ASA Adjudication on wigshow.co.uk
wigshow.co.uk
Unit 10 Explorer Voyager Park
Portfield Road
Portsmouth
PO3 5FL
Date:
18 July 2012
Media:
Internet (on own site)
Sector:
Health and beauty
Number of complaints:
1
Complaint Ref:
A12-194378
Background
Summary of Council decision:
Three issues were investigated, all of which were Upheld.
Ad
The "Returns & Refunds" page of a website, for an online wig retailer, www.wigshow.co.uk stated "If you wish to receive a refund we will re-credit the original purchaser's credit card for the sum paid less the postal costs".
Issue
The complainant challenged whether:
1. the claim "If you wish to receive a refund we will re-credit the original purchaser's credit card for the sum paid less the postal costs" was misleading, because the advertisers confirmed that they would only refund up to 50% of the order costs;
2. the website was misleading, because it did not state the geographical address of the company which were based in Hong Kong; and
3. the website was misleading, because it did not state that additional international fees were payable.
CAP Code (Edition 12)
Response
wigshow.co.uk responded and said they could offer £45 compensation or a £55 refund.
Assessment
wigshow.co.uk responded to our enquiries on two separate occasions offering £45 compensation and then a £55 refund. We explained that they needed to respond to the complaint, but did not receive any further communication.
1. Upheld
We understood that the complainant purchased a wig and attempted to return it but was informed that she would only be refunded up to 50% of the order costs. In the absence of a response to explain otherwise, we considered the claim "If you wish to receive a refund we will re-credit the original purchaser's credit card for the sum paid less the postal costs" had not been substantiated and concluded that it was misleading.
On this point the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 and 3.3 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation).
2. Upheld
The website did not state the full geographical address of the advertiser. The complainant said that, when the wig arrived, the parcel indicated that it had been sent from Hong Kong but that the full geographical address of the supplier was not provided. We therefore concluded that the website breached the Code.
On this point the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 9.1, 9.3 and 9.3.4 (Distance selling).
3. Upheld
The complainant said they were informed that, in order to return the wig, they would need to pay customs duty. Because there was no information on the website stating that additional international fees were payable, we concluded that it was misleading.
On this point the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 and 3.3 (Misleading advertising).
Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told wigshow.co.uk to respond in full to our enquiries in future. We also told them not to claim that consumers could receive a refund, unless that was the case, and to amend their website to include information about their geographic address, the full geographic address of their supplier, and state all applicable fees.
