Background
Summary of Council decision:
Three issues were investigated, all of which were Upheld.
Ad description
A banner ad and a page on the Hammonds Furniture Ltd website www.hammonds-uk.com, seen on 22 May:
a. The banner ad stated “Up to 40% off selected finishes + an extra 5% offer ends in […]” and included a countdown timer showing the apparent days, hours and minutes left in the promotion.
b. The web page was titled “Why choose Hammonds?”. Text under the subheading “We won’t be beaten on quality and price” stated “Because we design and make everything ourselves, we can offer you better quality furniture at a price others can’t beat”.
Issue
Sharps Furniture Group challenged whether:
-
the use of the countdown clock in ad (a) was misleading, because they understood the promotion was available for a further week after the countdown ended;
-
the claims “We won’t be beaten on […] price” and “we can offer you better quality furniture at a price others can’t beat” in ad (b) were misleading and could be substantiated; and
-
the claims “We won’t be beaten on […] price” and “we can offer you better quality furniture at a price others can’t beat” in ad (b) were verifiable.
Response
1. Hammonds Furniture Ltd stated that the countdown timer in ad (a) related to the “extra 5%” offer, and was due to expire at midnight on 26 May 2025. They provided a copy of their terms and conditions, which stated that the “extra 5%” offer also expired on that date. They stated that the claim “up to 40% off” referred to a separate promotion which ended a week later on 2 June 2025. They believed that consumers would understand that the countdown referred to the “extra 5%” offer, and that the “extra 5%” discount would not be available after the timer expired.
2. & 3. Hammonds Furniture believed consumers would understand the claim “We won’t be beaten on […] price” to refer to their price match promise. If consumers received a like-for-like design from a competitor at a lower price they promised to match it, or if they could not match that price, explain the reasons why. They provided a spreadsheet which detailed the price match claims that they had approved or rejected between June 2024 and August 2025.
Hammonds Furniture stated that, in addition to providing a price match offer, they also conducted regular market checks against their competitors’ comparable products and services to ensure their prices were lower. Because they offered bespoke services, they said these could only be carried out by contacting their competitors to request quotes. They provided a spreadsheet which detailed the market checks they had conducted between February 2024 and August 2025.
They highlighted information on their website about the key features of their products and services, which they believed demonstrated that their products were of better quality than their competitors. They stated those features related to the design, manufacture and installation of their products, and that any consumer could check the basis of the comparisons made on their website by comparing the features they offered with the products and services offered by their competitors.
Assessment
1. Upheld
Ad (a) was a banner ad on the Hammonds Furniture website homepage which stated “Up to 40% off selected finishes + an extra 5% offer ends in […]” along with a countdown timer displaying the apparent days, hours and minutes until the promotion ended. The text was displayed as a continuous sentence in the same size and font, and there were no stylistic differences or large spaces between the phrases “up to 40% off” and “extra 5% offer” that indicated they were separate offers. We therefore considered that consumers would understand the ad to refer to one promotion which was ending soon, and that once the countdown timer reached zero, the stated combined discount would no longer be available.
However, we understood that the banner ad referred to two separate promotions, and that the countdown timer only referred to the “extra 5%” discount offer. The “up to 40% off” discount was available for a further week after the end of the countdown timer. We considered that, because consumers were likely to understand the countdown clock to refer to one promotion which would expire at the end of the countdown, the countdown clock was likely to pressurise consumers into making a quick purchase without giving it proper consideration.
Because consumers would expect ad (a) to refer to one discount which was due to expire after the countdown clock ended when this was not the case, and because the countdown clock was likely to pressurise consumers into making a swift transactional decision, we concluded that the ad was misleading.
The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising) and 8.17 and 8.17.4 (Significant conditions for promotions).
2. Upheld
The CAP Code required that comparisons with identifiable competitors must not mislead, or be likely to mislead, consumers about either the advertised product or the competing product. Ads did not need to explicitly identify a competitor or product; if it was possible for a consumer to name at least one competitor or competing product, the Code rules on identifiable comparisons applied.
We first considered how consumers would understand the claims “We won’t be beaten on […] price” and “we can offer you better quality furniture at a price others can’t beat” in ad (b). We understood that Hammonds Furniture believed consumers would understand that the claims referenced their price match promise. However, the ad did not make any reference to their price match promise, nor provide a link to where information about it could be found. Whilst information about the price match promise was available on a separate page on the Hammonds Furniture website, we understood it was possible for consumers to navigate through the website without being directed to that page. This, we considered, meant most consumers would likely be unaware of it. Instead, we considered that consumers would understand the claims to mean that Hammonds Furniture offered furniture at a lower price than their competitors. We therefore expected Hammonds Furniture to hold evidence to substantiate those claims.
We assessed the evidence that Hammonds Furniture had supplied. They provided a spreadsheet which detailed the price match claims that they had approved or rejected between June 2024 and August 2025. We considered that, as the ad would be understood by consumers to be making a lowest price claim rather than referencing a price promise, this was insufficient to substantiate the claim. Hammonds Furniture also stated that due to the bespoke nature of their services, it was not possible to conduct a simple comparison between their list prices and their competitors. Instead, in order to check their prices against their competitors, they had to approach them for a quote. The spreadsheet they supplied showed that between February 2024 and August 2025, they had only made seven such price checks, which were all against a single competitor and their subsidiaries. We considered that such a small number of price checks was insufficient to substantiate the claims that they offered furniture “at a price others can’t beat”. In addition, because it was not possible for Hammonds Furniture to make direct comparisons between their price list and those of their competitors due to their bespoke services, it was unlikely that they would be able to gather sufficient evidence that could substantiate those claims.
We considered that without robust documentary evidence, or evidence of adequate price monitoring, Hammonds Furniture were unable to substantiate the claims that they could not be beaten on price. We therefore concluded the ad was misleading.
On that point, ad (b) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation) and 3.32 (Comparisons with identifiable competitors).
3. Upheld
The CAP Code required comparisons with identifiable competitors to be verifiable. That meant that an ad which featured a comparison with an identifiable competitor needed to include, or direct consumers to, sufficient information to allow them to understand the comparison, and be able to check the claims were accurate. For the reasons stated above, we considered that ad (b) had made a comparison with an identifiable competitor.
The ad did not provide any information to ensure consumers could verify the comparative price claims made, nor direct them to where such information could be obtained. Moreover, we considered that because Hammonds Furniture said they were not able to make a direct comparison between their price list and their competitors, as they offered bespoke furniture products, it would not be possible to verify the claims that their prices could not be beaten.
Because the ad did not provide sufficient information to allow consumers to verify the comparative claims, we concluded that it was misleading and breached the Code.
On that point, ad (b) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 3.34 (Comparisons with identifiable competitors).
Action
The ads must not appear again in their current form. We told Hammonds Furniture Ltd to ensure that their future advertising did not misleadingly imply that discount offers were time-limited, for example by using a countdown clock, if that was not the case. We also told them not to make comparative claims with identifiable competitors unless they held adequate substantiation for those claims, and to ensure such claims were verifiable.
