Background
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated, one of which was Not upheld. The other was informally resolved after the advertiser agreed to amend their advertising.
Ad description
A website for Pimlico, www.pimlicoplumbers.com, seen in April 2026, featured a banner at the top of the home page which stated, “24 HRS & EMERGENCIES” with a phone handset symbol and phone number. Further text on the page under the heading “Why choose us” stated “24/7 availability Our call centre is always open to assist you with any property services and maintenance enquiries or emergency at any time day or night”. Under the heading “Our 45 year tried and trusted process” text stated, “24/7 Contact us 24/7 Our London call centre is available 24/7 and our friendly team can advise and help you day or night”.
Issue
Wefix London Ltd, who believed that engineers did not attend emergency call-outs in the late evening or early morning, challenged whether the claims that Pimlico offered a 24/7 service were misleading and could be substantiated.
Response
Pimlico Plumbers Ltd t/a Pimlico said they operated a 24/7 service within the inner M25 area. They provided data for a 12-month period of the number of customer calls they received on average each day, including at weekends and on bank holidays, including and excluding Christmas Day. They said the data showed that the vast majority of calls were received between 7am and 11pm on weekdays, with a significant decrease in call numbers between 11pm and 7am. They also provided evidence showing the schedule of overnight jobs that were booked for attendance between June 2025 and May 2026.
Between 11pm and 7am, calls were answered by a third-party call centre, staffed by people, who could book on site assistance by a trade expert if that was required. However, they said that customers who called during that time period seldom wanted an engineer to attend at that time, mainly because the nature of the issue did not require immediate attendance, customers did not want to be disturbed, or they did not want to pay the higher rates charged for an overnight attendance. On the other hand, there could be a non-emergency issue the customer wanted a swift resolution to, rather than there being a genuine emergency. Pimlico said the call centre did not determine whether a situation was an emergency and instead accepted the customer's view before matching that with engineer availability at a time the customer preferred. There was no guarantee that an enquiry call would result in a firm booking, and around 80% of overnight calls were for reasons other than emergencies.
If a customer called between 11pm and 7am, and did not require an engineer’s immediate attendance, they would be given priority attendance at the start of the next day. If engineers were not working overnight, they could elect to start some jobs at 7am or 8am. Pimlico said their focus was to accommodate a customer in the next slot which had good availability, which was generally the following morning, as it would be unclear when engineers who were currently on jobs would be available. Engineer availability was reduced overnight because of lower customer demand but was not withdrawn. The number of engineers available overnight across the trades, plumbing, heating and drainage, where they historically saw overnight demand, varied depending on factors including the day of the week, weather and anticipated demand. Some trades, such as roofing, could not safely operate during the hours of darkness. Pimlico estimated that overnight enquiries which resulted in booked emergency jobs equated to approximately 0.5% of their total work booked annually.
Assessment
Not upheld
The ad included the claims “24 HRS & EMERGENCIES”, “24/7 availability Our call centre is always open to assist you with any property services and maintenance enquiries or emergency at any time day or night” and “Contact us 24/7 Our London call centre is available 24/7 and our friendly team can advise and help you day or night”. The ASA considered that consumers would understand those claims to mean that they could contact Pimlico 24 hours a day, seven days a week and that their calls would be answered by its call centre, which would be able to provide assistance as well as arrange for an engineer to respond to both routine and emergency property maintenance issues.
We assessed the evidence provided. We firstly considered the call data from June 2025 to May 2026. The majority of calls were received between 7am and 11pm on weekdays, decreasing to around half of that amount on weekends and reducing again on bank holidays. Call data for the hours of 11pm to 7am showed that customer call volumes decreased significantly overall, amounting to no more than 3% of the total calls they received during this period. We considered that the call log data showed that calls were received each day including on weekends and bank holidays, and overnight, between 11pm and 7am, when we understood they were answered by the third-party call centre. We therefore considered the evidence supported the claim that Pimlico could be contacted ‘24/7’.
We next considered the job schedule data for the same period. We noted from the evidence that customer calls were much lower overnight, nevertheless, the job schedule data showed that jobs had been booked for attendance at each hour between midnight and 8am, including during the early hours (2am to 4am) when the fewest number of jobs were booked. We noted the evidence showed that the number of jobs scheduled for 7am and 8am was significantly higher than at earlier in the night. We understood those jobs included all scheduled works, not just those arising from overnight calls, and that engineers who had not worked overnight could choose to start work at those times and take on those jobs.
We also noted that only a small proportion of overnight callers requested immediate emergency assistance, with most instead choosing an appointment for the following day. Therefore, demand for immediate overnight attendance was significantly lower than demand during the day. As a result, the number of engineers available overnight was much lower than during the day and varied according to factors such as the day of the week, the weather, expected demand and the type of work required. We also accepted that some trades offered by Pimlico could not be safely operated during hours when it was dark or in certain weather conditions. However, we considered consumers were likely to expect that a business like Pimlico offering a 24/7 service, would operate with fewer engineers at times of much lower demand or outside of the typical business hours for those trades. We therefore considered the evidence demonstrated that jobs had been booked throughout the overnight period.
Because we considered the evidence showed that consumers could contact Pimlico at any time and that engineers could be booked for jobs, including for overnight attendance, we concluded that the claims that they offered a 24/7 service had been substantiated and were not misleading.
We investigated the ad under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation) and 3.9 (Qualification), but did not find it in breach.
Action
No further action necessary.
