Background
Summary of Council decision:
Three issues were investigated, two of which were Upheld and one was Not upheld.
Ad description
A website, www.anyjunk.co.uk, for a waste management company seen in January 2018 featured text on the home page that stated, “AnyJunk is the UK’s largest man & van rubbish removal company”. Further down the page was the text “Why AnyJunk?” and listed benefits of using the advertiser’s service, and included “Industry leading green creds”.
On the “GREEN CREDENTIALS” page was further text that stated “94% of Waste Diverted from Landfill …”.
Issue
The complainant, who understood that the advertiser subcontracted their waste management service, challenged whether the following claims were misleading and could be substantiated:
1. “AnyJunk is the UK’s largest man & van rubbish removal company”;
2. “Why AnyJunk? … Industry leading green creds”; and
3. “94% of Waste Diverted from Landfill”.
Response
1. AnyJunk Ltd stated that the claim “AnyJunk is the UK’s largest man & van rubbish removal company reflected how their business operated in a niche market, in which they claimed to be the leader.
AnyJunk explained that their niche covered on-demand (or unscheduled or reactive) clearance of rubbish from homes and offices. They stated that it was different from scheduled waste collection undertaken by large waste management companies and local Councils, which represented the vast majority of the waste management sector. AnyJunk believed that consumers would understand that this was what the claim was based on.
AnyJunk stated that whilst local Councils offered a similar waste collection service to residents, they understood it was limited to furniture, appliances and household junk, whereas their rubbish clearance service was wider and also included builders’ rubble, home improvement waste, garden refuse and fly-tipped rubbish – in other words, rubbish that would be thrown into a skip.
AnyJunk provided links to several search engine results using the terms “Rubbish clearance”, “Rubbish removal”, “Man & van rubbish clearance”, “Bulky waste collection” and “Waste management” to support how they considered consumers would interpret the claim.
AnyJunk stated that the companies that appeared at the top of the organic results for each term were different. In particular, the search terms “Rubbish clearance”, “Rubbish removal” and “Man & van rubbish clearance” all showed companies that provided a “man & van rubbish” clearance service like they did (as opposed to large waste management companies or local Councils). AnyJunk believed that this demonstrated that consumers who used such search terms were specifically looking for companies offering the same niche service that they offered, and therefore supported their view on how consumers would interpret the claim “AnyJunk is the UK’s largest man & van rubbish removal company”.
AnyJunk stated that they provided a waste management service for some of the largest home improvement brands and household insurance providers.
AnyJunk stated that they were the largest operator in the man & van rubbish removal sector and was based on their annual sales, number of clearances and collection trucks, and provided their draft accounts and data to support that.
AnyJunk stated that they did not consider the fact that they subcontracted collections to local, independent man & van rubbish clearance companies (rather than employing their own collections teams directly) precluded them from being called a rubbish removal company – it was simply the operating model they used to provide the service. They believed almost every service sector of a similar scale involved a significant amount of subcontracting (for example, couriers, taxi drivers, builders). They believed a key point of their service was that their consumers contracted with them and not with the subcontractor who undertook the collection.
2. AnyJunk stated that based on their landfill diversion percentage and miles travelled per collection, they had the best green credentials in the man & van rubbish clearance industry.
On average, more than 94% of waste they collected was diverted from landfill, which they stated was supported by their audit trail. AnyJunk stated that they were not aware of any other man & van rubbish clearance company that had a better percentage diversion. Furthermore, their technology-led operating model was based on getting waste collections done by the nearest available waste carrier and thereby minimising miles travelled per collection and optimising existing resources.
AnyJunk stated that the size and localised nature of their truck network was such that on average, they would always have a truck nearer to a job than a traditional operator who just had their own fleet to rely on. Because of that, AnyJunk believed that the average miles travelled in one of their collections was less than those travelled undertaking a typical man & van rubbish clearance job. They believed fewer miles equalled lower carbon emissions and a smaller carbon footprint per collection.
3. AnyJunk stated that whenever a collection was undertaken by one of their approved service partners, the service partner was obliged to record the details of that collection using their app; they also recorded when and where that waste was disposed of, including scanning a copy of the tipping receipt from the commercial recycling facility used.
AnyJunk stated that the app data was captured and stored in their database along with GPS data tracking vehicle movements, and provided screenshots of that information. They explained that the database also contained details of every commercial waste facility used by their network, including license number, address and landfill diversion. Furthermore, every month they used that data to report on the landfill diversion of all the waste they collected and provided their clients with landfill diversion figures for the waste they had collected from them, and that the process had been subject to rigorous compliance testing by their clients.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA considered that the claim “AnyJunk is the UK’s largest man & van rubbish removal company” would generally be interpreted by consumers to mean that AnyJunk had the largest market share, in terms of turnover, in the waste management sector of private companies that collected substantial amounts of rubbish from residential properties and businesses, which we understood was the nature of AnyJunk’s business.
We noted the complainant’s view that the claim was misleading because AnyJunk subcontracted their services to local, independent man & van rubbish clearance companies. However, we understood that was how AnyJunk’s business model operated and that when a consumer used their services, they contracted directly with AnyJunk and not with the subcontractor. We considered most consumers would understand that companies engaged in subcontracting as part of delivering their services, and we therefore considered it was acceptable for AnyJunk to include the sub-contracted collections in their data.
AnyJunk’s draft accounts showed how much turnover they made for the year ending 30 September 2017. However, they did not provide any comparative data showing that their turnover was higher than their competitors, giving them the largest market share in the waste management sector of private companies that collected substantial amounts of rubbish from residential properties and businesses.
Notwithstanding the above, we noted that AnyJunk had not provided any comparative data showing that their waste collection and network of trucks were higher than their competitors, which they stated the claim was also based on.
Because AnyJunk had not provided any comparative data to demonstrate that they had the largest market share in the waste management sector (in terms of turnover) that they operated in, we concluded that the claim “AnyJunk is the UK’s largest man & van rubbish removal company” had not been substantiated and was therefore misleading.
On that point, the claim 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 3.33 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. (Comparisons with identifiable competitors).
2. Upheld
We considered consumers would understand the claim “Why AnyJunk? … Industry leading green creds” to be an objective claim that AnyJunk was ranked the highest in terms of being environmentally friendly compared to all other rubbish removal companies.
We therefore considered that to substantiate the claim, AnyJunk would need to provide comparative evidence which demonstrated that they were more environmentally friendly than any other major waste management company.
However, because we had not seen such comparative evidence we concluded the claim Why AnyJunk? … Industry leading green creds” had not been substantiated and 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 3.33 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. (Comparisons with identifiable competitors).
3. Not upheld
We considered consumers would understand the claim “94% of Waste Diverted from Landfill” to mean that 94% of the waste collected by AnyJunk would not go to a landfill site, but would be diverted elsewhere, for instance, to recycling centres.
We understood that AnyJunk directed a portion of the waste they collected to licensed commercial recycling facilities and collected data from every collection point.
The data AnyJunk provided showed that they recorded diverting 92–93% of waste from a landfill site from January to April 2017. In May 2017, they first recorded diverting 94% of waste from a landfill site, but in July fell short by 0.6% and then in August, September, October, November and December 2017 and January 2018, went back up to 94%.
We considered that demonstrated that for the majority of time between January 2017 and January 2018, 94% of the waste AnyJunk had collected did not go to a landfill site, but was diverted to commercial recycling facilities.
Because of that, we considered AnyJunk had provided adequate evidence to support the claim “94% of Waste Diverted from Landfill” and therefore concluded that it had been substantiated and was not misleading.
On that point we investigated the claim under 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), but did not find it in breach.
Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told AnyJunk Ltd that their comparative claims must be supported with adequate evidence.
