Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'advertising'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • The Consumer Forums: The Mall
    • Welcome to the Consumer Forums
    • FAQs
    • Forum Rules - Please read before posting
    • Consumer Forums website - Post Your Questions & Suggestions about this site
    • Campaign
    • Helpful Organisations
  • CAG Community centre
    • CAG Community Centre Subforums:-
  • Consumer TV/Radio Listings
    • Consumer TV and Radio Listings
  • CAG Library - Please register
    • CAG library Subforums
  • Banks, Loans & Credit
    • Bank and Finance Subforums:
    • Other Institutions
  • Retail and Non-retail Goods and Services
  • Work, Social and Community
  • Debt problems - including homes/ mortgages, PayDay Loans
  • Motoring
  • Legal Forums
  • Latest Consumer News

Blogs

  • A Say in the Life of .....
  • Debt Diaries
  • Shopping & Money Saving Tips
  • chilleddrivingtuition

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


About Me


Location

Found 37 results

  1. There has been a complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority which has been upheld. the website also does not comply with UK regulations in that it does not give any company details ie company number, company address, phone number. When challenged by the ASA, they completely ignored them and did not respond. It also does not abide by the Distance Selling Regulations in that it will not refund the postage charge. If there is a problem with the product, you have to ship it back to China yourself at a cost of £40 to you. This is a Chinese company so don't be fooled by the .co.uk in there website address. There are also a lot of complaints on the internet about various companies selling using this address who also appear to be Chinese and do not respond to any form of communication once they have your funds. The ASA ruling can be read below: I find it incredible that all they have said is that it must not appear again and have taken no further action. ASA Adjudication on wigshow.co.uk wigshow.co.uk Unit 10 Explorer Voyager Park Portfield Road Portsmouth PO3 5FL Background Summary of Council decision: Two issues were investigated, both of which were Upheld. Ad A wig website, http://www.wigshow.co.uk, offered a "Human Hair Capless Short Curly Wig". Next to this product description was an image of the wig being worn by a model. Issue The complainant objected that: 1. the wig they received did not match the description in the ad; and 2. when they attempted to return the product they were informed that the product had to be shipped to China at a cost of £40 to the complainant. Investigated under CAP Code rules 3.1, (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation) and 9.5.2 (Distance Selling). CAP Code (Edition 12) 1.73.13.4.19.5.2 Response Wigshow.co.uk did not respond to the ASA's enquiries. Assessment The ASA was concerned by wigshow.co.uk's lack of response and apparent disregard for the Code, which was a breach of CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 1.7 (Unreasonable delay). 1. Upheld We considered that wigshow.co.uk had not provided evidence to show that the wig they sent to the complainant matched the description of the product in the ad. We therefore concluded that the ad was misleading and could not be substantiated. On this point the ad breached CAP Code rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 (Substantiation). 2. Upheld We noted that the Code stated that a marketer must bear the cost of a product being returned, if the product did not match its description within an ad. Wigshow.co.uk did not comment or refute the complainant's claim that they were to be charged £40 to return their product to them, because they believed it did not fit its description within the ad. We therefore concluded that wighow.co.uk had breached the Code. On this point the ad breached CAP Code rule 9.5.2 (Distance selling). Action The ad must not appear again in its current form. We asked wigshow.co.uk to ensure that their products match the descriptions of them on their website. We also asked them to ensure that customers are not charged to return items to them. We referred the matter to CAP’s compliance team.
  2. Hi, new user so I hope this is in the right area. I have purchased 4 items from a UK based internet site. The items are all the exact same and are safety equipment for work, they are safety harnesses. The harnesses were advertised with lanyards as part of the sale at the offered price - which was not a promotion or offer, simply a good price. On their delivery, the harnesses did not arrive and the company claimed they did not advertise the lanyards with the harness, there exact words were that they had "never" advertised the lanyard with the harness. When I checked the site, the sentence had been removed from their web-page only 3-4 days later. but I knew I had seen it somewhere, obviously I wondered if I were going mad:mad2: Today, some 2 weeks later, I have found the print off of their web-page which does state the lanyard was included at the time of sale, we have rung and emailed our photocopies/ prints - they have requested we return the items unused for a refund. I believe this is wrong, unfair and in violation of our rights, especially as the items have been used and other lanyards attached. This situation is made worse by their blatant cover up by removing the words from their web-page. Can anybody shed any confirmation on particular legislation they have breached and my rights on this matter - thank you
  3. http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/42019 Please everyone who sees this, sign it and post it on. We have until Nov 2013 with this one!
  4. Like so many people on these forums I too have suffered through my use and misuse of payday loans. At my lowest i had 13 of them yes thats right 13. Thankfully today I am clear of all companies but i truly know the stress and worry dealing with payday lenders causes. Recently there has been alot of talk about banning adverts from payday loans which I do think will help a bit but they will find other ways of getting there message across. I just wish there had been advertising about payday lenders in the same way as smoking adverts are aired. I.e using payday lenders may seriously damage our health and all the horrific tactics they use when someone does default. I think adverts like that would have a bigger impact on the industry than banning the lenders adverts will. its something I intend to raise via e-petition on the governments website in hope that if 100,000 people sign it it will require a dicussion in the house of commons. I will post the link once it has been finalised, hope you will all support the petition. note to admin, if talk about the petition is unsuitable for the forum i will happily delete and apologise in advance if this is the case.
  5. Payday loan companies could face tougher restrictions on where, and how, they are allowed to advertise. That is one of several options to be considered by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), following Monday's industry summit in Whitehall. Lenders, regulators, charities and government ministers all met to consider controls on payday lenders. Last week, the current regulator, the Office of Fair Trading, referred the issue to the Competition Commission.Meanwhile the FCA, which takes over regulation of the sector in April 2014, is to start a consultation exercise on tougher rules in September. "They now have to deal with a regulator with some real teeth," said Treasury minister Sajid Javid. "They are going to feel the hand of the regulator on their shoulder and they better get used to it," he said. Payday lenders have been accused of a variety of poor practices, including aggressive debt collection and failing to work out whether repayments are affordable. The industry itself said that summit was a constructive and helpful meeting. Russell Hamblin-Boone, of the Consumer Finance Association, said the sector would consider changing its practices further. "There are some things we can look at incorporating into our code of practice... such as additional measures on advertising and marketing," he said. Options Martin Wheatley, the chief executive of the FCA, said an advertising ban was one option they would consider. "If payday loan companies are genuinely targeting a particular income bracket- people with jobs - why do they advertise on daytime television?" he said. “It's clear the industry must not wait for new rules to come in and must clean up its act without delay” Richard Lloyd ]Executive director, Which? Mr Wheatley said there was a particular problem when advertising was targeted at young people, students, or even children. But he also said that any restrictions would have to be proportionate. He said a total advertising ban would be "an extreme option". Other options that the FCA will consider include: ]a limit on the number of loans any individual can take out a limit on the number of loans that can be "rolled over" better affordability assessments a new central data collection facility to improve credit ratings a time lag between loan approval and payment a cap on the total cost of credit. Warning Before referring the issue to the Competition Commission last week, the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) wrote to 50 of the top payday lenders. It warned them that they had three months to prove that they were transparent and responsible lenders. Of the 21 companies that have so far responded, two have surrendered their licences altogether, and four lenders have decided to give up offering payday loans. Twenty nine lenders have yet to respond. Stella Creasy, the Labour MP for Walthamstow, was critical of Monday's summit. "I fear we'll see more talk and no action," she told the BBC. She called for a cap on the total cost of credit, so that borrowers would know the maximum they could be charged for any loan. She said that some other countries had such a system in place, such as Japan, where the total cost of credit is set at a maximum of 15% of the loan. Credit unions Consumer group Which? welcomed Monday's moves, but called for more concrete action to help people borrow money affordably. "It's clear the industry must not wait for new rules to come in and must clean up its act without delay," said Richard Lloyd, the executive director of Which?. "More action is also needed by the whole of the credit industry and government to come up with new ways of providing affordable credit to people that need it and can afford it," he said. The government has already given £38m to credit unions, to try to help them become viable lenders, and to provide an alternative to payday lenders. Link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23127141
  6. TalkTalk: Advertising to thwart As a happy talktalk customer (and I mean happy as I have nothing but good service), I noticed that there are a few discrepancies on their pages that are somewhat questionable... Most of them advertising, which in the end I never wound up with. Luckily I'm IT savvy and know better but here are the examples: 1) "TalkTalk Plus TV, broadband and phone only £15.50 a month". Looks good, looks snazzy. In the small print they do mention that you get a YouView box included, but in the MYRIADS of policies they link you to, they offer nothing of the like what they show you. No TV included like the picture, you do get the YouView box at a price, even though you can install it yourself, you HAVE to have an engineer and no phone handset? Image below: Ad link removed 2) Next they don't tell you, that despite being 500 yards from the exchange (As is in my case) you NEED To have fibre as because you are in a town, your ADSL line is busy (it is? with such a low population?). What they forget to mention is how many exchanges are in your town. In the 'old days' they shared 'contention ratio's'. What that is, is how many people you share the line with. i.e. 1:2500 contention is 1 line: 2500 people. That mysteriously vanished in the ADSL maturity days. 3)Next is their actual fibre install, yet another £50. THey send an engineer around to help you install fibre. Despite me being IT savvy, they 'had to' to ensure they have the best technical advice. In light of that, look at the next picture: Ad link removed Nice, I think to myself, they show a Macbook Pro there, solo they must know what they are talking about. They arrive here, they see I have an iMac, Macbook Pro, Apple TV, iPad and iPhone. Not to mention the airplay stereo and bonvoyage printer I have… THey arrive, got the broadband working on the router (Huawei HG533) then move to my iMac to test it.. Quote: 'Um, what do you use to use the internet, I can't find firefox or internet explorer' Reply: *sigh* SAFARI Next I asked that he set the printers up as I couldn't be bothered, so he tried. Once again I had to explain how to set apple printers up. Woah betide me, the HG522 is barely apple compliant! THe printing works, but the scanning is a no-go unless you set it to WiFi Channel 5 on 803.11N mode for the new ones. The iPad and that I set up myself out of pure frustration.. In the end WATCH very carefully what you do here, they misadvertise a lot…… Any feedback?
  7. I have recently noted that the Wonga ads on TV no longer show the MASSIVE APR that is attached to their loans! Should they show the expected APR on their ads? Is it legal to omit the APR? and if they are in default what can be done? Legal folks please look in and advise!! aa
  8. I know there is a forum specifically for currys, but I thought this one warranted a wider audience. I needed a phone quickly to replace one that was destroyed over Christmas. I rely on my phone for work and not having a phone will seriously affect my ability to make money. I found the phone I wanted yesterday on Amazon for £395 and at Currys for £399. I checked the availability at my local currys store and it said that they had plenty at all my local stores. Rather than waiting a day or two from Amazon, I decided to order online from Currys and pick it up from my local store. This is where the issues started. Currys website wouldn't allow me to create an account and gave me a number to call instead. I called the number and paid for the new smartphone over the phone. Within an hour or so I had received an email telling me that the phone might not be at my local store and telling me that they would call me to explain. They didn't call me. This morning I called them and was told that they didn't have any anywhere and they were unable to tell me when they would have them in stock! I asked them to refund the money immediately so that I could buy one from Amazon. They said it would take 3-5 working days to refund the money. I went a bit mad and they told me a manager would call back. The manager called back and told me that they had some in Preston and it was only an hour's drive from where I live. I calmly told them that I was an active member of the consumer action group and that I had the CEO of Curry's email address in front of me. I suggested that they have the phone sent by courier to my house, or my local store, today. I was very polite. She said that she would see what she could do. She phoned back ten minutes later and said there were no phones anywhere in the country! Now I have no phone and not enough money to buy a phone that I need desperately for monday. Can anyone suggest a course of action? Surely, stating availability in order to get a sale is bordering on criminal activity!? very angry.
  9. Two issues were investigated, both of which were Upheld. Ad A page on the website http://the-healthy-insider.com, which promoted weight loss supplements, was presented in the style of a news article and was headed "'Flat Belly' Raspberry Ketone Diet Exposed: Really A New Miracle Diet?" Further text stated "Stacie Reid, our Health and Diet columnist put the celebrity diet to the test. After four weeks of testing the effects of Great Britain's Newest Diet combined with a Colon Cleanse, she has reached the conclusion to what this diet is all about, and the results were surprising ... She lost 25 pounds in 4 weeks". Three sets of before and after photographs were displayed and text underneath one set of images stated "One blogger claims to have lost over 35 lbs in 40 days using the PureBerry Max & BodyCleanse combo". At the end of the article a quote attributed to Stacie stated "I lost 42lbs in 4 weeks, No Special Diet, No Intense Exercise. My friends hardly recognized me". There were links to websites offering a 'free trial' of the two products displayed throughout the ad. Issue The complainant challenged whether the ad was misleading, because: 1. she did not believe the efficacy claims could be substantiated. 2. she did not believe it was clear that the ad was a marketing communication because it was presented in the style of a news article. CAP Code (Edition 12) 13.12.12.43.13.7 Response Slimtoneplus.com said they took the complaints seriously and that they would pass on our comments to their advertising agency to make sure that they complied with the Code in future because the current promotion would come to an end shortly. They did not provide any specific response to the points raised in the complaint. Assessment 1. Upheld The ASA noted that slimtoneplus.com had not provided any evidence to substantiate the efficacy claims in the ad, and we therefore concluded that the ad was misleading. On this point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation) and 13.1 (Weight control and slimming). 2. Upheld We considered that the presentation and content of the website implied that it was an editorial piece which had been written by an independent party. Because that was not the case, and the piece was not clearly marked as an advertorial, we considered it was not clear that the ad was a marketing communication and we concluded that it was misleading. On this point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 2.1 and 2.4 (Recognition of marketing communications) and 3.1 (Misleading advertising). Action The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told slimtoneplus.com to ensure that they held adequate substantiation for their claims, and to mark any advertorials clearly in future.
  10. At the beginning of November 2012 I bought a Volvo C70 from a second hand dealer in Derby who advertises on Ebay, AutoTrader, Motors.co.uk as do many others. When I had not received the V5 by mid December I went to the DVLA in Shrewsbury with my part of the V5 and applied for one. I discovered at the beginning of this month that the second hand dealership are still actively displaying and advertising my vehicle as "For Sale" through their website, EBay and Motors.co.uk. I have contacted the dealership both via email and telephone and been told "Sure we will stop advertising it" but nothing happens. I have contacted EBay who quite honestly are not interested because they are being paid for the privilege of advertising To the best of my knowledge this kind of advertising practice is "False Advertising" - How can you advertise as "For Sale" something that you do not own, or have physically in your possession to sell. Is there any organisation that I can approach who will get these people to remove my vehicle from their advertising. Thank you
  11. Tip of the ice berg though as there are many equally guilty. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/news/article-2254634/Watchdog-raps-irresponsible-payday-lender.html
  12. ASA Adjudication on Arnold Clark Automobiles Ltd Ad Claims on www.arnoldclark.com for a used car stated "2003 (03) Vauxhall Corsa 1.2 SXi 3 Dr. Sale Price £2988. Pre Sale price £3488. Save £500 ...". Issue The complainant challenged whether the savings claim was misleading, because he did not believe the car had been offered at the higher price for a sufficient period of time to avoid customers being misled by the price reduction. CAP Code (Edition 12) 3.13.17 Response Arnold Clark Automobiles Ltd (ACA) pointed out that they had been trading since 1954 and the Real Sale had been used as a marketing initiative for the last 20 years, which returned around 25,000 vehicle sales per year. They said this was the first type of complaint they had received. They explained that the car was on sale at the higher price of £3,488 for 10 days from 13 December 2011 to 23 December 2011, at which point it was reduced to £2,988. ACA admitted that they had not advertised the car at the higher price for 28 days, as recommended in the BIS Pricing Practices Guide. They said the nature of the motor trade industry, where in order to have a viable business model used stock needed to be turned over every six weeks, rendered the 28-day rule unviable and would be damaging to their business. They said they had been advised by their Primary Authority to display a notice on the car in the showroom if it had not been on sale at the higher price for 28 days, although they had mistakenly omitted to do this for the car in question. They provided a copy of the notice. They believed the price of £3,488 was a reasonable price at which to sell that particular model and age of car (2003 Vauxhall Corsa 1.2i 3 door) and they explained that the Manager had looked at how the rest of the company priced similar vehicles at that particular point in time. They provided a copy of a spreadsheet showing two similar vehicles at that time were priced at £3,488 and £3,988. They also provided copies of third-party ads for similar used cars which were being advertised for around £3,500. Assessment Upheld The ASA noted the BIS Pricing Practices Guide (the Guide) was not binding on traders, the Courts or the ASA, but that the Code stated that it should be taken into account. We noted the Guide recommended that a price used as a basis for a comparison should be the most recent available price for 28 days or more. We acknowledged that this need not always be the case and that if a comparison used in an ad differed from this advice, the basis of the comparison should be made clear. We noted that the car had been advertised at the higher price of £3,488 for only 10 days and that the website did not make that clear, for example, it did not contain the dates between which the higher price was applicable. We understood that this information was normally provided in the notice which was displayed on the car in the showroom, as advised by ACA's Primary Authority, although this information was not provided on the website. We also noted the Guide stated that price comparisons must be reasonable in terms of time and that prices used as a reference for price comparisons should be genuine retail prices, which included, amongst other things, that the item was on sale at the higher price for a sufficient period of time to allow consumers to become aware of the availability of the item, view the item, make up their minds whether to purchase them and, if so, complete the purchase. We noted ACA's comment regarding the speed of stock movement in the used motor trade industry, and considered that a consumer looking to purchase a used car would normally have a model, make and age in mind, and would realise that they would have to act quickly in relation to an advertised vehicle since there was only one item available. We therefore concluded that 10 days was a sufficient period of time to constitute a genuine offer of sale for this type of product. Nevertheless, because the website did not make clear that the car had been advertised at the higher price of £3,488 for only 10 days, for example by stating the dates between which the higher price applied, we concluded that the savings claim was misleading. The claim breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising) and 3.17 (Prices). Action The claim must not appear again in its current form. We told ACA to take care when advertising sale prices to ensure that it is made clear where a car has been advertised at a higher price for less than 28 days. They say this is the first complaint, so where are all the complainents that have been here, it's no good just moaning, you have to go out and DO something.
×
×
  • Create New...