company, viewed in November 2011, stated "This is an important announcement. If you've taken out a loan, credit card or mortgage in the last 6 years you could be owed thousands ... Even if your loans and credit cards are paid off and your account is now closed claim4refunds could still help and we could settle your claim in just 3 weeks. There are no upfront fees and if we don't win your claim you don't pay a penny, guaranteed. You could be owed thousands and remember time limits may apply so don't delay. Log on now or call 0800 XXX XXXX for your free claim pack."
Issue
The complaint challenged whether:
1. the claim "no upfront fees" was misleading, because he understood that a £1 refundable deposit had to be paid by customers, and
2. the claim "we could settle your claim in just 3 weeks" was misleading and could be substantiated, because he did not believe this to be the case.
Response
1. Claim for Refunds Ltd (Claim for Refunds) said they did not charge any upfront fees for work carried out on a client's behalf. They confirmed they asked clients to pay a £1 "goodwill payment" at the outset of their claim. They did not believe this was an upfront fee as it was fully refundable whether or not the client's claim was successful or if they cancelled their agreement with them. They said if a client did not wish to pay the £1 payment they would still continue to act on their behalf, and the payment did not act as consideration between them and their clients.
They provided a copy of their terms and conditions of business which stated that the £1 payment was not an upfront fee and would be refunded at the conclusion of the claim. They also supplied their pre-contractual information, which also confirmed this. They said the £1 payment was often taken in conjunction with their Identity Verification procedure to ensure they were acting for a genuine client, and enclosed a copy of the form used to process this. They said they did not enforce the contractual term which specified clients must pay the £1 goodwill payment and that they did not charge the client to process the £1 payment.
Clearcast did not believe the claim was misleading because the fee was fully refunded, and because the advertiser said they would still represent a client who did not wish to pay the £1 payment.
2. Claim for Refunds said they had submitted evidence that they could settle some claims within three weeks to the Ministry of Justice in June 2011, and that they had been satisfied they could substantiate the claim. They supplied several recent examples of claims which had been concluded within three weeks of the submission of the claim.
Clearcast said they had received examples of claims being concluded within three weeks. They believed that because the claim made in the ad was that claims "could" be settled within three weeks, this did not suggest that all claims would be settled within that time period.
Assessment
1. Not upheld
The ASA noted the ad stated there were "no upfront fees". We also noted customers were asked to pay a £1 payment, which Claim for Refunds described as a "goodwill payment", often in conjunction with their Identity Verification procedures. We noted that the terms and conditions provided by Claim for Refunds stated that clients must pay the £1 payment. However, we also noted they did not enforce this contractual term, and that they would continue to act for a client if they did not agree to pay the £1. We also noted that the £1 payment was fully refunded to all clients at the conclusion, or cancellation, of their claim. Because the £1 payment would be fully refunded to all clients, and Claim for Refunds would continue to act on behalf of a client who did not want to pay the fee, we concluded that the claim was not misleading.
On this point we investigated the ad under BCAP Code rules
3.1
3.1
Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
and
3.2
3.2
Advertisements must not mislead consumers 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 consumers need in context to make informed decisions about whether or how to buy a product or service. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead consumers depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the advertisement is constrained by time or space, the measures that the advertiser takes to make that information available to consumers by other means.
(Misleading advertising) and
3.9
3.9
Broadcasters must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that the audience is 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) but did not find it in breach.
2. Not upheld
We noted the ad stated that claims "could" be settled within three weeks, and considered that consumers would interpret this to mean that some claims would be settled within this timeframe. We noted Claim for Refunds had provided several recent examples of claims that had been settled within three weeks. We also noted that the Ministry of Justice had been satisfied that the claim could be substantiated. We therefore concluded that the claim had been substantiated and was not misleading.
On this point we investigated the ad under BCAP Code rules 3.1 3.1 Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising), 3.9 3.9 Broadcasters must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that the audience is 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 3.12 3.12 Advertisements must not mislead by exaggerating the capability or performance of a product or service. (Exaggeration) but did not find it in breach.
Action
No action required.
