Ad description
Two web pages and an email for Storage Giant, a self-storage company, seen on 22 May 2025:
a. The website homepage featured a large banner at the top and bottom that stated, “WE’LL BEAT ANY QUOTE BY 15%!*” next to a button for an “Instant Quote”. Additional text stated, “BEST PRICE BEST SERVICE BEST STORAGE”. Further down the page, text stated, “LOWEST PRICE GUARANTEED. We believe that secure storage shouldn’t mean spending big bucks. Here at Storage Giant, we offer low prices for our lockers and units no matter the size. *Terms and conditions apply, see our price match FAQ for full details”.
b. The quote confirmation webpage featured text that stated, “YOUR QUOTE IS £100.00 PER 4 WEEKS”. Further text stated, “Storage Giant prides itself on price-matching weekly in your local area. And we will happily beat any written quote by 15%*”. Below, additional text stated, “Your personalised quote” and “*Online introductory offer Fixed for the first 8 weeks (8 week minimum stay). Cost excludes insurance and lock. Offers for long term storage available in store […] Special offers are subject to availability, length of stay and size of room. Costs quoted are based on an estimated basis from the information provided by the client […] Terms & Conditions Apply”.
c. An email with the quote details and text that stated, “Price: £28.00 per 4 week period”. Further text below stated, “Choose from one of our Pre Pay Introductory offers: 60% off for 8 weeks*, 50% off for 8 weeks**, 40% off for 12 weeks” and “30% off for 24 weeks”. The email featured a link to the “FAQ” page as well as further text that stated, “*Disclaimer: **Online introductory offers available 1st floor units or above and subject to availability”.
Issue
Spare Space, a self-storage company, challenged whether:
- the claims “we’ll beat any quote by 15%”, “best price” and “lowest price guaranteed” in ad (a) were misleading; and
- the price claims “£100 PER 4 WEEKS” in ad (b) and the price claims in ad (c) were misleading because it was unclear those were promotional prices for which specific conditions applied.
Response
1. & 2. Storage Giant Ltd did not respond to the ASA’s enquiries.
Assessment
The ASA was concerned by Storage Giant Ltd’s 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 provide a substantive response to our enquiries and told them to do so in the future.
1. Upheld
We considered that consumers would understand the claims “we’ll beat any quote by 15%”, “best price” and “lowest price guaranteed” to mean that Storage Giant offered the lowest price available for storage lockers, because they would always beat competitors’ prices, rather than simply match them. We also considered that “lowest price guaranteed” would be understood by some consumers to mean that Storage Giant actively monitored competitor prices, and ensured that their current prices were already the lowest, or that, if a lower price were found, Storage Giant would guarantee to beat it.
We therefore expected to see evidence which demonstrated how Storage Giant would always beat a competitor’s quote and that their own prices were always lower, including how the price-beating claim was applied in practice. However, Storage Giant did not respond to our enquiries and did not provide any evidence.
Because we had not seen evidence to substantiate the claims “we’ll beat any quote by 15%”, “best price” and “lowest price guaranteed, we concluded the ad was misleading.
On that point, ad (a) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation), 3.9 and 3.10 (Qualification), 3.32 and 3.33 (Comparisons), and 3.38 (Price comparisons).
2. Upheld
We considered that consumers would understand the price claims, “£100.00 per 4 weeks” accompanied by an asterisk that linked to “Online introductory offer” in ad (b), and “£28.00 per 4 week period” in ad (c), were the total costs payable for storage for the stated period without any additional costs. We considered that the further price claims in ad (c) below the headline claim further reinforced the impression that the price of £28 was the standard, total price to which additional savings could be applied. There was no information to suggest that price was introductory.
However, we understood that the price in ad (c) was also a promotional price, and therefore that both prices would increase after the promotional period had ended. Neither ad stated how long the promotional price would last or what the prices would be after the promotional period ended. Because Storage Giant had not responded to the investigation, we had not seen any evidence clarifying what the standard, non-promotional price was.
In addition, the prices in both ads were also subject to significant conditions that meant neither displayed the total cost associated with the storage unit. In ad (b), an asterisk linked to small print stating that the cost of a lock and insurance were not included. However, we understood from the website’s FAQs that both were required in order to use the service. Insurance costs were not shown upfront and could only be obtained by requesting a quote, and the cost of a lock was only presented if the consumer did not already have one. In ad (c) no such qualification or signposting was included.
For those reasons, we considered the price claims in both ads implied that they were the total cost payable for the stated period when that was not the case, and therefore concluded the ads were misleading
On that point the ads breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1, 3.3 (Misleading advertising), 3.9 and 3.10 (Qualification), and 3.17 (Prices).
Action
The ads must not appear again in the form complained of. We told Storage Giant Ltd not to make best price guaranteed claims unless they held substantial evidence to support them. We also told them to ensure quoted prices reflected the total cost consumers would pay, and to make clear when prices were promotional or subject to significant conditions. We referred the matter to CAP’s compliance team.
