5.
Other Sites
5.2 Advertising Standards Authority
The ASA is the
independent, self-regulatory body for non-broadcast
advertisements in the UK. They administer the British Codes of
Advertising and Sales Promotion to ensure that ads are legal,
decent, honest and truthful. The ASA web site is here at
http://www.asa.org.uk
The ASA receive
complaints from members of the public, review the facts, and
reach a conclusion which is published as an adjudication. The
follow adjudications have been upheld
against the Halifax Group or HBOS Group:
You can go
directly to these details by clicking on the items below, so far
we have these adjudications against the Halifax and now HBOS
plc. I was a complainant for item 4.
1. Mortgage Tie-Ins (13 January 1999)
2. Car Insurance (8 March 2000)
3. Mortgages (13 June 2001)
4. Bank Interest Rates (14 February 2001)
5. Halifax "Chop Loan Costs" (28 February 2001)
6. Halifax Health Insurance (15 August 2001)
7. Halifax plc Credit Card Promotion (11
September 2002)
8. eSure (part of HBOS Group) - Car Insurance
(25 September 2002)
9. Halifax plc t/a Intelligent Finance "No 1
Bank" (13 November 2002)
10. HBOS plc trading as Halifax plc - Interest
Rates (19 Feb 2003)
11. Halifax plc t/a Intelligent Finance -
Interest Rates (5 March 2003)
1.
Mortgage Tie-Ins (13 January 1999)
Complaint
Objection to a
regional press advertisement, for fixed rate mortgages. It
stated "Looking for a fixed rate mortgage as low as 4.95% 5.3%
APR?...The Halifax offers a new range of mortgage deals with
fixed rates for 2, 3 and 5 years..." The complainant, who
understood that there was a three year tie-in period after the
fixed rate expired or a penalty, believed the advertisement was
misleading by omission.
Return to the top
2. Car Insurance (8
March 2000)
Complaint
Objection to a
direct mailing that was headlined "More Cover For Less Cash With
Halifax Car Insurance" and stated "Why pay fancy prices for your
car insurance when you get more cover and better service for
less cash from us? At Halifax Car Insurance we guarantee you'll
get a policy that suits you and your pocket..." The complainant
objected that the advertisement was misleading because the
advertisers quoted £2,717 to insure his car whereas a local
insurer quoted £761.
Return to the top
3. Mortgages (13 June
2001)
Complaint
The member of
the public objected to the claim "At the heart of this
outstanding package is our new variable interest rate: just
6.75% 7.1% APR. And it's here to stay", because he believed it
was ambiguous.
Return to the
top
4.
Bank Interest Rates (14 February 2001)
Complaint
This is a
complaint I registered with the ASA and full details of this
complaint and copies of correspondence are held here:
http://www.redoak.co.uk/hphalasa.html
Objections to
three advertisements for a bank.
a) One
advertisement was headlined "INTELLIGENT FINANCE IS THE ONLY
BANK THAT WILL PAY YOU A MASSIVE 10.8% AER/GROSS* ON YOUR
CURRENT ACCOUNT." The advertisement featured a picture of two
people driving a van and carried the caption "NOW WE'RE
MOTORING". The body copy stated "You should have your current
account with Intelligent Finance. Why? Well our basic rate on
current accounts is 5% AER/GROSS, but if you also have an
Intelligent Finance credit card, you could earn a massive 10.8%
AER/GROSS on your current account. Intelligent Finance is the
only bank which makes any combination of banking products work
together, in a way that suits you, to make you better off...".
The footnote stated "*We give you the choice of maximising the
interest you receive or minimising the interest you pay us. If
you choose to earn 10.8% AER/GROSS on your current account you
will still pay 10.8% on your outstanding credit card
balance...".
b) Another
advertisement was headlined "INTELLIGENT FINANCE IS THE ONLY
BANK THAT WILL PAY YOU A MASSIVE 10.8% AER/GROSS* ON YOUR
SAVINGS". The advertisement featured a picture of a woman on the
phone and carried the caption "WHEN IT COMES TO MY SAVINGS, SIZE
DOES MATTER." The body copy stated "You should be banking with
Intelligent Finance. Why? Not only do we offer the full range of
banking products but we are the only bank to make any
combination of them work together, in a way that suits you, to
make you better off. For example, when you have savings and a
credit card with Intelligent Finance, your savings could earn a
massive 10.8% AER/GROSS." The footnote stated "We give you the
choice of maximising the interest you receive or minimising the
interest you pay us. If you choose to earn 10.8% AER/GROSS on
your savings you will still pay 10.8% on your outstanding credit
card balance...".
c) The third
advertisement was headlined "INTELLIGENT FINANCE IS THE ONLY
BANK WHERE YOU CAN GET A PERSONAL LOAN AND PAY NO INTEREST*". It
featured a picture of a man on a mobile phone saying "WHERE DO I
SIGN?" The body copy of the advertisement stated "Strange but
true. If you had an unsecured personal loan of £3,000 with
Intelligent Finance and a total of £3,000 in your Intelligent
Finance savings and/or current account, you could pay no
interest on your personal loan. Intelligent Finance is the only
bank that offers this. At Intelligent Finance not only do we
offer you the full range of banking products but we also make
them work together, in a way that suits you, to make you better
off. Sounds good?..". A separate section of the advertisement
showed the figure 10.5% APR with an arrow below pointing to 0%
APR. The footnote stated "We give you the choice of maximising
the interest you receive or minimising the interest you pay us.
If you choose to have 0% APR on all or part of your outstanding
personal loan balance, we will not pay interest on a
corresponding part of your current account or savings...". The
complainants objected that:
1.
advertisement (a) was misleading, because the headline claim was
contradicted by the significant conditions that to obtain 10.8%
AER/gross consumers had to have both a credit card with the
advertisers and a current account balance equal to their credit
card balance;
2.
advertisement (b) was misleading, because the headline claim was
contradicted by the significant conditions that to take
advantage of the offer consumers had to have a credit card with
the advertisers and a savings balance equal to their credit card
balance; and
3.
advertisement (c) was misleading, because it implied that the
interest rate on the loan fell from 10.5% to 0%. The complainant
challenged that implication because consumers would forfeit the
interest normally awarded on a bank account and their interest
rate would not therefore fall by the advertised amount.
Return to the top
5.
Halifax "Chop Loan Costs" (28 February 2001)
Complaint
An objection
was made by from Edinburgh Trading Standards department, to a
regional press advertisement for a personal loan. The
advertisement was headlined "CHALLENGE US TO CHOP YOUR MONTHLY
LOAN COSTS." The advertisement featured a table that was
headlined "Cost of £10,000 personal loan over 5 years" and
listed five banks, including the Halifax, and stated the APR on
personal loans, the monthly payment, the additional monthly
cost, the total amount payable and the additional total cost;
the Halifax's APR and total amount payable were the lowest.
The Advertising
Standards Authority noted that to take advantage of the
advertised offer consumers had to have a mortgage, savings
account and a credit card or current account with the
advertisers and that the savings, credit card and current
account had to have been open for at least 6 months. This
condition was not a prerequisite for the other organisations
whose rates were compared and so the comparison was deemed
unfair and so the complaint was upheld.
The Authority
concluded that the comparison was not fair. It asked the
advertisers not to use similar comparisons in future
advertisements.
Return to the top
6.
Halifax Health Insurance (15 August 2001)
Complaint
Western
Provident Association (WPA) objected to a direct mailing for
private medical insurance. The letter stated "Dear Mr X If you
thought you couldn't afford private medical insurance think
again. Halifax Low Cost Medical Insurance costs around half the
price of typical private medical insurance ... How can Halifax
make it so cheap? Halifax Low Cost Medical Insurance costs less
because it recognises the strengths of the NHS. You'll still
rely on the NHS for excellent and immediate treatment if you
have an accident or face a life threatening condition. But where
you might have to wait for certain treatments, Halifax Low Cost
Medical Insurance will cover the cost of quicker treatment ...
". The mailing included a leaflet that gave full details of the
advertised insurance. It stated "Halifax Low Cost Medical
Insurance. The treatment you need, when you want it. For around
half the cost you may have seen before". The leaflet featured a
comparison table and stated "We're cheaper than the rest ...
Person Aged 35 ... Halifax Low Cost Medical Insurance £16, PPP
Key Plan £33.00, BUPA Hospital Care* £30.00, WPA Poplar* £25.00
... *All premiums have been rounded to the nearest whole £ and
are for attained age (like for like) ... Quotations may vary
based on location and status and are for illustration purposes
only ...". The complainants, whose Poplar Policy covered all
types of illness and conditions and allowed a free choice of
hospitals, objected to the leaflet because the advertisers'
insurance covered only 113 elective conditions and restricted
policyholders to a limited number of hospitals. They believed
the leaflet did not compare like with like.
Return to the top
7.
Halifax plc Credit Card Promotion (11 September 2002)
Complaint
An objection
was made to an advertising letter and leaflet that explained
that credit card balance transfers would be performed at 0%PA
interest. By illustration, the leaflet identified 0% interest
for six months.
The
complainants, who transferred a balance into the advertisers'
credit card account but found that subsequent repayments they
made against purchases were deducted firstly from that balance
and the amount of their promotional free credit correspondingly
reduced or eliminated, objected that the promotion was
misleading. What had happened was that when a customer spent say
£100 after the balance transfer and then paid off that £100,
Halifax used that £100 to pay off the interest free element and
charged the customer interest on the newly spent £100.
The Advertising
Standards Authority upheld the complaint and concluded that the
mailing was misleading and asked the advertisers not to repeat
the approach. It advised them to consult the Committee of
Advertising Practice Copy Advice team before they advertised
again.
Return to the top
8.
eSure (part of HBOS Group) - Car Insurance (25 September 2002)
Complaint
Objections to
two national press advertisements and a mailing for car
insurance. The first press advertisement stated "Cheaper Car
Insurance If you've been claim free for 4 years ...". The second
press advertisement stated "4 Years No Claim Bonus = Cheaper Car
Insurance ...". At the top of the advertisements, the smallprint
stated "... Subject to normal underwriting criteria ...". The
mailing claimed "... Our aim is simple - to reward good drivers,
who help make our roads safer, with lower premiums. We can do
this because we only insure drivers who've been claim-free for 4
years, which means our customers benefit from savings of up to
30% on their current premiums ...". The complainants, who
believed the advertisers did not insure drivers for all
vehicles, challenged the claims that the advertisers would
provide cheaper car insurance if respondents had made no claims
for four years.
Complaint upheld
Because the
advertisers would not always offer cheaper car insurance to
drivers who had been claim-free for 4 years, the Authority asked
the advertisers to amend future advertisements with help from
the Committee of Advertising Practice Copy Advice team.
Return to the top
9. Halifax plc t/a
Intelligent Finance "No 1 Bank" (13 November 2002)
Complaint
The complainant
objected to an advertisement, for Intelligent Finance, headlined
"NOW THE No1 DIRECT BANK IN THE UK ... And in just 18 short
months look what we've achieved together. We've become one of
the UK's largest net mortgage lenders with more than 10% market
share and over 500,000 accounts have been opened with us ...".
Because they believed the advertisers were not the largest net
mortgage lender and did not have the most accounts, the
complainants challenged the headline claim.
The basis of
the complaint was that selective, unrepresentative comparisons
were made that would misinform the readers.
The Advertising
Standards Authority upheld the complaint and concluded that the
comparison was not clear and fair and asked the advertisers not
to repeat the claim unless they held documentary evidence to
prove it and had ensured that the elements of the comparison
were not selected in a way that gave them an artificial
advantage.
Return to the top
10. HBOS plc trading as
Halifax plc - Interest Rates (19 Feb 2003)
Complaint
Objection to a
direct mailing that was headed "Get ready for Christmas - with
Halifax Credit Card Cheques" and claimed "There's so much to
think about when Christmas is round the corner. And with all the
expense it's often useful to be able to pay for goods and
services on credit when credit cards wouldn't usually be
accepted. So we've attached these Halifax Credit Card Cheques,
to make things a bit easier ... The convenience you need - at no
extra cost ...". A shaded box at the side of the letter, headed
"Credit Card Cheques are really simple to use", claimed "...
you'll be charged interest at the usual monthly rate for cheques
from the date we add it to your account". The complainant
understood that cardholders, who were given seven weeks
interest-free credit on payments made with the credit card,
would be charged interest on payments made with the cheques from
the day the payment was added to the account. The complainant
objected that the mailing misleadingly implied that cardholders
could pay with a credit card cheque as though they were paying
with a credit card and that, because it was printed in white on
a grey background, readers were likely to overlook the claim
"you'll be charged interest at the usual monthly rate for
cheques from the date we add it to your account".
Complaint Upheld
The Authority
asked the advertisers to ensure future advertisements did not
contain contradictory claims and to ensure that important
conditions were not likely to be overlooked. It welcomed the
advertisers' assurance that they would try to avoid text designs
that might make advertisements hard to read.
Return to the top
11. Halifax plc t/a
Intelligent Finance - Interest Rates (5 March 2003)
Complaint
Virgin Direct
objected to a national press advertisement for a bank account.
It stated "I MADE AN EXCELLENT DECISION BY MOVING FROM VIRGIN
ONE TO INTELLIGENT FINANCE ... I used to keep all my money
together in one account at Virgin One. But I didn't feel
comfortable or in control. So I visited If.com, liked what I saw
and decided to give it a go. I really wanted to keep things
separate and I thought the Intelligent Finance plan made a lot
of sense. Now I've got a current account, mortgage, savings and
a personal loan all with Intelligent Finance. It's so simple, my
money is kept separate but Intelligent Finance link what I have
with what I borrow ... ". Under the heading "INTELLIGENT FINANCE
MORTGAGE AT A GLANCE" the advertisement listed the benefits of
the bank account, including "By offsetting with an Intelligent
Finance savings/current account you could reduce the cost of
your mortgage". The complainants, who believed the advertisement
misleadingly implied that the benefits of off-setting were not
available to Virgin One customers, objected that the
advertisement implied that, because of the structural
differences between the accounts, customers would be financially
better off if they switched from the Virgin One account to the
Intelligent Finance Plan.
Complaint upheld
The advertisers
believed the advertisement did not imply that the benefits of
offsetting were not available to Virgin One customers
Return to the top
And I am sure there are more
Page created on 10 March 2002, last updated:
22 October 2006 23:19
|