The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has rejected a complaint against online mortgage broker Habito over claims that a cartoon advert depicting werewolves attacking home buyers was too graphic to be seen by children.

The advert aimed to promote its new home buying service Habito Go, which advises buyers on valuations and negotiating with estate agents.

It features a man viewing a house that is for sale before he was subsequently chased and attacked by a pack of werewolves, who ripped apart his body, exposing his skeleton and internal organs.

The man’s dismembered skeleton hand then pressed a button on a mobile phone, which said ‘Habito Go’.

The scene changed again as a set of keys flying on wings opened the door to the house, which had a ‘Sold’ sign outside. The voice-over said: “Don’t let anyone else get your dream home. Get ahead of the pack with Habito Go. It’s either Hell or Habito.”

It had been authorised by ad approvals body Clearcast but with a restriction to be shown during the breaks of programmes not directed at children.

However, there were 114 complaints querying whether it should have been broadcast before 9pm during family programmes.

Habito argued that the advert was shown during programmes such as Miss Marple, White House Farm, Granchester and Vera on ITV Hub, as well as Crazy Delicious on ALL 4.

The programmes were targeted at older audiences and broadcast after 8pm or 9pm.

The ASA ruled that the restriction was sufficient to ensure young children didn’t see the advert.

Its ruling said: “The ad, which depicted the process of buying a property, featured a gory horror sequence in a cartoon format, exaggerated sound effects, and imagery which was fantastical in nature.

“The ASA considered that it was unlikely to cause fear or distress to older children, but that it was likely to cause fear and be distressing to young children.

“The TV ad was subject to a scheduling restriction that prevented it from being shown in or adjacent to programmes commissioned for, principally directed at or likely to appeal to children under 16.

“The video on demand service providers had also used the equivalent restriction when serving the ad in that media.

“We considered those restrictions were sufficient to ensure that the ad was unlikely to be seen by young children, and we had not seen any evidence that the ad had been broadcast or served against that restriction.

“We therefore concluded that the ad had been appropriately restricted.”