Background

Summary of Council decision:

Three issues were investigated, of which one was Upheld and two Not upheld.

Ad description

A website for PLB Ecowood, www.plbecowood.co.uk, selling wood and biomass products, seen in July 2017 stated “We are the main UK dealer for Heateco boilers and Ala Talkkari boilers both these boilers are RHI accredited”.

Issue

The complainant, who understood that other companies sold the Heateco and Ala Talkkari boilers, and that the boilers were not accredited or licensed, challenged whether the claims:

1. “We are the main UK dealer for Heateco boilers”

2. “We are the main UK dealer for … Ala Talkkari boilers”; and

3. “both these boilers are RHI accredited”

Were misleading and could be substantiated.

Response

1. PLB Ecowood Ltd provided us with a copy of their contract from Heatco which stated that they would be the sole dealer of Heatco boilers within the UK.

2. PLB Ecowood provided us with a letter from Ala Talkkari which confirmed that they were one of their secondary retailers within the UK.

3. PLB Ecowood provided us with the RHI certificates for both boilers.

Assessment

1. Not upheld

The ASA considered that consumers would understand the claim “We are the main UK dealer for Heateco boilers” to mean that PLB Ecowood sold the most boilers of that type in the UK.

PLB Ecowood submitted the contract they had with Heatco, which showed that they had exclusive rights to sell Heatco boilers in the UK. We therefore considered that the contract substantiated the claim that they were the main UK dealer for Heatco boilers, and concluded that the claim was not misleading.

On that point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules  3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.  (Misleading advertising),  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) and  3.33 3.33 Marketing communications that include a comparison with an identifiable competitor must not mislead, or be likely to mislead, the consumer about either the advertised product or the competing product.  (Comparisons with identifiable competitors), but did not find it in breach.

2. Upheld

We considered that consumers would understand the claim “We are the main UK dealer for … Ala Talkkari boilers” to mean that they sold the most Ala Talkkari boilers in the UK. We considered that while, the contract confirmed that PLB Ecowood were authorised to sell Ala Talkkari boilers in the UK, it did not say whether they were the sole or main UK supplier of the boilers. PLB Ecowood did not provide any other comparative data to show that they had sold more than other suppliers. In the absence of such evidence, we concluded that the claim that PLB Ecowood was the main supplier of Ala Talkkari boilers in the UK had not been substantiated and was therefore misleading.

On that 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),  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) and  3.33 3.33 Marketing communications that include a comparison with an identifiable competitor must not mislead, or be likely to mislead, the consumer about either the advertised product or the competing product.  (Comparisons with identifiable competitors).

3. Not upheld

We considered that consumers would understand the claim “both these boilers are RHI accredited” to mean that both boilers had received formal RHI accreditation. We were satisfied that the certificates provided by PLB Ecowood showed that the boilers were RHI accredited. We therefore concluded that the claims in the ad were not misleading.

On that point, we investigated the ad under 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), but did not find it in breach.

Action

The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told PLB Ecowood Ltd not to claim that they were the main UK supplier of Ala Talkkari boilers unless they held documentary evidence to show that they sold more Ala Talkkari boilers than any other supplier in the UK.

CAP Code (Edition 12)

3.1     3.33     3.7    


More on