Background
Summary of Council decision:
Four issues were investigated of which all four were Upheld.
Ad description
The website www.qualityconservatoriesltd.co.uk, visited on 1 March 2012, stated "Quality Conservatories are a well established company who offer a 10 year insurance backed guarantee with deposit indemnity" and featured the FENSA logo with "Registered Company" underneath and the Home Improvement Protection logo. Text on the 'About Us' page read "Quality Conservatories have over 50 years experience in designing, manufacturing & installing conservatories" and additional text on the 'Recommendations' page stated "We are delighted that the majority of our business comes from customers [sic] recommendations. Please find below a brief selection of the letters that we receive" and was followed by two testimonials from "Mr & Mrs B. Stockport" and "Mr G. Mc".
Issue
The complainant challenged whether:
1. the claim "Quality Conservatories ... offer a 10 year insurance backed guarantee with deposit indemnity" was misleading and could be substantiated;
2. the claim "Quality Conservatories have over 50 years experience in designing, manufacturing & installing conservatories" was misleading and could be substantiated;
3. the testimonials were genuine, because they understood that both testimonials had appeared on other conservatory companies' websites; and
4. the use of the FENSA and Home Improvement Protections trust marks was misleading.
Response
Quality Conservatories Ltd did not respond to the ASA's enquiries.
Assessment
The ASA was concerned by Quality Conservatories' lack of response and apparent disregard for the Code, which was a breach of CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 1.7 (Unreasonable delay). We reminded them of their responsibility to respond promptly to our enquiries and we told them to do so in future.
1. Upheld
Because we had not seen any evidence that Quality Conservatories offered a 10-year insurance backed guarantee with deposit indemnity, we concluded that the claim had not been substantiated and was therefore likely to mislead.
On this point, the claim breached 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).
2. Upheld
Because we had not seen any evidence from Quality Conservatories that they had over 50 years' experience in designing, manufacturing and installing conservatories, we concluded that the claim had not been substantiated and was therefore likely to mislead.
On this point, the claim breached 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).
3. Upheld
We noted that the testimonials appeared word-for-word on another website for a different conservatory company. Because of that, and because we had not seen evidence from Quality Conservatories that the testimonials were genuine and related to their products, we concluded that the testimonials breached the Code.
On this point, the testimonials breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.45 3.45 Marketers must hold documentary evidence that a testimonial or endorsement used in a marketing communication is genuine, unless it is obviously fictitious, and hold contact details for the person who, or organisation that, gives it. and 3.46 3.46 Testimonials must relate to the advertised product. (Endorsements and Testimonials)
4. Upheld
Because we had not seen evidence from Quality Conservatories that they were registered with FENSA (Fenestration Self-Assessment Scheme) or that they were a Home Improvement Protection approved company, we considered that the display of those organisation's trust marks was likely to mislead.
On this point, the use of the logos 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 3.50 3.50 Marketing communications must not display a trust mark, quality mark or equivalent without the necessary authorisation. Marketing communications must not claim that the marketer (or any other entity referred to), the marketing communication or the advertised product has been approved, endorsed or authorised by any public or other body if it has not or without complying with the terms of the approval, endorsement or authorisation. (Endorsements and Testimonials).
Action
The claims, testimonials and trust marks must not appear again in their current form. We told Quality Conservatories to ensure that they held adequate substantiation for objective claims, documentary evidence to show their testimonials were genuine and the necessary authorisation for the trust marks they displayed in future. We referred the matter to CAP's Compliance team.
