Ad description
An e-mail and the website www.beatwheelclamps.com promoted a product to prevent wheel clamp fines:
a. The e-mail, sent from Drivingstreet.com, was headed "Use These Clever Tactics To LEGALLY BEAT WHEEL CLAMP BULLIES". Further text stated "Until now, getting ANY help to deal with clampers has been impossible. Most people pay up because - well, let's face it, they're afraid NOT to. They don't want to risk the clampers turning violent. And even if they manage to flee the scene unharmed, they don't want to live with the possibility that someone else will turn up on their doorstep ... demanding payment - OR ELSE! Fortunately, that's no longer the case. NOW you don't have to worry about being intimidated, about losing sleep, or about throwing your money away for dubious parking infringements. With the powerful Beat Wheel Clamps system, you're GUARANTEED to triumph! ... Order your copy TODAY and we'll give you: 33% Off the Usual Price! Click on the special link below to grab your copy right away", followed by a link to www.beatwheelclamps.com.
b. The website stated "Have you ever been CAUGHT by a WHEEL CLAMPING COWBOY? You park up for a few minutes and head into town. You return to your car - and as you approach the vehicle, your heart SINKS. You see the big, dirty-yellow clamp - and suddenly realize that your five minute trip into town has just cost you somewhere between £120 and £670. You're OUTRAGED. But there's NOTHING you can do about it! Literally, you're helpless. And if you try playing "tough" with one of these big wheel clamping guys, it won't be long before he calls in his team of clamping thugs for backup. You can't beat these clamping cowboys. UNLESS you follow my 100% LEGAL wheel clamping system. Follow my simple instructions and you can get ANY wheel clamping fine refunded in just DAYS ...". Below, further claims set out more information about the product, the cost, and invited consumers to purchase and download the system.
Issue
The complainant challenged whether the ads were misleading and irresponsible, because they exaggerated the risk of being clamped and could cause unnecessary fear and distress.
Response
White Cliff Computing Ltd t/a WCCL Network did not believe that the ads exaggerated the risk of getting a wheel clamped, but said they were happy to amend the ads to ensure they did not suggest that clampers were "bullies" or "cowboys".
Assessment
Upheld
The ASA acknowledged that WCCL Network were willing to amend the ads. However, we noted that they had not provided any evidence to suggest that the ads presented an accurate account of the risk of being clamped. We noted that the ads included claims such as "dubious parking infringements" and "You park up for a few minutes ..." which gave the impression that individuals were frequently at risk of being clamped unjustly as a result of minor parking misdemeanours. We understood, however, that car clamping on private land was banned in October 2012 and that, according to Citizens Advice, a car could only be clamped by councils, police, bailiffs and Government agencies such as the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Authority (DVLA), if it was not road worthy, if the owner hadn't paid unpaid taxes, fines or legal aid costs, or if an owner repeatedly parked their car where they shouldn't and had not paid council parking tickets. We also noted that the language used in both ads to describe clampers, such as "cowboys" and "bullies", presented them as intimidating, unreasonable and potentially threatening. WCCL Network had not provided any evidence to demonstrate that that was an accurate description of agents acting for the lawful authorities with the power to clamp a vehicle. We considered that the ad gave a misleading impression of the risk of being clamped, and that the negative presentation of clampers and their behaviour could scare an individual into buying the product. In light of that, we concluded that the ads were misleading and irresponsible.
The ads breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 1.3 1.3 Marketing communications must be prepared with a sense of responsibility to consumers and to society. (Responsible advertising), 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising) and 4.2 4.2 Marketing communications must not cause fear or distress without justifiable reason; if it can be justified, the fear or distress should not be excessive. Marketers must not use a shocking claim or image merely to attract attention. (Harm and offence).
Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told WCCL Network to ensure they held sufficient evidence to substantiate the claims in their advertising and that they did not cause unnecessary fear and distress.
