Recent adjudication from the ASA concerning a TV advert which was not upheld, highlights the importance of ensuring that all marketing and advertising is checked and signed off and adequate explanations are available on request.
ASA Adjudication on Provident Personal Credit Ltd
Provident Personal Credit Ltd t/a Satsuma Loans
Three issues were investigated, all of which were Not upheld.
Issue
Two complainants challenged whether the ad was misleading because:
1. it did not state an APR; and
2. it did not include a representative example.
3. Another complainant challenged whether the ad was irresponsible because it trivialised the nature of the product advertised.
Assessment
1. & 2. Not upheld
We considered that the requirement for an RAPR was not triggered by the claim “in nice weekly segments”, and that the content of the ad did not trigger the need for a representative example. Therefore, we considered that the ad was compliant with the Regulations and concluded that it was not misleading.
On that point, we investigated the ad under BCAP Code rule 1.3 (Responsible advertising) and 14.11 (Lending and credit) but did not find it in breach.
3. Not upheld
On that point, we investigated the ad under BCAP Code rule 1.2 (Responsible advertising), but did not find it in breach.
Action
No further action necessary.
Full details can be obtained by clicking on the following link
