Background
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated, both of which were Upheld.
Ad description
An email from Nino Apply, sent on 29 November 2024, with the subject line “Your BRP Card expires next month” stated, “ACTION REQUIRED: Don’t Lose Your Right to Stay in the UK! We are reaching out to notify you of a critical issue regarding your Biometric Residence Permit (BRP) […] without immediate action, you risk losing your legal right to live and work in the UK”. Further text stated, “An expired BRP may restrict your access to vital services such as healthcare […] Failing to renew your BRP could result in fines, deportation, or other severe penalties”.
Issue
The complainant challenged whether the ad:
1. was misleading in relation to the stated consequences of failing to renew a BRP; and
2. misleadingly omitted the fact that an eVisa could be obtained for free through the Government website.
Response
Maki Online Services Ltd t/a Nino Apply said that they had stopped any marketing campaigns that matched the complaint.Assessment
1. Upheld
A Biometric Residence Permit (BRP) was a physical document which could be used to confirm a person’s identity, right to study and right to any public services they were entitled to in the UK. The ASA understood that, due to the UK Government’s intention to move to digital proof of immigration status, any BRP issued after 1 January 2020 was given an expiry date no later than 31 December 2024, even if the expiration of the visa was after that date. After 31 December 2024, BRPs were replaced by eVisas, an online record of immigration status.We understood that the expiration of the BRP card did not affect the card holder’s immigration status. Unless the holder’s permission to remain in the UK also expired on 31 December 2024, the expiry date only related to the expiry of the card.We considered that the statements, “Don’t Lose Your Right to Stay in the UK” and “without immediate action, you risk losing your legal right to live and work in the UK” in the ad would be understood to mean that the card holder’s right to stay in the UK and access services would stop on 31 December 2024 when their BRP card expired. We understood that for the majority of BRP holders that would not be the case, and their immigration status would be unaffected.
We acknowledged that BRP card holders who used the BRP to evidence their UK immigration status would potentially face difficulty in demonstrating their status if they had not registered for an eVisa before 1 January 2025. However, that was distinct from their right to live and work in the UK.Because we considered that the overall impression of the ad was that the immigration status of BRP card holders would change when the card expired, whereas in the majority of cases this was not likely to be the case, we concluded the ad was misleading.
On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 3.1 (Misleading advertising).
2. Upheld
We understood that Nino Apply offered a consultation service to assist with the process of obtaining an eVisa. Nino Apply charged for the service, and the eVisa was available for free when applied for directly from the Home Office via the official gov.uk website.We acknowledged that Nino Apply did not claim to be official or endorsed by the Government. However, we considered that many consumers would not be aware that the eVisa could be obtained for free via the Government’s website. The ad should therefore have made it clear that they charged a premium for their consultation service, and that the eVisa could be obtained for free from the gov.uk website.
Because the ad did not make clear that the eVisa was available for free from the Home Office and that the advertiser levied an additional charge for their consultation service, we concluded that the ad misleadingly omitted material information.
On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 and 3.3 (Misleading advertising).
Action
The ad must not appear again in the form complained of. We told Maki Online Services Ltd t/a Nino Apply to ensure that they did not mislead consumers by misrepresenting the consequences of not renewing an expired document. We also told them to ensure that it was clear to consumers where a product such as an eVisa could be obtained for free via the official website.
