Background
Summary of Council decision:
Ten issues were investigated, of which six were Upheld and four were Not upheld.
Ad description
A TV ad, seen on 28 January, and an advertorial in the national press for the Department of Energy and Climate Change’s (DECC)’ Green Deal initiative:
a. The TV ad featured TV presenter Oliver Heath knocking on a man’s door and looking around his house. A voice-over stated, “We’d all like to keep our homes warm and save money on energy bills this winter, but how can you find out if your insulation is thick enough to keep the heat in, or whether a new boiler could save you hundreds of pounds a year? Also see if your home generates its own electricity and hot water. Find out more from TV presenter and energy saving expert Oliver Heath on how to book a Green Deal assessment for your home. To help you stay cosy and save this winter. Go to www.snugandsave.co.uk for more information and tips from Oliver.” Text on the final frame stated “www.snugandsave.co.uk. Terms and conditions apply, fees apply”.
b. The advertorial stated “4-PAGE SPECIAL: SAVE MONEY AND STAY WARM THIS WINTER”. It provided extensive information about the Green Deal initiative and included claims regarding: the savings that could be made; the Green Deal Finance Plan; the role of the Green Deal assessors; Oliver Heath’s status as an “energy saving expert”; property price increases following “green” home improvements; and the role of wall insulation in older properties.
Issue
Crystal Home Improvements challenged whether:
1. the claim in ad (a) and (b) that Oliver Heath was an “energy saving expert” was misleading and could be substantiated;
2. the claims in ads (a) and (b) that consumers would save money, including the claims in ad (b), “the money that we are saving more than covers any repayments for having the work done” and “lets you pay for some of the upfront costs of the work over time, and is repaid using the savings you can expect to make” were misleading and could be substantiated, because the complainant understood that the cost of the repayments for the work carried out could exceed the savings made on energy bills;
3. the claim in ad (b) “My annual gas and electricity bills have dropped from £2,500 a year to £850 a year” was misleading and could be substantiated;
4. the claim in ad (b) “who doesn’t want to reduce their gas and electricity bills?” was misleading and could be substantiated, because it implied that savings were guaranteed in every case;
5. the claim in ad (b) “Based on what we have saved so far we are expecting to save up to £140 over the course of a year” was misleading and could be substantiated;
6. ad (b) was misleading, because it did not make clear that consumers who took out a Green Deal Finance Plan would have to repay all of the Green Deal loan should they have to sell their home before the end of the term, and that exit charges applied;
7. ad (b) was misleading, because they did not make clear that there was a cost for arranging a visit from a Green Deal assessor;
8. ad (b), and in particular the claim “It’s an impartial report”, were misleading because the complainant understood that the Green Deal assessors were not independent and were generally employed by the firm quoting for the improvement works;
9. the claim in ad (b) “People who undertake ‘green’ home improvements such as installing insulation, double or triple glazing and energy efficient boilers can expect to see an average increase of 14 per cent on the value of their property, rising to as much as 38 per cent in some areas” was misleading and could be substantiated; and
10. the claim in ad (b) that wall insulation “can help people with older properties stay warm and reduce their heating bills” misleadingly implied that this option was available to most, when they believed it required non-insulated cavity walls, which most people did not have.
Response
1. The Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) said it was not misleading to describe Oliver Heath as an "energy saving expert". They said he was an architect and interior designer with 18 years' experience, and with a particular interest in sustainable buildings, including minimising buildings' energy use, and his expertise had been recognised through nomination for the 2011 Green Build Awards and as winner of the 2011 British Institute of Interior Design Eco Retrofit awards. They pointed out he was a regular speaker at sustainable-build and home improvements events and, in 2014, became a Domestic Energy Assessor and qualified Green Deal advisor. They provided a copy of his CV.
2. DECC said the ad did not say all upfront costs would be met by a Green Deal finance plan, but said "some" of the costs might be paid for over time. They explained in order to arrange installation of energy efficiency improvements in a property under the Green Deal plan, the first year’s instalments must not exceed the first year’s savings and any interest on repayments must be at a fixed rate for the whole repayment period. They said that, assuming energy bills increased in line with inflation, instalments paid on the electricity bill should not exceed the savings which a typical household could expect to make on their energy bills as a result of the improvements. They pointed out that they had referred to the terms and conditions and provided a link to further information on the Green Deal website. They said the ad did not suggest a consumer was guaranteed to make a net saving of money under the Green Deal, but encouraged consumers to find out more. They said the savings estimates were based on what a typical occupant could expect to see as a result of making the recommended improvements. They explained that the Green Deal Assessment process informed the householder how improvements to their property would affect their savings in comparison to typical occupation. They said they did not consider that material information was omitted from the ad, but could not cover all details within a short ad.
3. They said that the claim was based on an interview in which Oliver Heath said his annual gas and electricity bill had reduced from £2,500 to £850. They said he had since confirmed that the figures were based on savings under his own eco-build initiative. They provided calculations to demonstrate a 62−70% reduction in carbon emissions by Oliver Heath's household after energy-efficiency improvements. They said that Oliver Heath had confirmed that his annual gas and electricity bill was currently £842.04, but had explained that, because he began making energy efficiency improvements before receiving his first energy bill, estimating the reduction in carbon emissions was the most effective way to calculate his savings. They said Oliver Heath had since located evidence regarding his energy use in his first year, which indicated an approximate £1,500−£1,600 cost at today's prices. Oliver Heath said that he did not state in his interview with the publisher that he had commissioned a Green Deal assessment in his property because he had made the improvements to his house before the Green Deal was introduced. DECC explained that, at the time of the publication, they had no reason to believe that the claim was not an accurate reflection of what Oliver Heath had said.
4. They said the claim was not intended to suggest that all consumers were guaranteed to make savings and, instead, suggested that everyone had an interest in reducing their gas and electricity bills. They explained that a Green Deal Assessment Report would provide consumers with information about the savings a household would make and explain whether the household was typical in terms of its energy use.
5. They said some of the money-saving claims in ad (b) were based on an interview conducted with Kimberley Abrahams by the publisher, who said that, as a result of cavity wall insulation, her monthly bill had reduced from £200 to £140 in five months. They said the savings claim was stated as £140 per annum, to represent what a typical consumer might expect to save. They said the figure was also based upon an estimate for the annual savings of a semi-detached property made by an independent energy efficiency organisation. They provided a link to the independent organisation's published estimates and pointed out that the annual savings for a semi-detached house had since increased to £145. They said the savings had been presented out of context, referring to the Green Deal and monthly instalments and repayments, when Ms Abraham's cavity wall insulation had not been funded by the Green Deal Plan, but by another government scheme. They said that the error was the result of a misunderstanding between the interviewer and the publisher and provided a report by the publisher on how the misunderstanding came about.
6. They said that consumers who took out Green Deal plans would not have to repay the full Green Deal loan when selling their home before the end of the term, because the law provided that payment of the loan would pass to the new electricity bill payer. They highlighted sections in the Energy Act that stated Green Deal plans could not require homeowners to repay the loan in full if the property was sold. They said, where consumers volunteered to pay the bill, it was possible that exit fees would apply and they had included a footnote in their terms and conditions about those charges.
7. They said DECC did not offer Green Deal assessments themselves, but market prices for assessments might vary and some consumers might receive them for free. They said consumers would have to contact their provider to discuss the specifics of the products on offer. They said their ad provided a telephone number and website link for further information, which included a section dealing specifically with costs of assessment.
8. They highlighted extracts from the Code to demonstrate that independence and consumer protection was a priority during assessments. They said the Report was a free-standing product of the Green Deal scheme and the Assessor Specification, compliance with which was audited by the Assessor's Certification body, required that consumers should receive certain information 24 hours before an assessment. They said an Ombudsman service and an advice service was also available to the consumer.
9. They said the figures came from a 2013 report, commissioned by DECC and conducted by a team of academics, on whether energy performance ratings of buildings affected the sale of properties in England and Wales. They said the percentages in the claim reflected the difference in value found on average across England and for a particular area of England for properties EPC-rated between G and those rated A and B. They said that they appreciated that some detail was omitted from the ad and they would include that detail in future marketing communications.
10. They said the article clearly referred to external wall insulation for older properties rather than cavity wall insulation and older properties generally had solid rather than cavity walls. They pointed out that 29% of properties in Great Britain had solid walls, whilst only 3% of solid-wall properties were insulated, and that, at September 2013, 5.2 million cavity walls remained not insulated. They provided a Green Deal publication as a source for those figures.
Clearcast said, due to a technical fault with the on-screen text, the original ad was removed from air and replaced with the same ad with no technical fault.
1. Clearcast said Oliver Heath had strong academic qualifications and several years of experience operating an architectural consultancy, in addition to being well-known as a spokesperson for a variety of relevant media and organisations. They said his expertise warranted the claim of "energy saving expert" in the context of a TV ad promoting information and tips and that they were advised that Oliver Heath had trained as a Green Deal Assessor, giving him specific expertise in the service being discussed. As a result, they believed the claim of "energy saving expert" was not misleading.
2. Clearcast said the claims in ad (a) varied significantly from those in ad (b). They said there was no definitive promise to save consumers money and the ad expressed that saving money was something "we'd all like to do". They said the ad invited consumers to find out how they "could" save or "could" generate their own electricity and hot water, and to find out "information and tips" on those topics. They said it was implicit in the terminology "assessment" that a Green Deal assessment could allow consumers to "assess" the current status of their homes, and expect no more than that, although homes assessed as being suitable could benefit from additional energy-saving improvements via the Green Deal and therefore consumers could find out if, for example, a new boiler "could" save them money.
Assessment
THIS ADJUDICATION REPLACES THAT PUBLISHED ON 27 AUGUST. THE WORDING HAS CHANGED BUT THE DECISION REMAINS THE SAME.
1. Not upheld
The ASA considered that consumers would interpret the claim to mean that Oliver Heath was very knowledgeable in the field of energy-saving, particularly in relation to making energy-efficiency improvements to a property. Oliver Heath’s CV listed a significant amount of experience in sustainable design and architecture, including success in building environmentally-friendly homes, designing eco products and winning or being nominated for several sustainable-build awards. Because we considered Oliver Heath’s experience and knowledge was sufficient to describe him as an “energy-saving expert”, we concluded the ad was not misleading.
On that point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules
3.1
3.1
Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
and
3.3
3.3
Marketing communications must not mislead the consumer by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.
Material information is information that the consumer needs to make informed decisions in relation to a product. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead the consumer depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the marketing communication is constrained by time or space, the measures that the marketer takes to make that information available to the consumer by other means.
(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) and BCAP Code rules
3.1
3.1
Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
(Misleading advertising) and
3.9
3.9
Broadcasters must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that the audience is 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. Upheld
We considered the claims “the money that we are saving more than covers any repayments for having the work done” and “lets you pay for some of the upfront costs of the work over time, and is repaid using the savings you can expect to make” in ad (b) and would be understood to mean that, over time, customers would save money under the Green Deal. We also considered the claim “We’d all like to keep our homes warm and save money on energy bills this winter, but how can you find out if your insulation is thick enough to keep the heat in, or whether a new boiler could save you hundreds of pounds a year?” would be interpreted by consumers to mean that savings were guaranteed under the Green Deal initiative. Although we understood the first year’s instalment payments could not exceed the first year’s savings and any interest payable on repayments would be at a fixed rate for the whole repayment period, DECC could not guarantee that Green Deal repayments would exceed savings. Saving calculations were based on what DECC would expect a typical household to save as a result of building improvements and the assumption that energy bills would rise in line with inflation. Because we considered the claims implied that savings were guaranteed, we concluded the ad was misleading.
On that point, the ads breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules
3.1
3.1
Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
and
3.3
3.3
Marketing communications must not mislead the consumer by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.
Material information is information that the consumer needs to make informed decisions in relation to a product. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead the consumer depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the marketing communication is constrained by time or space, the measures that the marketer takes to make that information available to the consumer by other means.
(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) and BCAP Code rules
3.1
3.1
Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
(Misleading advertising) and
3.9
3.9
Broadcasters must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that the audience is 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 consumers would interpret the claim to be a testimonial, describing the actual savings made by Oliver Heath as a Green Deal customer and representing a likely example of savings under the Green Deal. However, we understood that the claim related to savings made by Oliver Heath before the Green Deal initiative was introduced. We also noted the savings claim was initially based on a CO2 emission reduction calculation, rather than the actual financial saving made on his energy bill, and the initial bill cost Oliver Heath approximately £1,500−£1,600, rather than £2,500. Because the evidence was not sufficient to substantiate the claim, and Oliver Heath did not make the savings as a Green Deal customer as implied by the ad, we concluded the ad was misleading.
On that point, the ads breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules
3.1
3.1
Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
and
3.3
3.3
Marketing communications must not mislead the consumer by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.
Material information is information that the consumer needs to make informed decisions in relation to a product. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead the consumer depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the marketing communication is constrained by time or space, the measures that the marketer takes to make that information available to the consumer by other means.
(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),
3.9
3.9
Broadcasters must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that the audience is 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.
and
3.1
3.1
Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
(Qualification).
4. Not upheld
We considered consumers would interpret the claim to be a rhetorical question about consumers’ general want to reduce their energy bills, and would not interpret it literally to mean that savings were guaranteed as a Green Deal customer. We noted that the ad was general in nature, providing information about the Green Deal plan, rather than directly prompting consumers to sign up to the initiative. Because we considered the claim did not imply savings were guaranteed, we concluded the ad was not misleading.
On that point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules
3.1
3.1
Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
and
3.3
3.3
Marketing communications must not mislead the consumer by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.
Material information is information that the consumer needs to make informed decisions in relation to a product. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead the consumer depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the marketing communication is constrained by time or space, the measures that the marketer takes to make that information available to the consumer by other means.
(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) and BCAP Code rules
3.1
3.1
Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
(Misleading advertising) and
3.9
3.9
Broadcasters must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that the audience is 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.
5. Upheld
We considered the claim in ad (b) “Based on what we have saved so far we are expecting to save up to £140 over the course of a year” was misleading and could be substantiated because it would be interpreted as a testimonial of the Green Deal and an example of the savings a consumer could expect to make. However, we understood that the quote did not refer to the interviewee’s savings as a Green Deal customer and related to her experience under a different government initiative. Although we acknowledged that this had arisen as a result of a misunderstanding, we considered that it contradicted the impression given by the ad. While we noted DECC provided a link to an independent energy efficiency organisation, which stated the average annual cost of a semi-detached property was £145, we considered the claim did not make it sufficiently clear that the claim was an average for semi-detached properties. Because the ad implied it was a testimonial, and the evidence for the saving claims was not sufficient, we concluded the ad was misleading.
On that point, the ads breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules
3.1
3.1
Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
and
3.3
3.3
Marketing communications must not mislead the consumer by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.
Material information is information that the consumer needs to make informed decisions in relation to a product. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead the consumer depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the marketing communication is constrained by time or space, the measures that the marketer takes to make that information available to the consumer by other means.
(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)
6. Not upheld
We understood, from the information and evidence provided by DECC, that, when a Green Deal property was sold, the responsibility for paying the loan transferred to the new property owner. We considered that the ad was general in nature, providing information about the Green Deal plan, rather than directly prompting consumers to sign up to the initiative and, therefore, we did not consider that the transfer of financial responsibility was significant information that needed to be included in the ad. We also considered that most consumers would be aware that early exit from a loan would prompt exit fees and that that information was set out in a footnote in the terms and conditions. Because we considered the ad had not omitted material information, we concluded it was not misleading.
On that point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules
3.1
3.1
Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
and
3.3
3.3
Marketing communications must not mislead the consumer by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.
Material information is information that the consumer needs to make informed decisions in relation to a product. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead the consumer depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the marketing communication is constrained by time or space, the measures that the marketer takes to make that information available to the consumer by other means.
(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),
3.9
3.9
Broadcasters must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that the audience is 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.
and
3.1
3.1
Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
(Qualification), but did not find it in breach.
7. Upheld
We considered the fact a consumer could be charged for a Green Deal assessment was material information, which might have an impact on a customer’s decision to find out more information about the Green Deal. Because there was no reference to the possible Green Deal Assessment fee, we concluded the ad was misleading.
On that point, the ads breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules
3.1
3.1
Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
and
3.3
3.3
Marketing communications must not mislead the consumer by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.
Material information is information that the consumer needs to make informed decisions in relation to a product. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead the consumer depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the marketing communication is constrained by time or space, the measures that the marketer takes to make that information available to the consumer by other means.
(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),
3.9
3.9
Broadcasters must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that the audience is 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.
and
3.1
3.1
Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
(Qualification).
8. Upheld
We considered consumers would interpret the claim “impartial report” to mean that an assessment would be made by someone entirely independent of the organisation making the building improvements. While we noted the assessors worked under a Code, were audited by the Assessor’s Certification body and were covered by an Ombudsman service, we understood that they were employees of the home-improvement companies and, therefore, had a commercial interest in the work being done on the property. Because we considered the claim implied assessors were not generally employed by the organisations making building improvements, which we understood was not the case, we concluded the ad was misleading.
The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules
3.1
3.1
Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
and
3.3
3.3
Marketing communications must not mislead the consumer by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.
Material information is information that the consumer needs to make informed decisions in relation to a product. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead the consumer depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the marketing communication is constrained by time or space, the measures that the marketer takes to make that information available to the consumer by other means.
(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),
3.9
3.9
Broadcasters must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that the audience is 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.
and
3.1
3.1
Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
(Qualification).
9. Upheld
We considered consumers would interpret the claims to mean that there was evidence to show that, on average, property prices under the Green Deal had increased by 14%, and by 38% in some areas. While DECC provided evidence to demonstrate the value of property across England and for a particular area of England had increased on average by 14% and 38%, the data related to EPC G-rated properties and those rated A or B, which was not stated in the ad. Because the evidence was not sufficient to substantiate the claim, we concluded the ad was misleading.
On that point, the ads breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules
3.1
3.1
Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
and
3.3
3.3
Marketing communications must not mislead the consumer by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.
Material information is information that the consumer needs to make informed decisions in relation to a product. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead the consumer depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the marketing communication is constrained by time or space, the measures that the marketer takes to make that information available to the consumer by other means.
(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).
10. Not upheld
We considered that consumers would interpret the claim as a general comment about older properties and insulation and did not consider that additional information regarding cavity-wall insulation needed to be included in the ad in that context. Because we considered that the claim was general and did not omit material information, we concluded that the ad was not misleading.
On that point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules
3.1
3.1
Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
and
3.3
3.3
Marketing communications must not mislead the consumer by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.
Material information is information that the consumer needs to make informed decisions in relation to a product. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead the consumer depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the marketing communication is constrained by time or space, the measures that the marketer takes to make that information available to the consumer by other means.
(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),
3.9
3.9
Broadcasters must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that the audience is 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.
and
3.1
3.1
Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
(Qualification), but did not find it in breach.
Action
The ads must not appear in its current form. We told DECC to ensure they held sufficient evidence for claims made in marketing communications, including saving claims, their ads did not misleadingly imply savings were guaranteed and that ads did not misleadingly give the impression that Green Deal assessments were impartial or give the impression of being a Green Deal testimonial when they related to other schemes or work.
