Ad description
A regional press ad, for Darlows estate agents, stated "WE ARE PROUD TO BE THE NUMBER ONE AGENT IN CARDIFF".
Issue
Kelvin Francis Ltd, who believed they were the number one agent in Cardiff, challenged whether the claim could be substantiated.
Response
SpicerHaart Group Ltd (SpicerHaart) said the Land Registry recorded a property as being sold on the date the sale was completed, whereas they recorded a property as being sold if the unconditional contracts had been exchanged. They submitted a document which they said demonstrated that a total of 4,656 Land Registry properties were sold within the territory of the Cardiff metropolitan area, between 1 July 2010 and 31 August 2011. They also submitted a list of postcodes, prefixed with CF, which they said was obtained by a national mapping agency and referred to areas situated within the territory. They said their internal records showed that they had exchanged 543 unconditional contracts and listed 1,406 properties within the territory but were unable to provide data relating to the period between 1 July 2010 and 31 August 2011.
They said they did have evidence relating to 31 October 2011 which was taken from a property website and showed that, on that date, they had 523 properties listed and 202 properties that were likely to sell. They said, by comparing these two figures, they calculated a "listing to sales" ratio of 38.62% which they then applied to current online listings from search engines to show that they had a 20.82% market share, while their nearest competitor had a 15.26% market share. They submitted five screenshots of a sales agent competitor analysis which indicated the available properties for sale in five areas of Cardiff and said this showed that they had the highest number of properties listed than other agents in the area. They believed they had demonstrated that they were the number one agent in Cardiff.
Assessment
Upheld
The ASA considered that most readers would understand the claim "...THE NUMBER ONE AGENT IN CARDIFF" to mean that Darlows sold more properties in Cardiff than any other estate agent based in the area. We also considered readers would generally understand a property as being sold when the sale was completed, and not before conditional contracts had been exchanged. However, we noted SpicerHaart recorded a property as sold when unconditional contracts had been exchanged. We also noted SpicerHaart said they had 523 properties listed on a property website on 31 October 2011 and that they had a higher market share than their competitors. However, we did not consider property listings, relating to one day, provided evidence to demonstrate that their sales were higher than other agents in the area. We also noted the market share figure was based on calculating the ratio of the number of properties listed to the likely properties sold, rather than on data that related directly to completed sales. In the absence of comparative evidence demonstrating that Darlows had sold more properties than any other estate agent in Cardiff, we considered the claim "... THE NUMBER ONE AGENT IN CARDIFF" had not been substantiated and concluded that it was misleading.
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), 3.11 3.11 Marketing communications must not mislead consumers by exaggerating the capability or performance of a product. (Exaggeration) and 3.33 3.33 Marketing communications that include a comparison with an identifiable competitor must not mislead, or be likely to mislead, the consumer about either the advertised product or the competing product. and 3.35 3.35 They must objectively compare one or more material, relevant, verifiable and representative feature of those products, which may include price. (Comparisons with identifiable competitors).
Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told SpicerHaart not to use the claim "number one agent" again unless they held relevant, comparative data to substantiate it.
