Background
Summary of Council decision:
Four issues were investigated, three of which were Upheld and one of which was Upheld in part.
Ad description
Six regional press ads published in the Metro, and a web page hosted on the Mail Online and Metro Online websites, for the Department for Work and Pensions:
a. The first press ad, published on 22 May 2019, was made up of three parts: two partial-page ads on the front page, a four-page section in the centre of the paper, and a full page ad on the back page. Each ad featured small text at the top which stated “ADVERTISEMENT FEATURE FROM THE DEPARTMENT FOR WORK AND PENSIONS” (the label), and the text “Find out more about Universal Credit at metro.co.uk/universalcredit”. The first ad on the front page appeared in the top right-hand corner and featured large text that stated “UNIVERSAL CREDIT UNCOVERED” with a graphic of a magnifying glass incorporated into the ‘O’ of “UNCOVERED”, which had the overall appearance of ‘stamped’ text (the magnifying glass graphic). It included the label at the top and large text to the right stated “FIND OUT MORE ON PAGE 23”. The second ad, across the bottom of the front page, featured text which stated “MYTH Universal Credit doesn’t work FACT It does. People move into work faster on Universal Credit than they did on the old system”. The magnifying glass graphic appeared to the right-hand side. The four-page ad featured the heading “UNIVERSAL CREDIT UNCOVERED” on the first page, followed by the text “A lot has been written about Universal Credit recently – not all of it correct, sadly. Whether you’ve been confused by this new benefits system, or simply want to know what the fuss is about, we will set the record straight for you. Over the next nine weeks, we’ll be bringing you the real stories from the front line of Universal Credit”. Further text underneath stated “MYTHS & FACTS: We set the record straight”. The inside double-spread featured the heading “YOUR GUIDE TO UNIVERSAL CREDIT”. One page described some of the differences between Universal Credit and the previous welfare system, and the other detailed the experiences of a Universal Credit work coach named Anne. Text stated “MYTH You have to wait 5 weeks to get any money on Universal Credit FACT If you need money, your jobcentre will urgently pay you an advance”. The final page included a box providing advice from “Metro’s careers advice expert and author Kathleen Houston, who offers her top five job application tips” and a “YOUR QUESTIONS ANSWERED” section. The “Universal Credit doesn’t work” myth/fact also appeared. The ad on the back page of the paper featured four myths/facts about Universal Credit, including “MYTH Universal Credit make it harder to pay your rent on time FACT Your Jobcentre can give you an advance payment and pay rent directly to landlords” and the “five weeks” myth/fact.
b. The second press ad, published on 29 May 2019, featured a partial-page ad and a full page ad. Each ad included the same label used in ad (a). The partial-page ad included the Universal Credit magnifying glass graphic, and the myth/fact about rent. Text at the bottom referred readers to the full page ad. The full page ad was headed “Back in business” and featured Bradley’s, from Hull, experience with Universal Credit, and the myth/fact which appeared in the partial-page ad. Text at the bottom of the ad stated “Watch Bradley’s video at metro.co.uk/universalcredit”.
c. The third press ad, published on 5 June 2019, featured a partial-page ad and a full page ad. Each ad included the same label used in ad (a). The partial-page ad included the Universal Credit magnifying glass graphic, a myth/fact, and text at the bottom referred readers to the full page ad. The full page ad was headed “Starting afresh”, and featured Leam’s experience with Universal Credit, a myth/fact, and a “Hear from an expert” section featuring advice from Kathleen Houston. Text at the bottom of the page stated “Find out more about Universal Credit at metro.co.uk/universalcredit”.
d. The fourth press ad, published on 12 June 2019, featured a partial-page ad and a full page ad. Each ad included the same label used in ad (a). The partial-page ad included the Universal Credit magnifying glass graphic, and the “five week” myth/fact. Text at the bottom referred readers to the full page ad. The full page ad was headed “Back to work” and featured Paul’s, from Margate, experience with Universal Credit, the “five week” myth/fact, and a “Hear from the expert” section featuring advice from Kathleen Houston. Text at the bottom of the page stated “Watch Paul’s video at metro.co.uk/universalcredit”.
e. The fifth press ad, published on 19 June 2019, featured a partial-page ad and a full page ad. Each ad included the same label used in ad (a). The partial-page ad included the Universal Credit magnifying glass graphic, and a myth/fact. Text at the bottom referred readers to the full page ad. The full page ad was headed “Time for work and family” and featured Jabulani’s, from South London, experience with Universal Credit, a myth/fact, and a “Hear from the expert” section featuring advice from Kathleen Houston. Text at the bottom of the page stated “Watch Jabulani’s video at metro.co.uk/universalcredit”.
f. The sixth press ad, published on 26 June 2019, featured a partial-page ad and a full page ad. Each ad included the same label used in ad (a). The partial-page ad included the Universal Credit magnifying glass graphic, and the “Universal Credit doesn’t work” myth/fact. Text at the bottom referred readers to the full page ad. The full page ad was headed “‘The confidence boost I needed’” and featured the experience of Wisaruta, a former supermarket worker, the same myth/fact as in the partial-page ad, and a “Hear from an expert” section from Kathleen Houston. Text at the bottom of the page stated “Find out more about Universal Credit at metro.co.uk/universalcredit”.
g. The web page at the link referenced in ads (a) to (f), seen on 19 June 2019, featured small text at the top of the page which stated “Advertisement feature from the Department for Work and Pensions”, followed by the MailOnline and Metro.co.uk logos and the magnifying glass graphic. A section headed “Think you know about Universal Credit?” featured six myths/facts, including the three described above. Underneath, a section headed “You asked, we answered” included a video which featured Universal Credit work coaches responding to social media posts which criticised Universal Credit. A section headed “Meet the work coaches” featured the experiences of six work coaches. A section headed “Case studies” featured summaries of the experiences of five people on Universal Credit, with videos of three of them. A section headed “Your guide to Universal Credit” provided information about “PAYMENT”, “HOW IT AFFECTS ME”, “WORKING ON UNIVERSAL CREDIT” and “WHAT IF I CAN’T WORK?”. A final section headed “Tips for job hunters” featured advice on CVs and interviews from Kathleen Houston.
Issue
The ASA received 44 complaints, including from the charities Zacchaeus 2000 Trust (Z2K), the Motor Neurone Disease Association, and the Disability Benefits Consortium. They challenged whether:
1. ads (a) to (e), and ad (g), were obviously identifiable as marketing communications;
2. the claim “MYTH Universal Credit doesn’t work FACT It does. People move into work faster on Universal Credit than they did on the old system” in ads (a), (f) and (g) was misleading and could be substantiated;
3. the claim “MYTH You have to wait 5 weeks to get any money on Universal Credit FACT If you need money, your jobcentre will urgently pay you an advance” in ads (a), (d), and (g) was misleading and could be substantiated, and omitted significant restrictions that were likely to affect a person’s decision to apply for Universal Credit; and
4. the claim “MYTH Universal Credit makes it harder to pay your rent on time FACT Your Jobcentre can give you an advance payment and pay rent directly to landlords” in ads (a), (b),and (g) was misleading and could be substantiated, and omitted significant restrictions that were likely to affect a person’s decision to apply for Universal Credit.
Response
The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) said the ads were intended to raise awareness of the benefits that claimants may be entitled to, and to help them find further relevant information. They clarified that there had been three elements to the advertising campaign: the print ads; an online ‘hub’ (ad (g)); and a series of display ads shown on the Metro Online and MailOnline websites which linked to ad (g), about which the ASA had not received any complaints.
1. The DWP said that both the print and the online hub ads were significantly different in layout, format and general look and feel from Metro editorial content, and that they did not look like the surrounding or nearby articles. They believed it was therefore clear that the ads were not standard Metro content. They believed that because the content did not resemble the editorial style of the Metro it was not necessary to include a label, but to ensure it was clear to readers that the content was advertorial each ad was clearly labelled “ADVERTISMENT FEATURE FROM THE DEPARTMENT FOR WORK AND PENSIONS”, in bold capitals, and they had requested that the Metro increase the font size compared to the size usually used for such labels. For the online ad, the label was included in the header, which remained at the centre top of the page as website visitors scrolled down. They said the label was clear and prominent, and separate from the text of the ad. They said the content made it clear that the ads were written by the DWP, for example, including statements such as “… we now have a system …” in ad (a), which could only be referring to the DWP. That ad also went on to set out how individuals could claim Universal Credit (UC) and how payments would be made, which demonstrated that it was an article by the DWP. The content also featured interviews with Jobcentre work coaches who were clearly identified as DWP employees and spokespeople for the department. They highlighted that they had made some changes to their initial copy following advice from CAP’s Copy Advice team, but that they had said that it may not be necessary to include the DWP’s logo.
Associated Newspapers Ltd, publishers of the Metro, who were jointly responsible for ensuring that the ads were obviously identifiable as marketing communications, said that all the ads included the statement “ADVERTISEMENT FEATURE FROM THE DEPARTMENT FOR WORK AND PENSIONS” prominently and in bold text. In ad (g) the statement also remained in position when scrolling down the web page. They considered it was not conceivably possible to overlook the statement in any of the ads and that they were therefore obviously identifiable as marketing communications. They said the ads were also not in the Metro’s house style and therefore the publication’s readers would not confuse it with the usual editorial copy. Similarly, ad (g) had a different layout and style to editorial copy on both the Metro and MailOnline websites and it was therefore plainly distinguishable from editorial content on those sites.
2. The DWP said that UC claimants were 4% more likely to have been in work at some point in the first six months of making their claim than people on legacy benefits. That figure was from a September 2017 DWP report which analysed 27,000 new UC claims made by single claimants with no children or housing costs who made their claims between July 2014 and April 2015 across 94 Jobcentres. The UC claimants were compared with a matched sample of people claiming Jobseekers’ Allowance (JSA). The DWP acknowledged that the group used in the analysis was not representative of the entire UC population, and that they were likely to have lower barriers to work than the expected final UC caseload. However, the group represented around 35‒40% of the expected final UC caseload and they were specifically selected in order that a direct comparison could be made with JSA claimants who were likely to face similar barriers to work. They considered a 4% difference was a significant impact because JSA claimants had similar work incentives to the UC population and were already subject to an intensive regime of conditions they must meet to be eligible for the benefit. They considered it proved that the policy principles underpinning UC could have a significant impact on employment outcomes by removing financial incentive barriers in the legacy system, improving simplicity and introducing additional conditions for eligibility. They said the analysis used a robust methodology to match the UC and JSA claimants, which was developed in consultation with internationally recognised experts. The DWP’s methodology and analysis had been peer-reviewed by a team at the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR), whose report was publically available. One of the complainants had highlighted that in April 2019, 52% of UC claimants were searching for work, compared to 44% in April 2018. The DWP said this was in line with expectations given the phased rollout of the UC ‘Full Service’ between May 2016 and December 2018, as claims began to be taken from all groups eligible for UC including those further away from the labour market. They expected that UC would have more significant impacts for groups who were further from the labour market than those included in the September 2017 analysis.
3. The DWP said that the ‘fact’ clearly related to an advance payment, and said the ads contained additional, more detailed, information which included the terms and conditions for paying back advance payments, although it was not possible to convey all qualifying criteria in the ads.
The ads also included case studies of individuals who had received an advance and information about their repayments and directed readers to where they could find more information online. They said that advances of up to 100% of a claimants’ monthly award were available to all claimants from the first day of their claim. Jobcentre staff were informed that it was essential that claimants who demonstrated that they had a likely UC entitlement were offered an advance payment at the first opportunity. If the claimant confirmed they would like an advance, the application was approved immediately. The DWP said that the reference in the claim to an “urgent” payment represented their intention to take immediate steps to ensure payment was made as quickly as possible. A standard BACS transaction took 72 hours but if a claimant needed a payment more quickly they could use a faster payment method, so that the claimant would receive the payment on the same day the claim was made. The DWP said that consistently around 86% of new claimants were being paid their first payment in full and on time. Delays of first and advance payments could be due to outstanding verification issues such as claimants not providing bank statements or proof of address or not signing their claimant commitment.
With specific regard to advance payments, the DWP provided figures which showed that from July 2017 to May 2019 there was a steady increase in the proportion of new claimants who were paid an advance payment or who received a benefit transfer payment – from 35% to 62%. In the year leading up to the ads’ publication, around 60% of new claimants were paid an advance. They said they did not, however, collect data which showed overall how quickly advance payments were being made following application.
4. The DWP said that UC, including support for housing costs, was usually paid to a household in one single payment to one individual on a monthly basis, but where that was not suitable, housing costs could be paid directly to the landlord. This was known as an ‘Alternative Payment Arrangement’ or APA. Other types of APA included more frequent payments and split payments (where payments could be split between members of a household). The need for an APA could be identified by a work coach, Case Manager, claimant or landlord at any point during the UC claim application or during receipt of payments. An amount up to the value of the claimant’s housing costs would be paid directly to their landlord, but the claimant and landlord were responsible for resolving any shortfall between the housing costs and the full rent amount. UC staff made the decision to award an APA taking into account many factors, which were set out in guidance, but key factors included if the claimant had addiction problems, rent arrears, mental health issues, learning difficulties or had previously been homeless. APAs could be made at the outset of a claim or when a claimant had accrued two months’ rent arrears or where one month’s arrears had accumulated over more than a two-month period due to persistent underpayment of rent. The DWP did not have data to confirm the proportion of APA applications that were approved, but around 11% of all households on UC had APAs. They considered that demonstrated that the advertising claim that rent could be paid directly to landlords was accurate. Some of the complainants believed the advertising claim implied that advance payments could be paid directly to landlords, but the DWP considered the wording of the claim clearly distinguished between the ability for the Jobcentre to make advance payments to claimants and the ability for it to arrange for rent payments to be paid directly to landlords. They said they had included key information about payments to landlords in the ads, and the ads also directed readers to where they could find more information. They said it was not possible to include details of all qualifying criteria in the ads.
Assessment
1. Upheld in relation to ad (g) only
The CAP Code required that marketing communications must be obviously identifiable as such. With regard to the five press ads, the ASA considered that the font used for the label “ADVERTISEMENT FEATURE FROM THE DEPARTMENT FOR WORK AND PENSIONS” was quite small, particularly in the context of the full-page ads where it was proportionately less prominent. However, we considered it was sufficiently clear and prominent in all the press ads that readers were unlikely to overlook it. We considered there were a range of elements in the ads which had the potential to create some ambiguity as to whether or not they were ads or editorial; for example, the magnifying glass graphic and implication that the content was an ‘expose’, the lack of reference to the DWP other than in the label, and the general editorial-type style. However, we considered that overall, because the label referred to the DWP and was sufficiently prominent that it was unlikely to be overlooked, and because the ads were of a different style to typical editorial layouts in the Metro, the press ads (a) to (e) were obviously identifiable as marketing communications.
We understood that the website, ad (g), would generally be accessed by readers who had interacted with other ads about UC first, including by following up the statement “Find out more about Universal Credit at metro.co.uk/universalcredit” in ads (a) to (e). Although ads (a) to (e) were obviously identifiable as such, we considered it was not clear from that statement that the website would also be an advertisement. Additionally, visitors to ad (g) might arrive there via a route other than the press ads. It was therefore necessary for ad (g) itself to be obviously identifiable as an ad. Ad (g) included the same label as the press ads but it was in a small, sentence-case, non-bold font on a light grey background. The MailOnline and Metro.co.uk logos appeared just underneath it in much larger font, with the magnifying glass graphic to the right. A bright green navigation bar underneath included links to different sections of the web page. Those elements, including the label, remained visible as website visitors scrolled down the long web page. However, we considered that the label was not prominent compared to the logos, graphic and green navigation bar and readers were therefore likely to overlook it.
We understood the layout and format of the web page differed to that of editorial content on both the Metro and MailOnline websites, but we considered that even those website visitors who were familiar with those websites and noticed the difference in the layout and format would not necessarily draw the conclusion, in the absence of additional prominent indicators, that the web page was an ad. We considered that there was nothing in the general content or presentation of the web page which specifically made clear that the content was advertorial.
We therefore concluded that ad (g) was not obviously identifiable as a marketing communication. On that point, ad (g) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 2.1 and 2.4 (Recognition of marketing communications). On that point we also investigated ads (a) to (e) under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 2.1 and 2.4 (Recognition of marketing communications), but did not find them in breach.
2. Upheld
We considered readers would understand the claim “MYTH Universal Credit doesn’t work FACT It does. People move into work faster on Universal Credit than they did on the old system”, as it appeared in all three ads, to mean that on average unemployed people who had made a claim under UC entered employment more quickly than they would have done under the old benefits system. We considered they would interpret the wording “… move into work faster …” to refer to secure, ongoing employment, and in the absence of additional clarification we considered readers would expect that the claim was based on recent evidence relating to those who were currently eligible for UC.
The September 2017 report referred to by the DWP in support of the claim was the third and most recent in a series of reports which compared the outcomes of UC claimants with those on Job Seekers Allowance (JSA). The first and second reports, published in February and December 2015 respectively, included peer reviews by NIESR. Each report incorporated additional data as UC was rolled out to more people across more Jobcentres. All three reports found that UC claimants were more likely to move into work than JSA claimants. We understood from the NIESR reviews that it considered the methodology used by the DWP – which compared UC claimants to similar JSA claimants in similar areas at the same time – to be adequate, and that in large part its recommendations to improve the methodology had been followed between the first and second reports. We did not have concerns about the general methodology used although we noted that the September 2017 DWP report did not include a review by NIESR and therefore the DWP’s most recent updates to its methodology had not been reviewed by an independent third party. We noted the findings of all three reports, but because the September 2017 report was the most recent and built on the methodology and data analysed in the previous reports, we focused on whether the findings in that report specifically supported the claim made in the ads, as it would be understood by readers. The key outcome measure in all three reports related to whether claimants had been in work at any time within the period analysed; the September 2017 report found that UC claimants were 4% more likely to have worked within the first six months of making their claim than JSA claimants. We understood the measure included people who had moved into permanent, ongoing employment but also that it included, for example, people who had worked for only a few hours on one occasion during the relevant period. We considered that a figure relating to whether people had been in work at some point within six months of making a UC or JSA claim was not sufficiently relevant to how readers would understand the reference to “mov[ing] into work faster” in the advertising claim, as referring to secure, ongoing employment. Additionally, we noted that the first and second reports included a secondary, less methodologically reliable, measure relating to the number of days that people had spent in employment after making a UC or JSA claim. That measure provided additional contextual information to the figure relating to whether claimants had worked at all. However, that secondary measure had not been included in the September 2017 analysis.
The September 2017 report related to the outcomes over a six-month period for 27,000 people on UC and JSA who made their initial claim between July 2014 and April 2015. The report stated that due to the complexity of the methodology it was not possible to include data relating to more recent claims at that time. We accepted that it would be time consuming to analyse such a large data set using the type of complex methodology required, but were nonetheless concerned that the data was over three years old at the time the ads were published, when readers would expect that the evidence on which the advertising claim was based was recent. We considered it was also not clear why the September 2017 report examined outcomes over only a six-month period, when the previous report examined outcomes over a nine-month period. Additionally, the data on which the claim was based related to a particular subset of UC and JSA claimants: those who were single with no dependents, who did not have housing costs and who were unemployed. We understood that the analysis had been limited to that group initially because UC was only made available to that group of people, in a small number of locations, at the beginning of its rollout. However, we understood that from around June 2014 UC had been rolled out to an increasingly broad group of people in a wider range of locations, with the expectation that by March 2022 UC would completely replace the old benefits system. The data therefore related to a subgroup that was not representative of all those who were eligible to claim UC at the time the ads were published. We noted the DWP’s view that the expected impact of UC on other groups would be greater, but we had not seen evidence to support that assertion. In any case, as referenced above we considered readers would expect that the evidence on which the advertising claim was based would relate to everyone who was eligible to claim UC rather than to a subgroup.
Because the advertising claim “MYTH Universal Credit doesn’t work FACT It does. People move into work faster on Universal Credit than they did on the old system” as it would be understood by readers did not accurately reflect the evidence, we concluded the claim had not been substantiated and was therefore misleading.
On that point, ads (a), (f) and (g) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation), 3.9 (Qualification) and 3.11 (Exaggeration).
3. Upheld
In ad (a) the myth/fact appeared on the second page of the four-page spread. That page and the opposite page gave a broad overview of UC, but did not include information which provided context to the claim. Over the page, the final page of the spread titled “YOUR QUESTIONS ANSWERED” included text that said a claimant’s first payment would usually be paid five weeks after the date of their claim, and that advance payments could be organised and usually would be made on the same day if claimants needed the money urgently. It also stated that the advance payment could be up to the full amount of the first month’s payment and that it could be paid back, interest free, over 12 months. The myth/fact also appeared on the back page of the newspaper along with other myth/facts, but no other contextual information.
In ad (d) the claim appeared initially with no contextual information, although text referred readers to the ‘case study’ further into the newspaper. The case study referred to the UC claimant Paul applying for an advance payment so that he did not have to go without money until his first payment, but did not provide any information about the terms of that payment. In ad (g) the claim appeared at the top of the web page with no immediate contextual information. In the “Case Studies” section further down the page, videos about two claimants referenced advance payments: in one Jabulani stated, “About the five week delay, you get that money covered. You can take out the whole amount on loan. No interest on the repayments”; and in the other a work coach stated, “Paul had his advance payment on day 4 of his claim”.
Underneath the videos, a section titled “Your guide to Universal Credit” included the heading “PAYMENT” and the text “Your first payment will usually be made 5 weeks after the date of your claim, BUT if you need it, the jobcentre will organise an advance payment, usually made on the very same day if you need money urgently. This can be up to the full amount of the first month’s payment, and can be paid back over 12 months, interest free”. In each ad the claim appeared, initially, with no immediate contextual information. We acknowledged that the “myth” part of the claim referred to claimants waiting five weeks to get “any money” rather than to getting their ‘first payment’. However, we considered it likely that readers would interpret the myth/fact in its entirety to mean that it was generally possible for UC claimants to be paid all or part of their first payment more quickly than five weeks if they needed it. In the absence of additional clarification, readers would not understand that the “advance payment” was a loan that must be repaid. However, we understood that claimants did usually receive their first payment five weeks after the date they made their claim, and that the DWP considered a first payment had been made ‘on time’ if it was paid during that five-week period. In the year leading up to February 2019, 86% of households on Full Service UC received their first payment in full, on time; 14% did not. We understood it was therefore the case that claimants must generally wait five weeks to receive their first payment of UC. We therefore considered the implication in the myth/fact that it was generally possible for a UC claimant’s first payment to be made (in full or in part) quicker than five weeks after they made their claim was misleading.
We acknowledged that ads (a) and (g) provided additional information which clarified that the advance payment was a loan that must be repaid within 12 months and indicated where readers could find further details. We considered that information covered the key significant conditions relating to advance payments and therefore that those ads stated significant qualifications as required by the Code. However, that information was not linked to the myth/fact claims and we therefore considered they were not presented clearly. We noted ad (d) did not include the significant conditions and therefore breached the Code on that basis. Additionally, we considered that because in each of the ads the wording “urgently pay you” was in green font compared to the black font used in the rest of the “fact” part of the claim, there was an emphasis on the urgency with which such payments could be made and as such readers would understand that they would be made on the same day they were needed.
We understood that an increasing number of claimants received an advance payment while waiting for their first payment of UC, and noted the DWP’s stated intention was to make such payments as quickly as possible. However, in the absence of data relating to the speed with which such payments were made, it was not possible to determine the proportion of claimants who received such payments on the same day they were requested. We therefore considered the claim “If you need money, your Jobcentre will urgently pay you an advance”, as it would be understood by readers, had not been substantiated. Because we had not seen evidence to support the claim “MYTH You have to wait 5 weeks to get any money on UC FACT If you need money, your Jobcentre will urgently pay you an advance” as it would be understood by consumers, and because ad (d) omitted significant conditions that were likely to affect a person’s decision to apply for UC, and ads (a) and (g) included significant conditions but did not present them clearly, we concluded the ads were misleading.
On that point, ad (d) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation), 3.9 and 3.10 (Qualification) and 3.11 (Exaggeration). On that point, ads (a) and (g) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation), 3.10 (Qualification) and 3.11 (Exaggeration), but did not breach rule 3.9 (Qualification).
4. Upheld
In ad (a) the myth/fact claim appeared on the back page of the newspaper, with no contextual information. As referenced above the “YOUR QUESTIONS ANSWERED” page of the four-page spread elsewhere in the newspaper included information about advance payments, but it did not include information about APAs. In ad (b) the myth/fact claim appeared initially without any contextual information. Text referred readers to the case study further into the newspaper, which included the text “Bradley now works 30 hours a week and still receives Universal Credit to help towards his housing costs – which he has arranged to be paid directly to his landlord”. The myth/fact also appeared again on that page. In ad (g) the claim appeared at the top of the web page with no immediate contextual information. I
n the “Meet the work coaches” section further down the page, clicking on a thumbnail accompanied by the text “Phil UC work coach A big part of my role is providing budgeting support for people wh…need[sic] it” brought up more detail, including “I’m able to help people who now receive their benefits monthly and I make sure they’re confident in managing all their outgoings on their own. And when it’s clear that someone may need a little more support, it’s great that we have the flexibility to provide extra help, such as alternative payment arrangements to organise more frequent payments, or paying their rent directly to landlords”.
As referenced above, the case study videos for Jabulani and Paul referenced advance payments. Further information about APAs was included in the “Universal Credit explained” section, under the heading “PAYMENT” as well as the information about advance payments. Text stated “Alternative payment arrangements, such as having your rent paid directly to your landlord, can also be considered for claimants who are having significant budgeting difficulties, and can be arranged by a work coach. You can find out about eligibility criteria here”. That text linked to a .gov.uk website which provided detailed information about UC. In each ad the myth/fact appeared initially with no immediate contextual information. We considered that readers would understand the claim to mean that under UC the option to have rent paid directly to landlords was generally available, without restriction, to all claimants who wanted it. However, the option to have rent paid directly to a landlord was not generally available to UC claimants. Instead, only claimants who were assessed as having met certain limited criteria were eligible for such payment arrangements. We understood that around 11% of households on UC had APAs (a figure which included other types of APA) and the DWP did not hold data on the proportions of UC claimants who had been assessed for direct payments to landlords and been deemed eligible or not. Because direct payments to landlords were not generally available to all UC claimants who wanted it we concluded the claim in the ads was misleading.
We also considered that although the “fact” part of the claim used different coloured fonts to separate the wording “Your Jobcentre can give you an advance payment and …” and “… pay rent directly to landlords”, many readers would understand that it was generally possible for a claimant to arrange for an advance on their first UC payment to be paid directly to their landlord. However, that was not possible and we therefore concluded the claim was also misleading on that basis. We acknowledged that ad (g) included additional information about rent being paid directly to landlords, including that it was an option for people who needed “a little more support” or who were having “significant budgeting difficulties”, and that ad (b) referenced that Bradley’s rent had been paid directly to his landlord. However, those references were not linked to the myth/fact claims and in any case we considered they were not sufficient to dispel the impression created by the claims that this was an option generally available to all claimants who wanted it.
Because the claim “MYTH UC makes it harder to pay your rent on time FACT Your Jobcentre can give you an advance payment and pay rent directly to landlords” misleadingly implied that under UC the option to have rent paid directly to landlords was generally available, without restriction, to all claimants who wanted it and that it was generally possible for a claimant to arrange for an advance on their first UC payment to be paid directly to their landlord, we concluded ads (a), (b) and (g) breached the Code.
On that point, ads (a), (b) and (g) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation), 3.9 and 3.10 (Qualification) and 3.11 (Exaggeration).
Action
Ads (a), (b), (d), (f) and (g) must not appear again in the form complained of. We told the Department for Work and Pensions to ensure that they held adequate evidence to substantiate the claims in their advertising, to include significant conditions, and to present significant conditions clearly.
