A website, xzy.co.uk, for XYZ Training Group, seen 24 April 2019, featured a listing for a training session titled "UKATA ASBESTOS AWARENESS TRAINING COURSE". A paragraph further down the listing stated “Every course on Xyz is delivered by an accredited UKATA training provider … Xyz Training Group are not a UKATA Professional Member for this classification of training … UKATA is a registered trademark of the UK Asbestos Training Association…”.
UK Asbestos Training Association (UKATA), who stated that XYZ Training Group were not a licensed provider of UKATA training courses, challenged whether the references in the ad to UKATA's training course were misleading.
XYZ Training Group Ltd (XYZ Training) explained that their website acted as a platform through which course providers, UKATA accredited or otherwise, could advertise their services to consumers and that XYZ themselves did not provide any of the courses listed. They provided us with documentation that showed the UKATA-accredited training providers that used their platform and that those providers had been accredited by UKATA.
The ASA considered that consumers would understand from text at the end of each listing that XYZ Training Group was a platform through which companies might list and advertise their training services to other businesses. We also considered that businesses would understand from the listing’s title that the course had been devised by UKATA, but, given the wider context of the ad, they would understand the training was performed by a third party. We considered that the evidence provided by XYZ Training showed that all of the course providers using the platform were accredited UKATA training providers and therefore authorised to issue any relevant, licenced qualifications for the courses they provided. We also noted that the listing made it clear that XYZ Training were not a UKATA member and that while they were selling the course in the listing, they were not providing the training for it. Because we had seen evidence that the course providers on XYZ Training’s platform were accredited providers of the training courses listed, and because we understood that XYZ Training were not providing the training themselves, we concluded that the ad was not misleading.
We investigated under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation) but did not find a breach.
No further action necessary.