Background
Summary of Council decision:
Four issues were investigated, all of which were Upheld.
Ad description
A property listing by Ashbury Residential on the website www.rightmove.co.uk for a "1 bedroom apartment to rent", seen on 22 February 2017. Under the heading "key features", the listing included the claims "integrated audio system" and "Gated Access & TV". Further text stated "Along with all the spectacular features of the apartment you will also benefit from: Private Drive. Remote Control Gated Access with CCTV. Private Secure Car Parking. Beautifully Maintained Grounds".
Issue
The complainant, who previously lived in the property, challenged whether the following claims were misleading and could be substantiated:
1. "Integrated audio system" because the audio system did not work;
2. "Remote Control Gated Access with CCTV" because the system no longer worked;
3. "Private drive" and "private secure car parking" because the drive was shared with other residents; and
4. "Beautifully maintained grounds" because there was on-going building work in the grounds.
Response
Castle Estates (Liverpool) Ltd t/a Ashbury Residential did not respond to the ASA's enquiries.
Assessment
The ASA was concerned by Ashbury Residential'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 provide a response to our enquiries and told them to do so in future.
1. & 2. Upheld
The ASA considered that consumers would expect from the ad that the property had a working integrated audio system and a working remote control gated access system with CCTV. We understood from the complainant, however, that they were both no longer working. In the absence of any evidence to indicate otherwise, we concluded that the claims "integrated audio system" and "remote control gated access with CCTV" were 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) 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. Upheld
We considered that consumers would expect from the claims “private drive” and “private and secure parking” that there was a shared driveway for the exclusive use of the residents, but that each property came with a car parking space that only the tenant had access to. We understood from the complainant that both the driveway and the available car parking spaces were shared with the building’s residents. In the absence of any evidence to show that there was a car parking space that only the tenant had access to, we concluded that the claim “private and secure car parking” 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) 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).
4. Upheld
We understood from the complainant that there was currently building work taking place on the grounds of the property. We considered that consumers were unlikely to expect from the claim "beautifully maintained grounds" that there was on-going building work taking place on the grounds. In the absence of information to indicate that no such building work was taking place and that the grounds were currently being maintained, we 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) 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).
Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Ashbury Residential not to state that the property came with an “integrated audio system” and “remote control gated access with CCTV” if they were no longer working, and not to use the claim “private secure parking” if the car parking space was shared with other residents. We also told them not to use the claim “beautifully maintained grounds” if there was currently building work taking place. We referred the matter to the CAP Compliance Team.
