Background
Summary of Council decision:
Six issues were investigated, all of which were Upheld.
Ad description
A paid-for Facebook ad and a landing page on a website for Wise Old Mary, https://wiseoldmary.co.uk, offering assistance with resolving debt, seen in July 2020:
a. The paid-for Facebook ad showed a woman covering her face with her hand next to some envelopes marked “Final Notice”. Text stated “Important Message For Women In Their 40’s [sic] – Up to 8.3 million British people are currently unable to pay off their debts or household bills – Whilst 24% of British people said they lose sleep over the amount of money that they owe – It doesn’t have to be this way! – 1000’s [sic] of qualifying individuals can write off up to 85% of their debts … Wise Old Mary offer a free service to 1000’s [sic] of women in their 40’s [sic], helping to change lives for the better – Why not take this free 90 second eligibility check now: [website address]”.
b. The landing page on the website took the form of a web chat beginning with the text “My name is Mary. I’m going to take you through your debt assessment test today. At the end you’ll know if you qualify for help”. Another text box stated “So just before we start I need to make you aware that by using our service, you agree to our standard terms and privacy policy [links to both]. Is that ok?” Another text box stated “So a quick little bit about us. Our service is free of charge and we help thousands of people to get out of debt. 154 people have inquired with us already today. If you are successful you may be eligible to write off up to 85% of your debt”. More text boxes went on to ask information about the type and extent of the enquirer’s debt.
Issue
The ASA challenged whether:
1. the claims “free service” in ad (a) and “our service is free of charge” in ad (b) were misleading because the solution offered was an IVA (individual voluntary arrangment) which was likely to incur a fee;
2. the claims “Why not take this 90 second eligibility check now” in ad (a) and “At the end you’ll know if you qualify for help” in ad (b) were misleading because they exaggerated the speed and ease of the process;
3. the claims “can write off up to 85% of their debts” in ad (a) and “you may be eligible to write off up to 85% of your debt” in ad (b) were misleading because they exaggerated the likely amount that could be written off;
4. ad (a) misleadingly implied that the service was specifically for women in their 40s;
5. ads (a) and (b) misleadingly implied Wise Old Mary offered debt solutions and did not make sufficiently clear that they passed leads on to a third party; and
6. ad (b) did not make clear that the solution was an IVA and the fees and risks that were associated with it.
Response
1. TFLI Ltd t/a Wise Old Mary said the ad referred to an eligibility check, which was the service they provided and which was free of charge. They said information about associated fees was contained in the standard terms, privacy policy, on their home page and in the FAQs on their website, in the assessment form and in the call subsequently made to the enquirer by the debt solution partner. They said that if an enquirer did not meet the basic requirements during the free initial assessment, they were referred to the Money Advice Service. They said a significant proportion of enquirers were referred there.
2. Wise Old Mary said that changes aimed at improving their service had lengthened the time taken to complete the eligibility check, from the original ‘within 90 seconds’ to ‘two minutes and three seconds’ now. They undertook to amend their ads to reflect that, but believed the eligibility check was still quick and easy. They also said speed of application was not the main draw of their service.
3. Wise Old Mary said the claim was based on data provided by their partners who offered IVAs, Trust Deeds and Debt Relief Orders as solutions. They noted the claim was worded “up to” and did not claim that applicants definitely would be able to write off 85% of their debt.
4. Wise Old Mary did not believe that stating “Important Message For Women In Their 40’s” implied that the service was exclusively for women in their 40s. They said they did not target a particular sex or age group and that there was no mention in the ad or on the landing page that only women in their 40s could apply or were eligible.
5. Wise Old Mary said the ads stated they were able to assist customers through the use of their eligibility checking service. They did not believe the ads implied that they offered the final debt solution. They said that when an enquirer began using their assessment form, they were provided with links to explanations of how Wise Old Mary would share and process their data. The final action of the form stated that they would be contacted by a colleague and listed the name of the third party who would be contacting them, which they believed reinforced the message that Wise Old Mary did not administer the final debt solution.
6. Wise Old Mary said that at the enquiry stage they would only establish the base criteria required for the solutions offered by their partners and were not able to provide advice to their enquirers. They said their FAQs page contained important information about the products their partners provided and that after the partner had undertaken a full review of their financial circumstances, enquirers would be informed of any fees and risks associated with the solutions available.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA considered consumers would interpret the “free” claims to mean there would be no charge for the advice and assistance they might receive for dealing with their debt as a result of making an enquiry. There was no immediate explanation that Wise Old Mary dealt only with the eligibility check. While we acknowledged that the eligibility checking service Wise Old Mary offered was itself free of charge, there were fees associated with an IVA, which was the form of debt support Wise Old Mary was likely to put them forward for. Because that was not made clear in the ad, we concluded that the claims were misleading.
On that point ads (a) and (b) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising).
2. Upheld
We considered “Why not take this free 90 second eligibility check now” in ad (a), which appeared in the context of images of unpaid bills and people who appeared to be in quite advanced states of worry and distress, and “I’m going to take you through your debt assessment test today. At the end you’ll know if you qualify for help” in ad (b) suggested that, by contacting Wise Old Mary, enquirers would be able to begin to resolve their debt problems immediately. In reality, however, Wise Old Mary would only pass on an eligible enquirer’s details to a third party, after which creditors would need to agree to a client taking out an IVA and a payment schedule would need to be drawn up. The claims, however, over-simplified the process and exaggerated the speed and ease with which debts could be reduced. We therefore concluded that the ads were misleading.
On that point ads (a) and (b) 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
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. Upheld
We considered consumers would understand from the claims that, if receiving help from Wise Old Mary, they would have a reasonable chance of being able to write off 85% of their debt. Although Wise Old Mary had said the claims were based on data provided by their partners, we had not seen evidence ourselves for the claims, which we would have expected to include the amount and proportion of write-off that each client had achieved, together with an explanation of any other factors which affected the amount and proportion of write-off. Furthermore, the evidence would need to demonstrate that this was still a valid claim in a year in which the economic situation had been so different owing to COVID-19. Because we had not seen that evidence, we concluded that the claims were misleading.
On that point ads (a) and (b) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (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).
4. Upheld
The ad was headed “Important Message For Women In Their 40’s” [sic]. Further text stated “Wise Old Mary offer a free service to 1000’s [sic] of women in their 40’s [sic], helping to change lives for the better”, followed by images of unpaid bills and women who appeared to be in their 40s and in quite advanced states of worry and distress. We understood that IVAs were not especially relevant to any particular age group or gender. We acknowledged that the ad did not state explicitly that Wise Old Mary’s service was specifically for women in their 40s or that others were not eligible. We nevertheless considered the impression was that this was a service that was particularly relevant for women in their 40s. Because of that, it was likely to appeal to them and encourage them to engage with the ad more readily rather than giving the matter due thought and consideration. We therefore concluded that the ad was misleading.
On that point ad (a) 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
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).
5. Upheld
We considered consumers were likely to interpret the text in ad (a) “Wise Old Mary offer a free service to 1000’s [sic] of women in their 40’s [sic], helping to change lives for the better,” which appeared after the text “1000’s of qualifying individuals can write off up to 85% of their debts”, in the absence of anything to say otherwise, to mean that Wise Old Mary themselves offered debt solutions and would deal with the entire process, from start to finish, of an enquirer’s debt problems. There was nothing in the ad, however, that suggested Wise Old Mary passed on leads to a third party. We therefore concluded that ad (a) was misleading. We noted that ad (b) took the form of a web chat which stated “I’m going to take you through your debt assessment test today. At the end you’ll know if you qualify for help … If you are successful you may be eligible to write off up to 85% of your debt”, before going on to ask for more details of the type and extent of an enquirer’s debt.
We acknowledged that on completion of the form enquirers were told the name of the third party who would be contacting them. However, we considered there was nothing up until that point to correct the impression that Wise Old Mary would deal with the entire process, from start to finish, of an enquirer’s debt problems. We considered that was information that enquirers needed to know before going through the web chat questions. We therefore concluded that ad (b) was misleading.
On that point ads (a) and (b) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 2.3 2.3 Marketing communications must not falsely claim or imply that the marketer is acting as a consumer or for purposes outside its trade, business, craft or profession; marketing communications must make clear their commercial intent, if that is not obvious from the context. (Recognition of marketing communications) and 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising).
6. Upheld
The website on which the web chat was found contained information, further in, which stated “If you decide you want to set up a debt solution our trusted provider will do this for you … we then get a fee for introducing you and fees are payable if ongoing services are provided. Entering into a debt solution will have an impact on your credit rating for at least six years”. Further in still, within the FAQs, text stated “Fees are only charged if you enter into a financial solution and your provider will confirm the associated costs within their terms and conditions”. We acknowledged, therefore, that there was some information for enquirers about the fees and risks associated with using Wise Old Mary to deal with their debt. However, the “START FREE DEBT ASSESSMENT” link appeared on the home page, beneath a cartoon picture of a smiling woman holding hands with two smiling children as they walked in a garden or a park under a brightly coloured sun, alongside text which stated “DEBT DOESN’T NEED TO BE SCARY – Mary has helped thousands of women to find a simple, long lasting way to escape the clutches of personal debt”. We considered enquirers were therefore likely to enter the debt assessment without seeing the information about risks and fees. Even if they did see it, there was no mention that the solution Wise Old Mary was likely to put them forward for was an IVA, a solution they might already have heard of. We considered consumers needed to be made aware before they began the debt assessment that Wise Old Mary assessed eligibility for IVAs and that there were risks and costs associated with them. Because we considered ad (b) did not make that clear, we concluded that it was misleading.
On that point ad (b) 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
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).
Action
The ads must not appear again in the forms complained of. We told TFLI Ltd t/a Wise Old Mary to ensure their ads did not mislead by suggesting that their service, which was likely to involve an eligible person being put forward for an IVA, was free of charge; exaggerating the speed and ease of the process; exaggerating the amount of debt that could be written off; implying that their service was specifically for women in their 40s; not making clear that they passed on leads to a third party; and not making clear that the solution they offered was likely to be an IVA which had risks and fees associated with it.
