Background
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated, both were Upheld.
Ad description
A TV ad and a website, www.everest.co.uk, promoted Everest Windows.
a. The voice-over in the TV ad stated, "Everest Windows keep your home warmer than A rated windows and are now up to 50% off. Find out more at everest.co.uk."
b. Text on the website stated "Everest Windows help keep in more heat than standard A rated windows".
Issue
The complainant challenged whether the claims:
1. "Everest Windows keep your home warmer than A rated windows" in ad (a); and,
2. "Everest Windows help keep in more heat than standard A rated windows" in ad (b), were misleading and could be substantiated.
Response
1. & 2. Everest Ltd explained that the British Fenestration Rating Council (BFRC) administered a national system for rating the energy efficiency of windows whereby windows were tested and rated from ‘A’ to ‘G’. They stated that products were rated depending on the amount of energy they lost in kilowatt hours per square metre of window per year (kWh/(m²•K)). They provided an example of a window scoring -14kWh/(m²•K), which received a ‘C’ BFRC rating. They said for a window to achieve an ‘A’ rating it needed to be energy neutral and therefore lose 0 kWh/(m²•K).
They explained that their uPVC casement windows actually generated energy for a house, as they allowed energy into a property whilst also blocking energy loss. They provided documentation from the BFRC which showed their windows had scored an energy rating of 10 kWh/(m²•K). They stated that it was a simple scientific fact that the gain of 10 kWh/(m²•K) was ten times better than a unit that only achieved 1 kWh/(m²•K), or an energy neutral ‘A’-rated window which scored 0 kWh/(m²•K). Therefore, they claimed that Everest Windows kept a home warmer than ‘A’-rated windows by generating energy for a home, whereas an ‘A’-rated window neither lost nor gained energy.
Clearcast responded in relation to the TV advertising only. Clearcast stated that in the UK windows were rated from ‘A’ to ‘G’ by the BFRC, with the letter grade corresponding to how energy efficient a window was. They said effectively the BFRC scored windows on how much they helped to contain and conserve heat within a building. They explained that most window grades equated to a double digit negative number, and gave the example of a ‘C’-rated window which would have achieved a result between -20 and -10 kWh/(m²•K). To achieve an ‘A’ rating they said a window had to achieve a rating of 0 on the BFRC scale.
Clearcast said they had been given substantiation from Everest which showed that their windows had achieved a score of 10 kWh/(m²•K). They said that score meant the windows did not just lose zero heat energy but that they trapped more heat in than had existed before. They acknowledged that the BFRC did not have a rating above ‘A’, but said Everest wanted to communicate that their windows had not just scraped an A grade, they had passed with flying colours and significantly exceeded the grade boundary. Clearcast said they thought the claim "keep your home warmer than A rated windows" was a reasonable way to express that because although windows rated between 0 and 9 would be ‘A’ rated, they would not keep a home as warm as Everest windows which both kept all the heat in and added to it by trapping heat energy from outside.
Assessment
1. & 2. Upheld
The ASA understood that the BFRC scheme was the UK's national system for rating the energy efficiency of windows. We understood that they rated windows from ‘A’ to ‘G’, with ‘A’ representing products which achieved an energy rating of 0 or more, and ‘B’ to ‘G’ representing products which achieved a negative rating. We noted that Everest had achieved an energy rating of 10 kWh/(m²•K) and had therefore been given an ‘A’ rating. We understood that ‘A’ was the highest rating that the BFRC awarded, and that if a window received a positive rating it meant it enabled more energy to pass through the glass and into the room than the energy lost through the window. We noted that Everest had wanted to communicate to consumers that their windows were not just energy neutral, but in fact generated energy for a household. We noted, however, that a number of other companies that had been awarded an ‘A’ rating from the BFRC had also scored a positive energy rating, rather than just scoring 0, and to do so was not particularly unusual.
We considered that most consumers would understand the claims "Everest Windows keep your home warmer than A rated windows" and "Everest Windows help keep in more heat than standard A rated windows" to mean that Everest windows had received an unusually high score that was higher than any other ‘A’-rated window available on the market. Because we had not seen any evidence to confirm that was the case, we concluded that the claims were misleading and in breach of the Code.
Ad (a) breached 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 3.38 3.38 Advertisements that include comparisons with unidentifiable competitors must not mislead, or be likely to mislead, consumers. The elements of the comparison must not be selected to give the advertiser an unrepresentative advantage. (Other comparisons).
Ad (b) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Advertisements 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 3.38 3.38 Advertisements that include comparisons with unidentifiable competitors must not mislead, or be likely to mislead, consumers. The elements of the comparison must not be selected to give the advertiser an unrepresentative advantage. (Other comparisons).
Action
Ad (a) must not be broadcast again in its current form and ad (b) must not appear again in its current form. We told Everest Ltd to ensure they held robust substantiation for the claims in their ads.
