Background
Summary of Council decision:
Three issues were investigated, all of which were Upheld.
Ad description
A website for the CPD (continuing professional development) Regulatory Office, https://www.cpdregulatoryoffice.org.uk/, seen on 30 May 2024 included text stating “Working alongside government bodies, the CPD Regulatory Office has been tasked with ensuring that continued professional development training is regulated through authorised and approved CPD and Accreditation companies. Our approved CPD & Accreditation Providers meet government-approved standards when assessing training providers and courses. Our team research the many CPD and Accreditation service providers in the UK and list them on our directory of providers […]”.
The website also featured a heading stating “APPROVED CPD & ACCREDITATION SERVICE PROVIDERS” followed by the logos for: THE CPD STANDARDS OFFICE, UK CPD, HABIA, BABTAC, INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF AROMATHERAPISTS, INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF COMPLEMENTARY THERAPY, THE COMPLEMENTARY MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, THE BRITISH ACUPUNCTURE ACCREDITATION BOARD, EUROPEAN TRADITIONAL CHINESE MEDICINE ASSOCIATION, AYURVEDIC PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION, BRITISH WHEEL OF YOGA, CENTRE OF CPD EXCELLENCE, THE NATIONAL HYPNOTHERAPY SOCIETY, THE BRITISH PSYCHOANALYTIC COUNCIL, BIRITISH ACCREDITATION COUNCIL, ADVANTAGE, OCN LONDON, INSTITUTE FOR OUTDOOR LEARNING and UK RURAL SKILLS.
Issue
The CPD Group Ltd, who understood that CPD was an unregulated industry, was not overseen by the UK government and had no government-approved standards, challenged whether the following claims were misleading and could be substantiated:
1. “Working alongside government bodies, the CPD Regulatory Office has been tasked with ensuring that continued professional development training is regulated through authorised and approved CPD and Accreditation companies”; and
2. “Our approved CPD & Accreditation Providers meet government-approved standards when assessing training providers and courses”.
3. They also challenged whether the use of the organisations’ names and logos in the ad misleadingly suggested an association with those organisations.
Response
The CPD Regulatory Office did not respond to the ASA’s enquiries.Assessment
The ASA was concerned by The CPD Regulatory Office’s lack of response and apparent disregard for the Code, which was a breach of CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 1.7 (Unreasonable delay). We reminded them of their responsibility to respond promptly to our enquiries and told them to do so in future.
1. & 2. Upheld
The ASA considered the claims were likely to be interpreted to mean that the CPD Regulatory Office worked with government bodies and complied with government-approved standards to ensure continuing professional development (CPD) training was regulated through authorised and approved CPD and Accreditation companies.
We had not been provided with evidence to show that: The CPD Regulatory Office did work with government bodies; the CPD training industry was regulated through standards set by government; or The CPD Regulatory Office provided government approved authorisation to companies providing CPD training. In the absence of such evidence, we concluded that the claims were misleading and had not been substantiated.On those points, the claims breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 (Substantiation)
3. Upheld
We considered that the heading “APPROVED CPD & ACCREDITATION SERVICE PROVIDERS” followed by the logos for the various organisations listed would be interpreted to mean those organisations had been assessed and approved by The CPD Regulatory Office. In the absence of evidence to show that those organisations were associated with and had been assessed by The CPD Regulatory Office, we concluded that the use of the logos in the ad was likely to mislead.On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 and (Misleading advertising), 3.50
Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told The CPD Regulatory Office not to claim in their advertising that they worked with government bodies; that the CPD training industry was regulated through standards set by government; or that The CPD Regulatory Office provided government approved authorisation to companies providing CPD training if that was not the case. We also told The CPD Regulatory Office not to feature logos of other organisations in their advertising in a way that was likely to mislead. We referred the matter to the CAP Compliance team.
