Background
Summary of Council decision:
Six issues were investigated, of which three were Upheld and three were Not Upheld.
Ad description
A local press ad for Unchain the Brighton Motorist was headed "Unchain democracy" and further text stated "You've seen the Green version ... Now read the truth! RESIDENTS GIVE RED LIGHT TO 20MPH. Proposals for slower road speeds in Brighton and Hove were overwhelmingly rejected as the recent extensive consultation has found. The majority (56.3%) of respondents for the areas covered by the Second Phase of the scheme responded unfavourably when asked if they supported the Green's proposed extension of 20mph limits to nine more areas of the city. The residents of only three areas (Preston, Hollingdean & S. Moulsecoomb and Coldean) supported 20mph for their areas. Last year's consultation for Phase 1 produced only 3,689 responses; and just 55% of these supported the introduction of 20mph limits. On that basis, the Administration went ahead. There was no restriction of residency on these respondents. Now, with a higher number of responses (14,439) and a greater proportion (56.3%) AGAINST 20mph, the Administration wants to ignore the majority decision and proceed anyway. Is this democracy in action? The Green administration delayed publication of this Phase 2 consultation while they worked out a way to spin the results so that they could still claim some sort of 'success' for their plans. So who is right? You decide. Here are the Council's own statistics from page 31 of the report …". A table was pictured below which listed areas in Brighton and Hove and included the number and percentage of respondents under the headers "FOR 20mph" and "Against 20mph" and were further broken down into "All respondents from the area" and "Respondents living within each proposed 20mph Phase 2 area".
Issue
The ASA received two complaints.
1. One complainant, a member of Brighton & Hove Friends of the Earth, challenged whether the claim "You've seen the Green version ... Now read the truth!" was misleading, because they believed it implied the Green administration's report on the consultation was untruthful.
2. Both complainants, including Brighton and Hove City Council, challenged whether the claim "Proposals for slower road speeds in Brighton and Hove were overwhelmingly rejected as the recent extensive consultation has found" and other references to the consultation results were misleading, because they believed that they misrepresented the results.
Brighton and Hove City Council also challenged whether:
3. the claim "The residents of only three areas … supported 20mph for their areas" was misleading, because they believed it should have made clear that those residents supported the proposals as set out in the consultation which included roads at 20 mph, 30 mph and 40 mph;
4. the claim "There was no restriction of residency on these respondents" regarding the previous consultation misleadingly implied that the more recent consultation was restricted to residents only, which was not the case;
5. the claim "The Green administration delayed publication of this Phase 2 consultation while they worked out a way to spin the results so that they could still claim some sort of 'success' for their plans" was misleading, because they said that the delay was due to the time taken to collect, analyse and properly consider and report on the results; and
6. whether the headings in the table were misleading and misrepresented the report's results, because they differed from the headings in the report.
Response
Unchain the Brighton Motorist (UBM) said that the ad appeared in the context of local debate about 20 mph speed limits, which would have been familiar to the vast majority of readers of the local newspaper in which the ad appeared. They said that the Green administration of the council was directly associated with the issue of 20 mph speed limits, having featured in their 2011 local elections manifesto, and that issues to do with the Green Party's transport policy regularly featured in that newspaper. They therefore believed that local readers would not misinterpret the ad and claims. They provided a chronology of events as background information. It included the dates of the various stages of both consultations into Phases 1 and 2 of the 20 mph proposals, and copies of reporting prior to and post the publication of the Phase 2 consultation referred to in the ad. They also supplied various documents to support the chronology.
1. UBM said that the consultation report had not been produced by Green councillors, but by council officers led by the Principle Transport Officer working to a brief supplied by the councillors. They believed that publication of the report was delayed by Green councillors because they were alarmed that the results did not support their political aims, and that they therefore needed more time to select and highlight only the parts of the report which supported the proposals. They said the editorial coverage in the newspaper in which the ad was published meant this would have been widely known and understood by readers. They also said the claim, and ad, referred not to the report itself but to an article which had appeared on Brighton & Hove Green Party's website titled "Resident's give green light to 20mph", a copy of which they provided. They said that "the Green version" was a reference to this article, rather than the report itself. They said that "Now read the truth" did not necessarily imply falsehood, but could equally refer to an incomplete, selective or misleading cherry-picking of one particular truth, out of context.
They said that a consultation on Phase 1 of the 20 mph proposals had been widely reported six months previously, and that Green councillors had been quoted as saying it gave a direct mandate for the subsequent implementation of Phase 1. They said this had been based on the raw percentage of respondents in favour of the scheme as proposed by the council, rather than on figures relating to those in favour of the scheme on their own street only. They believed the public could therefore reasonably expect similar figures to be used when considering the results of the Phase 2 consultation. They said that at a meeting between taxi representatives and the council's Transport Officer, they had been told that the use of 'own street' figures only were not helpful, because many people would wish for limits in their own street to be 20 mph, but for limits on any roads they drove on to be kept at 30 mph, and provided a note of that meeting. They said that, despite that, the Green Party website article referred only to these 'own street' figures, and they therefore believed it was highly selective. They said that the rest of the ad gave the whole context for the claim "You've seen the Green version ... Now read the truth!" and that they therefore did not believe it was misleading.
2. UBM said the consultation results showed that the proposed plans for the extension of 20 mph limits throughout the nine areas of Phase 2 were overwhelmingly rejected. They said the results referred to by the Green administration had been cherry-picked because they related to one way only of measuring the results, and excluded the other possible measures. They said that the questions in the consultation questionnaire (which they provided) were very specific, and that they did not discuss in the ad why people might have answered “Yes” or “No” to specific questions. They pointed out the questionnaire included questions about whether specific roads should remain at 30 mph.
3. UBM said that the consultation leaflet included the question "Do you support the proposal to implement 20mph speed limits in your area as described in the consultation leaflet? Yes - I support the proposals; No - I do not support the proposals". They said that the report and results, which they provided a copy of, showed that in only three of the nine areas examined did 50 percent or more respondents choose "Yes". They therefore believed the claim accurately represented the results.
4. UBM said the consultation asked two key questions of the responders, and that the report sorted the answers by whether or not the responders lived in the area. They said that the restriction in residency was not to do with the report itself, but to do with the way in which the Green administration had presented their interpretation of the report on their website, by referring only to the parts of tables which referred to residents in particular areas who commented only on the street in which they lived. They said that the figure of 50.7%, which the Green administration claimed as a majority in favour of Phase 2 of the 20 mph scheme, was the figure for those who wanted a 20 mph limit in their own street, and this figure only included those respondents who lived in that particular area. They said that if responses from those asked this question who lived outside that area (but potentially still in the Phase 2 area, or in relevant arterial roads) were included in that figure, then the majority became a minority. They said that the consultation for Phase 1 of the scheme did not include questions about the residency of the respondents.
5. UBM said that they believed the publication of the report had been delayed far longer than the non-Green members of the Committee making the decision on the implementation of the Phase 2 plans had expected. They provided a copy of the agenda, published on 18 November 2013, for the committee meeting due to take place on 26 November which stated that the report on the consultation results was "to follow". They also provided a local newspaper article of 22 November which quoted opposition councillors referring to the report as "late" and saying that they were not aware of what the report would say. They said the report was published on 22 November and that due to its late publication the Committee meeting was postponed to 11 December. They therefore believed the claim was not misleading.
6. UBM said that the changes to the headings were made to ensure greater clarity and precision, and that they did not believe they would have altered the reader's understanding of the content of the tables. They said that instead of using the heading in the report, which was "Support for 20 mph speed limits in your area (in areas)", they had used no heading and changed the "Yes" and "No" headings to "For 20mph" and "Against 20mph".
Assessment
1. Not upheld
The ASA considered that in the context of the ad readers would understand the claim "You've seen the Green version ... Now read the truth!" to mean that UBM believed the Green council administration had misled regarding the results of the consultation. We did not consider that the average reader would be aware that the ad was a parody of an article that had appeared on the Brighton and Hove Green Party's website, or that they would have read that article. However, we considered that readers would have been aware of the local debate and differing points of view on the proposals. We therefore considered that the claim would be seen as subjective opinion only and therefore concluded that it was not misleading.
On this 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. and 3.6 3.6 Subjective claims must not mislead the consumer; marketing communications must not imply that expressions of opinion are objective claims. (Misleading advertising) but did not find it in breach.
2. Upheld
We considered that readers would understand from the claim "Proposals for slower road speeds in Brighton and Hove were overwhelmingly rejected as the recent extensive consultation has found" that the vast majority of respondents to the consultation had disagreed with the proposed reductions in speed limits. We did not consider the claim implied that all roads in the areas consulted on were proposed to have speed limits of 20 mph, and we understood that was not the case. We therefore considered that readers would understand the claim to relate to the proposals as a whole, including any streets which were proposed to stay at 30 mph or 40 mph.
We understood that according to the report results, 51% of respondents supported 20 mph limits on the street on which they lived, but that only 44% supported the proposals for Phase 2 in their specific area as set out in the consultation materials. We noted that the ad qualified the claim by following it with text that stated "The majority (56.3%) of respondents for the areas covered by the Second Phase of the scheme responded unfavourably when asked if they supported the Green's proposed extension of 20mph limits to nine more areas of the city" and that the figures quoted were accurate. However, we considered that describing the proposals as "overwhelmingly rejected" misrepresented the results, in particular because the majority against Phase 2 in the "whole area" responses was only narrow, and because a small majority did want a 20 mph limit in the street in which they lived. We therefore concluded that the claim "Proposals for slower road speeds in Brighton and Hove were overwhelmingly rejected as the recent extensive consultation has found" was misleading.
On this 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.
and
3.3
3.3
Marketing communications must not mislead the consumer by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.
Material information is information that the consumer needs to make informed decisions in relation to a product. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead the consumer depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the marketing communication is constrained by time or space, the measures that the marketer takes to make that information available to the consumer by other means.
(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. Not upheld
We understood the claim "The residents of only three areas … supported 20mph for their areas" related to the percentages of residents in each of the nine areas covered by Phase 2 who answered "Yes" to the question "Do you support the proposal to implement 20mph speed limits in your area as described in the consultation leaflet?". There was not a question in the consultation that asked if residents wanted all streets in their area to have a 20 mph limit. Although the claim referred to "supported 20mph for their areas" rather than specifically stating that the percentages related to those who supported the consultation proposals (including some 30 mph and 40 mph roads), we did not consider that the claim implied that the proposals were for all streets to become 20 mph. We also considered that readers of the newspaper were likely to have some awareness of the proposals, including that some roads were proposed to remain at 30 mph and at 40 mph. We also noted that the consultation questionnaire itself used references to 20 mph as shorthand for the overall proposals, including "20mph for [areas]?", "20 for safer streets" and "the proposals for 20mph speed limits in your area". We therefore concluded that the claim was not misleading.
On this 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.
and
3.3
3.3
Marketing communications must not mislead the consumer by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.
Material information is information that the consumer needs to make informed decisions in relation to a product. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead the consumer depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the marketing communication is constrained by time or space, the measures that the marketer takes to make that information available to the consumer by other means.
(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.
4. Upheld
We considered that in the context of the ad, the claim "There was no restriction of residency on these respondents" implied that the Phase 2 consultation was restricted to residents only, in particular because it was followed by a sentence comparing the Phase 1 consultation results to those in Phase 2. However, we understood that the consultation was open to anyone, although respondents were asked whether they were residents, worked in the area, a business owner or "other". Although we understood the claim was intended to be a comment on the Green administration's commentary on the report, we did not consider that was made clear in the ad. Because we considered the claim implied that the Phase 2 consultation was restricted to residents only, and that was not the case, we concluded that the claim was misleading.
On this 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.
and
3.3
3.3
Marketing communications must not mislead the consumer by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.
Material information is information that the consumer needs to make informed decisions in relation to a product. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead the consumer depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the marketing communication is constrained by time or space, the measures that the marketer takes to make that information available to the consumer by other means.
(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).
5. Upheld
We understood that there had been some delay in the publication of the report. Although we noted that there had been some comment in the local press at the time regarding the lateness of the report, the advertiser had not provided any evidence regarding the reasons for the delay, and we noted Brighton and Hove City Council said the delay was due to the time taken to collect, analyse and properly consider and report on the results. We therefore concluded that the claim "The Green administration delayed publication of this Phase 2 consultation while they worked out a way to spin the results so that they could still claim some sort of 'success' for their plans" had not been substantiated.
On this 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) 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).
6. Not upheld
The figures in the table had been taken directly from the consultation report, with the headings "Yes" and "No" changed to "FOR 20MPh" and "Against 20mph", and the heading from the report "Support for 20mph speed limits in your area (in areas)" had not been used. The results related to the question "Do you support the proposal to implement 20mph speed limits in your area as described in the consultation leaflet?" and we understood there was no question in the consultation that asked if residents supported the proposals in all areas because the questionnaires were area specific. The results table in the ad was broken down into areas. We therefore considered it was clear that the results related to the respondent's answers in relation to each specific area. We did not consider that the changes to the headings misrepresented the report's results and therefore concluded that they were not misleading.
On this 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.
and
3.3
3.3
Marketing communications must not mislead the consumer by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.
Material information is information that the consumer needs to make informed decisions in relation to a product. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead the consumer depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the marketing communication is constrained by time or space, the measures that the marketer takes to make that information available to the consumer by other means.
(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 Unchain the Brighton Motorist to ensure that they held robust evidence to support objective claims, and to ensure that they did not mislead.
