Online agent Emoov was reported to the advertising watchdog after different costs and savings claims were shown on its website.
The fixed fee was shown as both £795 and £679. The average saving for customers was shown as both £2,672 and £4,378.
A complainant challenged whether the two savings claims could be substantiated and whether the two different quoted fixed fees was misleading.
A spokesperson for the Advertising Standards Authority said: “After we approached the advertiser, Emoov agreed to remove both saving claims from future advertising and to not make similar comparative saving claims relating to fees in the future.
“Emoov also amended the ad by removing the £679 fixed fee claim and making clear that the £795 fixed fee applied.
“We thus agreed that the case was informally resolved.”
The ASA also resolved another case involving an agent.
St Quintin Property Group, in Dorset, claimed to be first out of 98 agents on a flyer, with the claim illustrated by a pie chart.
A complainant challenged whether the claim was misleading and could be verified.
The firm agreed to withdraw the advertising and to cease distribution of any unused flyers.
Comments (4)
This is clearly the difference between these online only agents and small businesses like mine.
I thoroughly check all adverts and ensure we are complaint – if unsure – don’t run with it.
If I advertised with a genuine error, I would expect it to be informally resolved BUT when it is the same agents, repeating the same claims and clearly intending to mislead the public, then this is simply not acceptable.
If this sector becomes like the Financial Services Sector, my understanding is you do not pay for the first few complaints to the Ombudsman but then firms have to pay for each investigation thereafter – not sure if this is the same as I have been out of the industry for a few years. Maybe the ASA should adapt this type of approach. Be funded by the firms that have a blatant disregard for complaint adverts.
Our firm has been trading for over 40 years. Guess how many ASA issues or complaints about advertising we have had? Zero. nothing. As others have said perhaps the ASA should allow say 3 issues in one year to be informally resolved if minor but the 4 and 5th etc should get some punishment.
Its the same firms over and over again that are habitual and persistant offenders.
Ah, informally resolved, the feeling you get when you see ASA in a headline.
You would have thought that if the ASA are after funding they would need to start proving their value. These constant tap on the wrists for repeat offenders does nothing to deter other companies, or even those with multiple “informally resolved” cases against them, from constantly breaking the rules/laws.
Time to start fining these companies, like your Australian brothers.