SpicerHaart has another advert upheld

Spicerhaart has had another advert upheld by the Advertising Standards Association, this time breaching its guidelines on truthfulness and substantiation.

This time the complaint was for an advert from Haart Estate Agents in which is stated, “working to get you the best possible price, in the fastest possible time, talk to haart of Shenley”.

A complainant objected that the ad was misleading because it implied that Haart Estate Agents had an office in Shenley, when he believed this was not the case.

SpicerHaart Group responded that its Milton Keynes super-branch covered an extended area and, although it did not have physical branches in some locations, the central office did have specialised staff dedicated to the Shenley area.

It told the ASA that those staff spent a significant amount of their time in the area and had as great, if not greater, knowledge and commitment to Shenley than those agents who had a physical presence in that area. It also argued that the ad did not refer to a ’Shenley Office’ and that the coverage areas clearly listed the same dialling code indicating the central office in which it was based.

But the ASA upheld the complaint on the grounds that the ad made multiple references to “haart of Shenley” and that most consumers would understand the phrase to mean that Haart had a specialist base in that immediate area.

The ASA says: “We considered that the phrase was also likely to be interpreted as a play-on-words around ’heart of Shenley’ and that consumers were likely to assume that this element of the Haart group were based in the centre of Shenley.

“We considered those consumers would expect any such base to be a physical office where they could easily visit staff straight off the street or through pre-appointment. We also noted the ad pictured a specific member of the Shenley team standing in-front of a sold sign which included the phrase ’the nation’s local agent’ and the repeated phrases ’haart of Shenley’ and ’haart is where your home is’. We considered that this personalised Haart of Shenley, further suggesting they had a dedicated team who were physically based in Shenley.”

It deemed that the advert was likely to mislead and that it should not appear again in its current form.

A Spicerhaart spokesman, says: “We are appealing this ruling from the ASA because we fundamentally disagree with their adjudication. We did not imply we had an office in Shenley but that we have specialist staff dedicated to the Shenley area. We use the word ‘of’ – as in ‘haart of Shenley’ – as a preposition that indicates connection or association, as defined in the dictionary.

“By deciding that virtual offices cannot be advertised in this way, the ASA is undermining new business models and going directly against the OFT’s wishes to shake up the industry. It’s a bit like saying a local vicar is not part of his or her community because they live in the neighbouring parish, which is nonsense!”

 

If you enjoyed this article, sign up here to receive daily email updates from Mortgage Strategy and

Readers' comments (4)

  • How many more times can this agency be permitted to flaunt the rules of advertising before they land a justifiably hefty fine.
    Whoever is responsible for approving these adverts within the firm should be held to account as clearly they have either an ignornace of what is permitted under the Advertising Standards or are flagrantly disregarding such matters in their quest for business.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Seriously getting beyond a joke now!

    Maybe someone somewhere in the OFT should have this matter brought to their attention. I have a general disregard for estate agents, but this shower take matters to the extreme...all in my humble opinion!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • They have got more advertising from the bans than the adverts themselves! I am starting to think that this is a deliberate marketing ploy...

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I'm no fan of estate agents or people flaunting the ASA codes but one has to ask - where was the risk of consumer detriment in this case? It does seem like the ASA, along with FSA, OFT etc are trying to create a 'nanny' state where we can't speak unless it suits them - they should concentrate on consumer protection, measured by potential detriment. Last time I looked, we still had freedom of speech in this country - the whole situation with financial promotions has gone completely overboard.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

Mandatory
Mandatory
Mandatory
Mandatory
Advanced search

Poll

Do you recommend fast-track to customers?

Current Issue

petitions
debate
Define Advice