An online estate agent has been rapped by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) for two uncompliant ads – and for ignoring its enquiries.
Firstly, A website for an estate agent, www.hugowest.com, featured logos for The Property Ombudsman, The National Approved Letting Scheme and Safe Agent, and accompanying text stating “Hugo West is a member of the Property ombudsman, the National Approved Letting Scheme (NALS), Safe agent fully endorsed (SAFE) …”. It also featured a logo stating “THE SUNDAY TIMES ESTATE AGENCY of the YEAR 2014”.
The complainant challenged whether the logos and claims in the ad were misleading, because he understood that the advertisers were not members of the organisations listed and had not received the award listed.
West Property Consultants Ltd, trading as Hugo West, did not respond to the ASA’s enquiries.
The ASA was concerned by Hugo West’s lack of response and apparent disregard for the Code, which was a breach of CAP Code rule 1.7 (Unreasonable delay). It reminded them of their responsibility to provide a response to its enquiries and told them to do so in future.
The ad watchdog considered that Hugo West had not substantiated the claims that it was a member of the Property ombudsman, the National Approved Letting Scheme (NALS), was Safe agent fully endorsed and had won The Sunday Times Estate Agent of the Year 2014 award, and concluded that the ad was therefore misleading.
The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 and 3.3 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation) and 3.50 (Endorsements and Testimonials).
Secondly, a property listing on SpareRoom.mobi stated “Whole property: £900pcm … Security deposit: £900 …”. The complainant challenged whether the ad was misleading, because he believed the stated security deposit and rent were incorrect and that the property listing omitted to state non-optional fees.
The ASA had seen no evidence which showed that the property’s monthly rent was £900 or that the security deposit required was £900. It also considered that Hugo West had not shown that the property had no additional fees. The ASA therefore concluded that this ad was also misleading.
The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 and 3.3 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation), 3.17, 3.18 and 3.19 (Prices).
The ASA said the ads must not appear again in their current form and referred the matter to CAP’s Compliance team.
The Hugo West website currently just contains a holding page.
