A website, www.company4building.com, featured text on the "CASE STUDIES" page that identified the address of a property. The page also included photographs of the interior and exterior of the extension at that address.
The complainant challenged whether the ad breached the Code because it featured images of their home without their permission.
Hansen & Co (UK) Ltd t/a Hansen & Co Building Construction Company believed the ad did not breach the Code and did not unfairly portray or refer to anyone. They also said they had removed the property number from the ad.
The ASA had received no evidence to demonstrate that the complainant had given permission for the ad to appear. We noted the ad included the address of the complainant's property and photographs of the work carried out at that location. In that manner, we considered the ad portrayed the identifiable possessions of the complainant without their permission to do so.
We noted photographs of the work carried out on the complainant's property appeared on the "CASE STUDIES" page of the advertiser's website. We considered that implied that the complainant had personally approved of the work carried out and of the advertised service, which was not the case.
In the absence of evidence that the relevant permissions had been obtained, we concluded that the ad breached the Code.
The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rule
Marketers must not unfairly portray or refer to anyone in an adverse or offensive way unless that person has given the marketer written permission to allow it. Marketers are urged to obtain written permission before:
Prior permission might not be needed if the marketing communication contains nothing that is inconsistent with the position or views of the featured person. (Privacy).
The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Hansen & Co Building Construction Company to ensure future ads did not refer to or portray the identifiable possessions of a member of the public, in the absence of their permission to do so. We also told them to ensure future ads did not imply any personal approval of the advertised service, without the permission of the relevant individual.