Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'doh'.



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 and Radio Listings
    • Consumer TV and Radio Listings
  • CAG Library - you need to register to access the CAG library
    • 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

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


Quit Date

Between and

Cigarettes Per Day


Cost Per Day


Location

Found 2 results

  1. 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.
  2. http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/@dh/@en/documents/digitalasset/dh_134043.pdf
×
×
  • Create New...