Background
Summary of Council decision:
Five issues were investigated, all of which were Upheld.
Ad description
Claims on the easyJet Holidays website promoted an all-inclusive holiday package at the Marinem Diana hotel in Turkey. Text in the "Overview" section stated "... the hotel is around 14 kilometres from the heart of Kemer city" and "Both adults and children will enjoy the variety of activities on offer at the Marinem Diana, whether you wish to play a game of tennis, try some water sports on the beach, or relax with a chilled game of billiards. Adults can indulge in some relaxation time in the hotel's spa, which boasts ... [a] Jacuzzi ... You can even spend some time keeping active in the fitness centre". Further down the page, text stated "Marinem Diana's rooms are elegant and contemporary and offer modern conveniences such as air conditioning, satellite TV, a telephone, mini bar, safe and private bathroom and balcony" and "You can sample some delicious Mediterranean cuisine in the hotel's buffet restaurant". The ad also contained an image taken in what appeared to be the hotel's restaurant and pictures of a double room and bathroom which looked to be finished to a high standard.
Issue
The complainant, who had booked the holiday, challenged whether:
1. the claim that the rooms had a mini bar was misleading, because they were stocked only with bottled water;
2. the claim "You can sample some delicious cuisine in the hotel's restaurant" and the picture of the restaurant were misleading, because during their stay the restaurant was unavailable;
3. the references to tennis, billiards, a jacuzzi and a fitness centre were misleading, because the hotel did not contain any of these features;
4. the description and pictures of the accommodation in the ad were misleading, because the rooms and communal areas were not finished to a high standard during their stay; and
5. the claim "the hotel is around 14 kilometres from the heart of Kemer city" was misleading and could be substantiated, because they understood it was in fact around 21 kilometres.
Response
easyJet Airline Co Ltd (easyJet) stated that "easyJet Holidays" was the brand name for an arrangement between easyJet and Lowcostbeds.com Ltd (Lowcostbeds), whereby easyJet acted as a principal for flights and disclosed agent for travel insurance, car rental and car parking and Lowcostbeds acted as agent for accommodation and transfers. Lowcostbeds responded to the complaint on behalf of both companies.
1. Lowcostbeds said hotel mini bars in Turkey usually stocked water, soft drinks and in some cases beer and pointed out that the ad did not specify the contents of the mini bar. They stated that the Marinem Diana stocked bottled water in its mini bars, which was provided free of charge, and that if guests wanted additional drinks they could have requested those from the hotel's room service.
2. Lowcostbeds said the hotel restaurant was open during the complainant's stay, and provided a copy of the opening hours.
3. Lowcostbeds said they had advertised the facilities noted in the ad in good faith, but confirmed that they were now aware the hotel did not have tennis courts, a jacuzzi, a fitness centre or a billiards table available for use by guests at the time of the complainant's stay. They stated that they had now removed references to those facilities from the ad and would seek confirmation of their availability for the following year.
4. Lowcostbeds stated that the complainant had called them shortly after arriving at the hotel to report that the air conditioning had not been working in the room they had been allocated. They said their records showed the complainant had subsequently moved rooms, and that the second room had had a functioning air conditioning unit. They also said the TV in the first room had been temporarily removed for repair, but satellite television was available as standard in all rooms. They provided a photograph of a television unit in another room to demonstrate that fact. They confirmed that the first room in which the complainant had stayed was an economy room but was not undergoing any form of refurbishment work at the time. They acknowledged a picture provided by the complainant which showed a staircase handrail which was not secured to the wall but stated that the hotel's cleaners would have noticed this problem immediately and instructed the maintenance teams to make any necessary repairs. Lowcostbeds further stated that, although the personal expectations of the complainant did not appear to have been met in terms of the overall condition of the hotel, they did not feel the Marinem Diana was substandard in this respect.
5. Lowcostbeds submitted a copy of the hotel's information sheet, which stated that Kemer was 14km away. They also sent a screenshot showing the hotel's location on a satellite map.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA understood that the only drink stocked in the mini bars was bottled water. We acknowledged that the ad did not list the contents of the mini bar but considered that, without further information, the average consumer would expect it to be stocked with a variety of alcoholic and non-alcoholic drinks. Because we understood that this was not the case, we concluded that the claim that the rooms at the hotel had mini bars was misleading.
On that point, the ad breached CAP Code rules
3.1
3.1
Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
and
3.3
3.3
Marketing communications must not mislead the consumer 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 the consumer needs to make informed decisions in relation to a product. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead the consumer depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the marketing communication is constrained by time or space, the measures that the marketer takes to make that information available to the consumer by other means.
(Misleading advertising) and
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).
2. Upheld
We noted that the complainant asserted that the restaurant pictured had been unavailable during their holiday. Although we acknowledged that Lowcostbeds disputed this claim, they had not provided evidence to support their argument or to demonstrate that the restaurant featured in the ad was generally open to guests. We concluded that the claim "You can sample some delicious cuisine in the hotel's restaurant", accompanied by the picture of the restaurant, had not been substantiated and was therefore misleading.
On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising) and 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).
3. Upheld
We noted that the hotel was not able to provide tennis courts, a billiards table, a jacuzzi or a fitness centre for guests at the time of the complainant's stay. We considered that the ad implied these facilities were available and welcomed Lowcostbeds' willingness to amend their marketing communications to reflect the current situation. Because hotel guests had not been able to use a jacuzzi or fitness centre or to play tennis or billiards when the ad suggested they would, we concluded that the references to those amenities were misleading.
On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising) and 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).
4. Upheld
We understood from information and photographs provided by the complainant that certain areas of the hotel, including the first room they were allocated, had not been finished to a high standard. For example, the complainant had noted faulty air conditioning and exposed wires where the TV should have been in the first room, a banister railing that was not attached to the wall and cardboard boxes left in the corridor outside their room. We considered that the ad gave the impression of an upmarket hotel and that consumers would expect the finish to be to a high standard. Lowcostbeds had acknowledged faults with the complainant's first room but in our view the complainant's overall experience of the hotel was not in line with the information communicated by the ad. We therefore concluded that the description and pictures of the accommodation in the ad were misleading.
On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising) and 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).
5. Upheld
We noted that the information sheet from the hotel listed Kemer as being 14km away. However, we also noted the screenshot provided by Lowcostbeds, which did not show the distance to Kemer but did pinpoint the location of the hotel. Using that location on a map, the distance between the hotel and Kemer appeared to be around 18km. We therefore concluded that the claim "the hotel is around 14 kilometres from the heart of Kemer city" was misleading.
On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising) and 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).
Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Lowcostbeds to ensure they held substantiation for their claims.
