Background
Summary of Council decision:
Three issues were investigated, all of which were Upheld.
Ad description
A website for Energy Watchdog Ltd, www.energy-watchdog.com, seen on 3 August 2018, featured a logo which included the text “ENERGY WATCHDOG” at the top of each web page.
Claims on the ‘PV Hotwater’ web page stated “Free hot water from your PV solar … If your home has hot water tank with an immersion [sic] then a PV Hotwater system can be installed and start saving you money on heating bills in less than 1 hour!”.
Claims on the ‘Thermodynamic’ web page stated “Free Hot Water Forever? No, not quite. There are running cost [sic]. But they are a fraction of the costs of just using gas, electric or oil. A small amount of electricity is used to run the system but all of the energy used to heat your water is free”.
Claims on the ‘Boilers’ web page stated “Reduce gas bills by upto[sic] 50% (typically 30%)”.
Claims on the ‘About Us’ web page stated “The difference between an ‘okay’ heating system and an ‘excellent’ one could be over £10,000 of your cash over the next 10 years”.
Issue
The complainant challenged whether:
1. the company name and “ENERGY WATCHDOG” logo in the ad misleadingly implied that the advertiser was a regulatory body or consumer champion;
2. the ad misleadingly implied hot water would be free because there was a cost to purchase a PV Hot Water System and the ad did not state any prices;
3. the savings claims “saving you money on heating bills in less than 1 hour”, “There are running cost [sic]. But they are a fraction of the costs of just using gas, electric or oil”, “Reduce your gas bills by upto[sic] 50% (typically 30%)” and “The difference between an ‘okay’ heating system and an ‘excellent’ one could be over £10,000 of your cash over the next 10 years” were misleading and could be substantiated.
Response
Energy Watchdog did not respond to the ASA’s enquiries.
Assessment
The ASA was concerned by Energy Watchdog’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 respond promptly to our enquiries and told them to do so in the future.
1. Upheld
We considered that in the context of the website, which described various types of renewable energy and energy saving technologies for households, consumers would understand the name “Energy Watchdog” to meant that the company was either a form of regulator, or that it was a consumer champion working within the energy sector. Because Energy Watchdog was in fact a commercial business that sold heating systems, we concluded that the ad was misleading.
On this 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. and 3.3 (Misleading advertising).
2. Upheld
We considered that consumers would understand the claim “Free hot water from your PV solar” appearing on the page titled ‘PV Hotwater’ to mean that they would receive free hot water by installing a PV Hotwater system. The ad explained that consumers would get that free hot water because the system would detect when excess energy from a solar panel system was being exported and would then release that energy to the immersion heater instead, ensuring that water was being heated only by excess energy. However, the ad did not contain any information about the costs of the PV Hotwater system.
We therefore expected Energy Watchdog to provide us with information about what the costs were for the system and evidence to show that any consumer who installed the system would be able to achieve free hot water including all the running costs of the system. Because Energy Watchdog did not provide any evidence to show that was the case, we concluded that the claims had not been substantiated and were misleading.
On this 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), 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 3.11 3.11 Marketing communications must not mislead consumers by exaggerating the capability or performance of a product. (Exaggeration).
3. Upheld
The savings claims in the ad, featured across a number of web pages, included “saving you money on heating bills in less than 1 hour”; “There are running cost [sic]. But they are a fraction of the costs of just using gas, electric or oil”; “Reduce your gas bills by upto[sic] 50% (typically 30%)”; and “The difference between an ‘okay’ heating system and an ‘excellent’ one could be over £10,000 of your cash over the next 10 years”.
We considered that consumers would understand the claim “saving you money on heating bills in less than 1 hour” on the “PV Hotwater” web page to mean that consumers who purchased the PV Hotwater System would start achieving a saving on their electricity bill within one hour of installation.
We considered that consumers would understand the claim “there are running cost[sic]. But they are a fraction of the costs of just using gas, electric or oil” on the “Thermodynamic” web page to mean that any consumer who purchased the Thermodynamic panel would find that there would be considerably lower overall costs compared to what they were paying for their electricity or gas bills to heat water.
We also considered that consumers would understand the claim on the “Boilers” web page, “Reduce your gas bills by upto[sic] 50% (typically 30%)”, to mean that a consumer who purchased a boiler from Energy Watchdog would typically experience a reduction in their gas bills of 30%, but that they would have a reasonable chance of achieving a 50% reduction.
We considered that consumers would understand the claim “The difference between an ‘okay’ heating system and an ‘excellent’ one could be over £10,000 of your cash over the next 10 years” on the “About Us” web page to mean that consumers who purchased one of the heating systems recommended by Energy Watchdog would have a reasonable chance of achieving a £10,000 saving over the next decade.
We therefore expected Energy Watchdog to provide substantiation to support those claims. Because Energy Watchdog did not provide any evidence to support the claims, we concluded that they had not been substantiated and were misleading.
On this 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), 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 3.11 3.11 Marketing communications must not mislead consumers by exaggerating the capability or performance of a product. (Exaggeration).
Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Energy Watchdog Ltd not to claim or imply that they were a ‘watchdog’, including implying that they were a regulator or consumer champion for the energy industry. We also told them not to make claims that purchasing their products would result in free hot water, or to make savings claims that they could not substantiate. We referred the matter to the CAP Compliance team.
CAP Code (Edition 12)
1.7 3.1 3.11 3.17 3.22 3.23 3.50 3.7
