Background
Summary of Council decision:
Five issues were investigated, of which four were Upheld and one was Not upheld.
Ad description
A TV ad and a website for Money Advisor, seen in January 2021:
a. The TV ad featured a voiceover that stated, "When you're in debt it's hard to know where to turn; you can feel trapped by it, you can't see a way out. Call Money Advisor for help". The voiceover and on-screen text then stated, "Medhi M - £9,980 DEBT ... 46% WRITTEN OFF … Naomi - £21,700 DEBT … £17,500 WRITTEN OFF … John D - £37,800 … £30,500 WRITTEN OFF". The voiceover then stated, "We could help you write-off 100 percent of your unaffordable debt".
b. The website www.moneyadvisor.co.uk, featured a banner with the logo and name of the Money Advice Service.
Issue
The ASA received two complaints:
1. One complainant challenged whether the claim “We could help you write-off 100 percent of your unaffordable debt” in ad (a) was misleading and could be substantiated.
2. Two complainants challenged whether ad (a) misleadingly implied that Money Advisor could provide debt advice, because they understood the company was not authorised by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) to provide debt counselling.
3. Two complainants challenged whether the claims “Call Money Advisor for help”, and “We could help you write-off 100 per cent of your unaffordable debt” in ad (a) were misleading, because they suggested Money Advisor provided the service themselves and did not make clear that they passed on leads.
4. One complainant challenged whether ad (a) made clear the financial risks associated with debt management.
5. One complainant challenged whether the use of the Money Advice Service name and logo in ad (b) misleadingly suggested an association with that service.
Response
1. Money Advisor Ltd highlighted that ad (a) referred to “unaffordable debt”. Clearcast said that the claim had been qualified with the phrase “We could help”.
2. Money Advisor said they did not feel ad (a) implied that they provided debt advice. Clearcast said that Money Advisor were not regulated by the FCA as insolvency practices were regulated by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW), of which the advertiser was a member. They believed the Money Advisor complied with ICAEW guidelines.
3. Money Advisor confirmed that their business involved validating consumers’ details before passing them on to an insolvency practitioner. Clearcast said that it was common practice for companies to act as agents on behalf of others.
4. Money Advisor said ad (a) included superimposed text that stated “Subject to acceptance. May not be suitable in all circumstances. Fees apply. Your credit rating may be affected”. Clearcast also highlighted the presence and content of the superimposed text in ad (a).
5. Money Advisor said the use of the Money Advice Service’s name and logo on their website was in line with FCA guidelines, specifically the FCA Consumer Credit Sourcebook (CONC) rule 8.2.4.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA considered that viewers would understand the claim “We could help write-off up to 100 percent of your unaffordable debt” in ad (a) to mean that Money Advisor could assist them in up to a total of 100% of their debt being written off. Because we had not seen any evidence that Money Advisor could assist viewers in having a total of up to 100% of their debt written off, we concluded the claim was misleading and had not been substantiated.
On that point, ad (a) breached BCAP Code rules 3.1 3.1 Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising), 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) and 3.12 3.12 Advertisements must not mislead by exaggerating the capability or performance of a product or service. (Exaggeration).
2. Upheld
We considered that viewers would understand the claims “Call Money Advisor for help” and “We could help you write-off 100 percent of your unaffordable debt” in ad (a), when taken in the context of the claimed amounts of debt written-off featured in the ad, to mean that Money Advisor were authorised to provide debt counselling, which we understood was a regulated activity. We understood that Money Advisor were not themselves authorised to provide debt management services or debt counselling and instead could only put viewers in contact with companies that were authorised to provide the service. Because they were not authorised to provide debt counselling services, we concluded that the ad was misleading.
On that point, ad (a) breached BCAP Code rule 3.1 3.1 Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising).
3. Upheld
We considered that viewers would understand the claims “Call Money Advisor for help” and “We could help you write-off 100 per cent of your unaffordable debt” in ad (a), when taken in the context of the claimed amounts of debt written-off featured in the ad, to mean that Money Advisor provided debt counselling themselves and that they would deal with the entire process, from start to finish, of viewers’ debt problems. We understood that Money Advisor was a lead-generating company that passed on consumers’ details to third-party insolvency practitioners, rather than providing debt counselling or debt management services themselves. We noted that the ad did not state that and considered it was not clear from the presentation of the ad that was Money Advisor’s commercial intent. We therefore concluded the ad was misleading.
On that point, ad (a) breached BCAP Code rules 3.1 3.1 Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. and 3.7 3.7 Advertisements must not falsely imply that the advertiser is acting as a consumer or for purposes outside its trade, business, craft or profession. Advertisements must make clear their commercial intent, if that is not obvious from the context. (Misleading advertising).
4. Not upheld
We noted ad (a) included superimposed text that stated “May not be suitable in all circumstances. Fees apply. Your credit rating may be affected”. The text appeared on screen for 20 seconds and was presented in clear, legible white text on a semi-opaque background. We understood that there were a number of risks involved in debt management services such as IVAs and Debt Management Plans, including fees involved in setting up the relevant service, the impact on consumers’ credit scores, and the need to keep up with regular payments once the service was in place. We considered that the information provided in the superimposed text in ad (a) conveyed the key risks involved in debt-related services and viewers were unlikely to understand from the ad that using debt-related services was without financial risk or cost. For those reasons, we concluded the ad had not breached the Code.
On that point, we investigated ad (a) under BCAP Code rules 3.1 3.1 Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising) and 3.1 3.1 Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Qualification), but did not find it in breach.
5. Upheld
We noted that the Money Advice Service logo appeared directly underneath a number of five star customer reviews and testimonies on Money Advisor’s website. While we acknowledged that FCA-regulated debt management companies were required by the FCA to make the availability of free debt advice known to their clients by pointing them to the website for the Money Advice Service, we noted that Money Advisor was not an FCA-regulated company. We considered that, in the context of the way the logo and Money Advice Service name were displayed, appearing to link the positive customer reviews received by Money Advisor with the Money Advice Service, consumers were likely to understand from the ad that the advertiser had an association with, or endorsement by, Money Advisor by the Money Advice Service. We therefore concluded ad (b) was misleading.
On that point ad (b) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rule
3.50
3.50
Advertisements must make clear each significant limitation to an advertised guarantee (of the type that has implications for a consumer's rights). Broadcasters must be satisfied that the advertiser will supply the full terms of the guarantee before the consumer is committed to taking it up.
(Endorsements and testimonials).
Action
Ad (a) must not be broadcast again in the form complained about. Ad (b) must not appear again in the form complained about. We told Money Advisor Ltd to ensure that their future marketing communications did not mislead by stating or implying they were qualified to provide debt counselling or management services, or that they could help consumers write-off debt; that they made clear that they passed on enquirers’ details to a third party and did not provide the service themselves; and that they did not suggest that they were endorsed by, or in association with, the Money Advice Service.
