Background
Summary of Council decision:
Four issues were investigated, three of which were Upheld and one was Not upheld.
Ad description
A newspaper ad for RoofSure Ltd, seen on 3 December 2022, featured text that stated “ENERGY BILLS GOING THROUGH THE ROOF? COMBAT RISING FUEL BILLS WITH ROOFSURE OPEN CELL INSULATION & REDUCE YOUR HOMES CARBON FOOTPRINT”. There was a before and after image of a loft with spray foam installation. The ad included a list headed “10 REASONS WHY 100s of Thousands OF CUSTOMERS HAVE ALREADY CHOSEN ROOFSURE” and included “[…] Our unique spray-on foam insulates your roof space […] Will reduce heat loss by up to 58%-save money! […]”. Further text in the ad stated “THE MOST EFFICIENT INSULATION ON THE MARKET TODAY. IT TRANSFORMS YOUR COLD, DAMP, DRAUGHTY LOFT SPACE INTO A WARM, DRY, CLEAN, USEABLE ROOM” and “REDUCED HEAT LOSS BY UP TO 58%”. The ad included the ‘FairTrades approved tradesmen” and “TRUSTMARK Government Endorsed Quality” logo.
Issue
1. The complainant challenged whether the ad misleadingly omitted information that spray foam insulation could result in a property being unmortgageable or ineligible for equity release.
2. The ASA challenged whether the claims “Will reduce heat loss by up to 58%” and “REDUCED HEAT LOSS BY UP TO 58%” were misleading and could be substantiated.
The ASA also challenged whether the claim “THE MOST EFFICIENT INSULATION ON THE MARKET TODAY” was:
3. misleading and could be substantiated; and
4. verifiable.
Response
1. Roofsure Ltd said that they did not believe that their advertising needed to carry a warning that spray foam insulation could result in a property being unmortgageable or ineligible for equity release.
In reference to two articles that reported on concerns that some lenders had regarding spray foam insulation, Roofsure said that this was limited to comments from a small number of lenders who referred to some experiences with some issues. They were not aware of evidence that mortgage lenders would not lend to homeowners who had spray foam insulation, only that there may have been issues in some individual cases, typically when the work had not been done properly. One of the articles referred to closed cell insulation causing condensation; Roofsure, however, installed open cell insulation. Whilst this may not have been as good at insulating, it did not cause the issues that closed cell insulation could.
When any work or installation was done badly, it could affect the structural integrity of a property and make it difficult to borrow against. When applied correctly in the right conditions, Roofsure’s product was a very good insulation barrier that stopped condensation. They installed their product as per the British Board of Agrement (BBA) standards. They provided a copy of the BDA Agrement, which was a certification process that rigorously tested construction products following precise installation instructions, for the spray foam insulation product that they used. They also provided a copy of a letter that confirmed that Roofsure Ltd was a member of the elite FairTraders and TrustMark registers of reputable businesses.
In 2021, the Residential Property Surveyors Association issued guidance about spray foam insulation, but this was retracted pending a full review following a challenge from a large manufacturer of the product. Roofsure said that, at the time of the ad, they were not aware of guidance to surveyors that advised against the use of such insulation.
2. They said that there was a variety of sources that confirmed that without proper insulation, heat loss from a roof was up to 25%, and from an attic was up to 40%. Combined, this was up to 65%. However, they limited that by stating no more that 58% and did not claim that this amount could have been saved in every case.
They provided two articles that they believed supported the claim.
3. & 4. They provided copies of eight reports that they said determined the thermal conductivity of their product. They said that the leading competitor products were listed along with details of the thickness, thermal conductivity, thermal resistance, vapour resistivity and vapour resistance. In each case, the thermal conductivity value was better for the product used by Roofsure.
The reports related to four different thicknesses of spray foam insulation (80 mm, 100 mm, 125 mm, 150 mm) and each thickness combined with two different fitting applications - one where the spray foam was applied directly to an existing felt membrane and the second involved applying the foam to a rafter slider (often referred to as a baffle board). A rafter slider was a breathable membrane that was cut to fit the underside of a roof space if there was no existing felt or if the felt was non-breathable.
They said that if stone wool insulation was used, plaster boards would have also been required to keep the insulation in place. The thermal conductivity of 18mm plaster board was 0.170 W/mK, and that was four times less than the thermal conductivity of 80mm of spray foam insulation.
Assessment
1. Not upheld
The CAP Code required that marketing communications must not mislead the consumer by omitting material information.
The ASA understood that some mortgage lenders and equity release providers had issued warnings about spray foam loft insulation and that, if it had not been installed to the manufacturer’s recommendation, the property may be difficult to mortgage or obtain equity release.
We understood that the Royal Institution for Chartered Surveyors had issued guidance to consumers about spray foam insulation that advised consumers to check with their mortgage provider whether or not their policy allowed the installation of such products.
While we acknowledged that the installation of spray foam insulation could impact on the mortgageability of a property, we understood that potential impact was dependent on a number of different factors, particularly quality of installation and record-keeping, and that would also be the case for other types of home improvement works. Consumers would not expect those potential implications to be stated in an initial ad for the service or be misled by their omission. We did not therefore consider the potential impact was material information which needed to be included in the ad itself, and concluded that it was not misleading.
On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 and 3.3 (Misleading advertising), but did not find it in breach.
2. Upheld
The ad stated “Our unique spray-on foam insulates your roof space”. We considered that consumers would understand that to mean that Roofsure’s spray foam insulation was different to other spray foam insulations and that it could therefore produce different results.
We considered that consumers would understand the claims “Will reduce heat loss by up to 58%” and “REDUCED HEAT LOSS BY UP TO 58%” to mean that Roofsure’s spray foam insulation would reduce heat loss in a home by up to 58%. We therefore expected to see evidence that related specifically to the spray foam insulation used by Roofsure to demonstrate that this was the case.Roofsure provided two articles - one discussed the consequences of not insulating an attic and stated that nearly 40% of heat was lost through the attic, and the second discussed how much heat could be lost through different parts of a building and stated that uninsulated roofs and attics accounted for up to 20% of heat loss in a home. Notwithstanding that the figure (58%) referenced in the ad was not supported by the figures referenced in the articles, we considered that the articles did not meet the standard of evidence we required for the type of claim being made, both in terms of adequacy and relevance.
Roofsure had not provided any evidence that demonstrated the reduction in heat loss that could be achieved when their spray foam insulation was installed. Therefore, because the claims had not been substantiated, we concluded that they were misleading.
On this point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 (Substantiation).
3. Upheld
As referenced at point 2, we considered that consumers would understand from the claim “Our unique spray-on foam insulates your roof space” that Roofsure’s spray foam insulation was different to other spray foam insulations and that it could therefore produce different results.
We considered that consumers would therefore understand the claim “THE MOST EFFICIENT INSULATION ON THE MARKET TODAY” to mean that Roofsure’s spray foam insulation was more efficient at insulating a home compared to all other spray foam insulations as well as all other types of roof insulation. The claim was therefore an objective comparative claim for which Roofsure must hold objective documentary evidence and which must not mislead about either Roofsure’s product or those of their competitors.
We reviewed the evidence provided by the advertiser. Roofsure provided eight reports that measured the thermal conductivity of the spray foam insulation that they used. The spray foam was applied in four different thicknesses (80 mm, 100 mm, 125 mm and 150 mm), and both to a felt membrane directly and to rafter sliders. Each report stated the U-value (the measure of thermal transmittance), which ranged from 0.14 W/m2K to 0.20 W/m2K. As the thickness of the spray foam increased, the U-value decreased, indicating a better insulating performance. We understood from the reports that the U-value had been calculated with the spray foam installed in a pitched roof. Therefore, the U-values referenced in the reports did not reflect the thermal transmission of the spray foam insulation in isolation, but rather also taking into account the thermal transmission of other materials in the roof, which included: concrete tiles, airspace, surface resistance, loft space, breather membranes, glass fibre, plasterboard and, where applied, the rafter sliders.
We had not seen evidence for the insulating performance of other spray foams or other forms of roof insulation. We also considered that they said open cell insulation – which was the type of spray foam insulation they installed – was not as good at insulating as closed cell spray foam insulation.
Because we had not seen evidence to support the claim that their spray foam insulation was the most efficient, we concluded that the claim was misleading.
On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation) and 3.33 (Comparisons with identifiable competitors).
4. Upheld
The CAP Code required comparisons with identifiable competitors to be verifiable. That meant that an ad which featured a comparison with an identifiable competitor or competitors needed to include, or direct a consumer to, sufficient information to allow them to understand the comparison, and be able to check the claims were accurate.
The ad did not include any information to ensure the details of the comparison could be verified by consumers and competitors, neither did it direct them to where it could be obtained. We therefore concluded that the ad breached the Code.
On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 3.35 (Comparisons with identifiable competitors).
Action
The ad must not appear again in the form complained of. We told Roofsure Ltd to not make claims that their spray foam insulation could reduce heat loss by a specific amount unless they held adequate evidence to substantiate the claim. We also told them not to make claims about the efficiency of their insulation compared to identifiable competitors if they did not hold robust comparative evidence, and to ensure such claims were verifiable.
