Background
Summary of Council decision:
Three issues were investigated, of which all were Upheld.
Ad description
A website for a private investigations service, VM Investigations, www.vminvestigate.com, seen in December 2017, included text on the home page which stated “NO RESULT NO FEE” and “WHY US? We are ONLY one of a few UK Investigation firms still trading in our original name after 27 years …”. At the bottom of the home page text stated “ACCEPTED PAYMENTS” next to payment logos for various payment facilities such as Paypal and Western Union.
Issue
The ASA received three complaints:
1. Two complainants challenged whether the claim “still trading in our original name after 27 years” was misleading and could be substantiated;
2. One complainant challenged whether the claim that the advertiser accepted various payment services was misleading and could be substantiated;
3. One complainant, who was not able to obtain a refund, challenged whether the claim “NO RESULT NO FEE” was misleading and could be substantiated.
Response
GB Investigations, t/a VM Investigations, did not respond to the ASA’s enquiries.
Assessment
The ASA was concerned by VM Investigations lack of response and apparent disregard for the Code, which was a breach of CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 1.7 1.7 Any unreasonable delay in responding to the ASA's enquiries will normally be considered a breach of the Code. (Unreasonable delay). We reminded them of their responsibility to respond promptly to our enquiries and told them to do so in the future.
1. Upheld
We considered that consumers would understand the claim that VM Investigations was still trading after 27 years under its original name to mean that VM Investigations had been trading under that name for 27 years consistently, without the company changing the name throughout that period.
VM Investigations did not provide any evidence to support that claim. We noted that complainants had told us that when they clicked on the links on the VM Investigate website, pages of a website displaying GB Investigations branding appeared and that the company appeared to trade under several names including GB Investigations and VM Investigations. We noted from Companies House that GB Investigations had been incorporated in 2014.
We therefore concluded that the claim “still trading in our original name after 27 years” was misleading.
On this 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).
2. Upheld
We considered that consumers would understand the claim “ACCEPTED PAYMENTS” alongside the logos of several different payment providers to mean that VM Investigations accepted payments from the listed providers. We understood from the complainant that VM Investigations did not accept payments from those providers. Because VM Investigations did not provide us with any evidence to show that they did accept payments from those providers, we concluded that the ad was misleading.
On this 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 considered that consumers would understand the claim “NO RESULT NO FEE” to mean that if VM Investigations was not successful in completing the service the client had requested, the client would not have to pay anything; we also considered this claim to mean that clients would not have to pay anything until after the result. We noted that the complainant had been asked to pay up-front fees, which were not refunded even though VM Investigations had not completed the service requested.
Because VM Investigations did not provide any evidence to support the claim made in the ad, we concluded that the ad was misleading.
On this 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 GB Investigations t/a VM Investigations not to state that they were trading in their original name when they used multiple names, nor to state that they had been trading for 27 years unless they held documentary evidence to show that they had been trading consistently for 27 years. We told them not to claim that they accepted payments in any particular way unless they did accept payments using that method. We also told them not to claim “No result no fee” if any portion of the fee was payable before the result, or if there were any fees for unsuccessful investigations. We referred the matter to the CAP Compliance team.
