Background
Summary of Council decision:
Three issues were investigated, all of which were Not upheld.
Ad description
A website for the waste management company Clearabee, www.clearabee.co.uk, seen in November 2019, featured two pages. The first page, headed “Clearabee and the Environment” featured text which stated “>95% landfill diversion rate on average” and “100+ locations meaning driving distance between jobs is very low”. The second page, headed “Rubbish Removal London” featured text which stated “We’re London and the UK’s largest man and van rubbish removal company, operating exclusively through our own teams based right across London and further afield”. Similar claims were made across the website in relation to the use of exclusively ‘in-house’ teams.
Issue
Anyjunk Ltd, who believed that Clearabee subcontracted their services, challenged whether the following claims were misleading and could be substantiated: 1. “>95% landfill diversion rate”; 2. “100+ locations meaning driving distance between jobs is very low”; and 3. “Operating exclusively through our own teams”.
Response
1. Clearbee Ltd said that while there were a finite number of Waste Transfer Stations in the UK and all waste collectors used a selection of the same set of stations, they were able to achieve a good rate of landfill diversion because they controlled all of their own trucks, knew exactly what waste was on board and were able to specify where they transferred their waste. Clearabee said that Waste Transfer Stations separated waste that could be recycled from waste that could not be saved from landfill, and Clearabee were therefore able to know the recycling rate and therefore the landfill avoidance rate for any given station. They provided a spreadsheet which showed every Waste Transfer Station visit for every truck from 1 August 2019 to 31 October 2019, which they believed demonstrated that at least 95.24% of the waste they collected was diverted from landfill during that period. They said Waste Transfer Stations submitted the figures to the Environment Agency and published them on a regular basis, meaning they knew the recycling rate for any given Transfer Station, the exact tonnage they transferred to that station and therefore the landfill avoidance rate.
2. Clearabee provided two snapshots of a map of the UK which they said showed the wide distribution of their trucks. The snapshots were taken at two different times of the week, which they said showed both the home location of their trucks and the areas they served while in operation. They said that with over 100 different geographical locations nationally, collection was likely to be carried out by a vehicle which was strategically positioned to keep average collection journeys low, stating that the average miles travelled per job was 11.68 between 1 August 2019 and 31 October 2019. They said they did not simply have depots with large numbers of trucks in major cities, which would result in much longer journeys for collections to be completed. 3. Clearabee said they made the claim to reassure customers that if they booked their services, they would get a Clearabee truck and team, not a local van to whom the collection was subcontracted.
They provided a spreadsheet which they said showed a complete record of the collections carried out through 1 August 2019 to 31 October 2019, with a Clearabee resource location and truck listed against each collection. They also provided a separate spreadsheet which they said showed a full list of Clearabee employees.
Assessment
1. Not upheld
The ASA considered that consumers would understand the claim “>95% landfill diversion rate” to mean that more than 95% of the waste collected by Clearabee would not go to a landfill site, but would be diverted elsewhere, for instance, to recycling centres. We assessed the information provided by Clearabee. That information showed, for each Waste Transfer Station visit between 1 August 2019 and 31 October 2019, the difference between the vehicle weight recorded by the Waste Transfer Station when it arrived and the vehicle weight recorded by the Waste Transfer Station when the waste had been tipped, producing an average diversion rate of 95.24% over the period.
We considered, therefore, that the evidence provided demonstrated that more than 95% of the waste Clearabee had collected over the period did not go to a landfill site but was instead transferred to a recycling facility, and because of that, we concluded that the claim “>95% landfill diversion 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.
2. Not upheld
Similar to the claim investigated under issue 1, we noted that the claim “100+ locations meaning driving distance between jobs is very low” appeared on the page headed “Clearabee and the Environment”. We considered that consumers would understand that driving impacted the environment, and in that context, we considered they would interpret the claim to mean that by operating from more than 100 locations across the UK, the distance required to drive between jobs was relatively short. We assessed the information provided by Clearabee, which we considered demonstrated that they had Clearabee trucks and personnel in more than 100 locations nationally, and that they were able to serve the surrounding regions within which those resources were located.
Doing so meant that their average travel between jobs was 11.68 miles, which we considered was relatively low compared with, for example, if they had few inner city locations from which to travel and serve those surrounding regions. In light of the above, we considered that the claim “100+ locations meaning driving distance between jobs is very low” 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.
3. Not upheld
We considered that consumers would understand from the claim “Operating exclusively through our own teams” that the services offered by Clearabee would be carried out by Clearabee employees and that they would not be subcontracted to another affiliated business or individual. We assessed the information provided by Clearabee. The first spreadsheet demonstrated that the jobs carried out between 1 August and 31 October 2019 were completed by teams located at Clearabee’s own resource centres across the UK and using a Clearabee-registered vehicle. In addition, we considered that the number of people directly employed by Clearabee, as listed on the additional spreadsheet, indicated that their workforce was sufficient in numbers to carry out jobs from those various locations. We therefore considered that it had been demonstrated that Clearabee offered a service carried out by their own employees, their own trucks and from their own resource centres. In light of the above, we concluded that the claim “Operating exclusively through our own teams” 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
No further action necessary.
