Background
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated, both of which were Upheld.
Ad description
Claims on www.directresortsinternational.co.uk. Text stated, "All our luxury resorts are from £99 per person ... 5 star Luxury Accommodation at RCI ... Affiliated Resorts".
Issue
KwikChex Ltd, as part of the Timeshare Task Force initiative, challenged whether:
1. the ad was misleading, because it omitted what they believed was a significant condition that the prices of the holidays were dependent on consumers attending a timeshare sales presentation, and that failure to attend would mean incurring the full cost of the holiday accommodation; and
2. the claim “at RCI ... Affiliated Resorts” was misleading, because they understood that the advertiser had no connection with Resort Condominiums International (RCI).
Response
Easy Consulting SL t/a directresortsinternational.co.uk did not respond to the ASA's enquiries.
Assessment
The ASA was concerned by Easy Consulting SL's lack of response and apparent disregard for the Code, which was a breach of CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 1.7 1.7 Any unreasonable delay in responding to the ASA's enquiries will normally be considered a breach of the Code. (Unreasonable delay). We reminded them of their responsibility to respond to our enquiries and told them to do so in future.
1. Upheld
We understood from the complainant that, in order to achieve the stated prices, consumers were required to attend a timeshare sales presentation, and that failure to attend would mean incurring the full cost of the holiday accommodation. We considered that consumers would not expect to have to attend such a presentation unless it was made clear, and such a requirement was significant information which was likely to affect a consumer's decision as to whether or not to purchase a holiday. Because we had not seen any evidence to show if the advertised holiday prices were generally available or if they were only available to customers who attended a sales presentation, we concluded that the quoted price had not been substantiated and the ad was misleading.
On that 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).
2. Upheld
We noted that the ad stated that the resorts were RCI-affiliated. We would therefore need to see evidence to demonstrate that that was the case, but we had not received any such evidence. We also noted that the RCI's website included on a "Consumer Alert" page confirmation that they had no relationship or link to Easy Consulting. We therefore concluded that the claim was misleading.
On that 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), 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) and 3.50 3.50 Marketing communications must not display a trust mark, quality mark or equivalent without the necessary authorisation. Marketing communications must not claim that the marketer (or any other entity referred to), the marketing communication or the advertised product has been approved, endorsed or authorised by any public or other body if it has not or without complying with the terms of the approval, endorsement or authorisation. (Endorsements and testimonials).
Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Easy Consulting SL to make clear if consumers were required to attend a timeshare sales presentation in order to achieve a particular price for a holiday. We also told them not to claim an affiliation with the RCI if one did not exist. We referred the matter to CAP’s Compliance team.
