Ad description
Claims on a website for a UK tourist attraction stated "1 Day admission to Warwick Castle". Further text stated "Prices from £10.00 excluding VAT plus VAT £2.00, total £12.00". On making a selection, customers are taken through the purchase journey and, when selecting the payment method, a £1 or £2 charge is added to the purchase price, depending on the type of card used for payment.
Issue
The complainant challenged whether the website was misleading, because:
1. the initial price claims did not mention the non-optional card fee; and
2. the website provided VAT-exclusive prices.
Response
1. Merlin Attractions Operations Ltd (Merlin) said that they were confident that their card charges were fair and reasonable. They said that they always aimed to be completely transparent in their pricing and were therefore reviewing how these charges were displayed in their marketing.
2. Merlin said that they provided additional VAT information to their customers and they did not regard this as breaching the Code. They said that they provided transparent pricing, which showed clearly the amount of the ticket price that represented VAT. They pointed out that they also provided VAT-inclusive prices and stated that the VAT element and VAT-exclusive prices were provided as additional information. They believed that this information was useful for consumers. They said the total price payable by consumers was obvious from the ‘You pay’ column and the price breakdown provided. They did not believe that it was possible for consumers to miss the VAT-inclusive price.
They stated that they were supportive of a campaign to reduce the VAT payable on UK visitor attraction tickets. They said that consumers were entitled to know how much of the ticket price represented VAT. Merlin did not believe that any of their customers would be misled by their prices being shown in this way. Furthermore they did not consider that showing prices in this way was in breach of the Code. They believed that the Code only prohibited showing VAT-exclusive prices on their own.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA noted that the initial price claims on the website did not mention that there was a non-optional card fee, which was either £1 or £2 depending on the type of card used for payment. We noted that Code rule 3.18 stated “Quoted prices must include non-optional taxes, duties, fees and charges that apply to all or most buyers”. Because we understood that all buyers would have to pay a card fee we concluded that the initial price claims were misleading and in breach of the Code.
On this point the ad breached CAP Code rules 3.1 and 3.3 (Misleading advertising) and 3.17 and 3.18 (Prices).
2. Upheld
We noted that the website stated “Prices from £10.00 excluding VAT plus VAT £2.00, total £12.00”. We noted that Code rule 3.18 stated “VAT-exclusive prices may be given only if all or most consumers pay no VAT or can recover VAT”. We noted that Merlin were involved in a campaign concerning VAT rates for UK visitor attractions, however, we considered that this did not entitle them to breach the Code in this regard. Because we understood that all or most of Merlin’s customers paid VAT for these tickets we concluded that the ad was in breach of the Code.
On this point the ad breached CAP Code rules 3.1 and 3.3 (Misleading advertising) and 3.17 and 3.18 (Prices).
Action
The website must be amended. We told Merlin to amend their marketing so that non-optional card charges are clearly and prominently displayed. We also told them not to quote VAT-exclusive prices unless a significant proportion of their customers did not pay VAT.
