Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'asa'.



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 6 results

  1. The Advertising Standards Agency have today upheld a complaint about DFS regarding their pricing policies. As many people know, DFS seem to have a 12 month 'event' of some sort or other. They even call it a sale sometimes. Once of the relevant pieces of the complaint was. and This goes to show that DFS (IMO) are misleading its customers. The full ruling is here http://tinyurl.com/zjp77al
  2. ASA Ruling on Guardian Recovery Ltd Guardian Recovery Ltd 4 Tustin Court Port Way Preston PR2 2YQ Date: 30 December 2015 Media: Facsimile, Internet (on own site) Sector: Financial Number of complaints: 1 Agency: None Complaint Ref: A15-309515 Background Summary of Council decision: Two issues were investigated, both of which were Upheld. Ad Two ads for Guardian Recovery Ltd, a debt collection agency: a. A fax received on 28 August 2014 stated "We will collect: overdue accounts, bounced cheques, bad debts. We will: enforce County Court Judgments, trace absconded debtors, credit check potential clients. We offer a guaranteed, fully-inclusive debt recovery service. 110% Money Back Guarantee... Nobody can do more to collect your debt and that's GUARANTEED". b. A claim on the "Services" tab of http://www.guardrec.co.uk, Guardian Recovery's website, seen in July 2015, stated "...The services of our Legal Team can be utilised without incurring the often unnecessary expenses of a separate firm of solicitors or a barrister". For further reading....... https://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/2015/12/Guardian-Recovery-Ltd/SHP_ADJ_309515.aspx#.VoO4xbaLQgs
  3. ASA Adjudication on accidentinjuryclaim.so accidentinjuryclaim.so Date: 24 June 2015 Media: Text Message Sector: Financial Number of complaints: 2 Complaint Ref: A15-296651 Ad A text message from a personal injury claims company, http://www.accidentinjuryclaim.so, stated "Its [sic] been signed off, we have 2886.41 in your name for the accident you had, for us to put in your bank [sic] Now just fill out www.accidentinjuryclaim.so". Issue The complainant challenged whether the ad was misleading, because they had not been involved in any accident or made such a claim. CAP Code (Edition 12) 3.13.7 Response accidentinjuryclaim.so did not respond to the ASA's enquiries. Assessment Upheld The ASA was concerned by the lack of response from accidentinjuryclaim.so and their apparent disregard for the Code, which was a breach of CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 1.7 (Unreasonably delay). We reminded them of their responsibility to respond promptly to our enquiries and we told them to do so in future. Since we had not seen any evidence showing that the complainant had been involved in an accident, had made a claim or was entitled to the money referred to in the text message, we concluded that the claim had not been substantiated and was misleading. The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading Advertising) and 3.7 (Substantiation). Action The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told accidentinjuryclaim.so that their future advertising must not state that they held money for people to claim when that was not the case.
  4. The Advertising Standards Authority has ordered a payday lender to pull a television advert for being misleading and for failing to ensure the representative APR was sufficiently prominent. The advert, from Peachy.co.uk, a trading style of Cash on Go, stated: “Payday loan companies expect you to repay your loan in one big payment. However, Peachy.co.uk offers multiple repayments, that’s right, multiple repayments”. Images of different payment amounts appeared before on-screen text stated “MULTIPLE REPAYMENTS. Over 18s, subject to status. Representative APR 1058%. Terms and conditions apply”. One complainant challenged whether the claim “payday loan companies expect you to repay your loan in one big payment” was misleading because they understood most companies allowed payments in instalments. Further, the ASA challenged whether the APR was sufficiently prominent. The advertising watchdog ruled the firm’s claim that other payday lenders require borrowers to pay in one lump sum implied Peachy.co.uk is the only firm offering multiple repayments and was therefore misleading. It did, however, accept Peachy.co.uk was in the minority in offering this type of repayment option. Consumer credit advertising regulations state that where a credit advertisement includes trigger information, such as an incentive to apply for credit, the ad was required to also contain a representative example of the APR. The regulations also state that where the APR was supplied in an ad it needed to be more prominent that the information that triggered it. Peachy.co.uk’s advert contained incentive about multiple repayments in capital letters and although the APR was also capitalised, it appeared toward the end of the sentence and was therefore less prominent, therefore breaching the advertising rules. The ASA has ruled the advert should not appear again in its current form and has told the firm to ensure the future adverts contained a representative APR that was more prominent than the trigger information. More: http://www.mortgagestrategy.co.uk/news-and-features/latest-news/asa-bans-payday-lender-advert-for-being-misleading/2003646.article
  5. Volkswagen Group UK Ltd t/a Audi Yeomans Drive Blakelands Milton Keynes MK14 5AN Date: 27 March 2013 Media: Internet (on own site) Sector: Motoring Number of complaints: 1 Complaint Ref: A12-210019 Ad Claims on http://www.audi.co.uk, under the heading "Audi A3 TDI - the most fuel efficient Audi ever" stated "The A3 16 TDI is the most fuel-efficient Audi ever returning a quite remarkable 68.9mpg on a combined cycle". Issue The complainant, who had bought the car, challenged whether the claim "68.9mpg" was misleading and could be substantiated, because they had not been able to achieve that fuel consumption. CAP Code (Edition 12) 3.13.103.73.9 Response Volkswagen Group UK Ltd (VW) said the fuel consumption figure quoted was obtained from the manufacturer's tests carried out in accordance with Directive 93/116/EC as amended by Regulation (EC) 692/2008. VW explained that the complaint that a customer had been unable to achieve a quoted fuel consumption figure in real-life driving was occasionally encountered by motor vehicle manufacturers and distributors. Fuel consumption figures did not give an accurate representation of the actual fuel consumption which could be expected from any particular vehicle and were provided only to enable comparisons between different vehicles or models. They pointed out that the VCA (the designated UK Vehicle Type Approval authority) themselves made clear that new car fuel consumption and CO2 emissions official figures were not fully representative of real life driving conditions because of the need to maintain strict comparability of results achieved by the standard tests that were carried out. There were also infinite variations in driving styles and in road, car and weather conditions, all of which could have a bearing on the results achieved. For these reasons the consumption achieved on the road would not necessarily accord with the official test results. They believed that the basis of the VCA guidance was well known by consumers and said the use of such figures in this context and in motor vehicle advertising generally, without explanation as to the way such figures were produced or whether they were representative of real-life driving, was completely standard across the industry. Assessment Upheld The ASA noted that, as VW had explained, the means by which fuel efficiency figures for vehicles should be calculated was set out in European legislation. In practice this was a set of test drive cycles conducted under controlled conditions that produced figures that showed the vehicle's efficiency in urban and extra-urban (faster moving) scenarios. These two figures were then averaged to give a third figure, known as the combined figure, and it was that figure which was given in the website claim. We understood the website had given the correct figure for the model advertised. We understood that such figures, by their nature, had to be generated under test conditions so that consumers could compare them on a like-for-like basis. However, we considered that it was unlikely to be clear to the average consumer that the figure quoted was based on a standardised test and was not necessarily representative of what they would achieve when driving the car themselves. For that reason we considered that VW should have qualified the figure to make clear to readers that it was based on an EU test for comparative purposes and may not reflect real driving results. Because they had not done so we concluded that the claim breached the Code. The claim breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1, 3.3 (Misleading advertising), 3.9 and 3.10 (Qualification) We also investigated the claim under CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 3.7 (Substantiation) but did not find it in breach. Action We told VW to ensure they qualified official fuel consumption figures to make clear that they were official EU test figures to be used as a guide for comparative purposes and may not reflect real driving results
  6. 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
×
×
  • Create New...