[Craig_Mawlam]

A complaint was made to the Advertising Complaints Authority about the misleading claim “FMVSS-208 type safety anchorage system” made by a certain advertiser that appeared both on this forum and in national cleaning publications.

There was significant debate on the forum regarding the claim and therefore those following that debate may find the adjudication now published on the ASA’s website of interest.

This information is freely available in the public domain and can be viewed by clicking on the link below;

http://www.asa.org.uk/adjudications/show_adjudication.asp?adjudication_id=38249&form_index=show_advertisers&dates_ofadjudicati

Best regards

Craig Mawlam

[karlosdaze]

Thanks Craig,
The more info the better.

[Craig_Mawlam]

It is interesting that the same topic posted on another forum was removed by the moderators there.

In my life I choose to conform to rules, regulation and standards and so if the ruling from another forum is that my post highlighting the truth about misleading claims was inappropriate on their site then I will respect that.

However I have pondered this all night long and have personal difficulties with their decision. It could be that I'm out of touch with both today’s society and the window cleaning community at large so I'm going to ask the group what they think in a poll.

In my opinion removing my post sends the wrong message, apparently its OK to make misleading claims for profit but it’s not OK to expose the truth.

Beyond these forums institutions such as Trading Standards, the Advertising Standards Authority, Office of Fair Trading, and the Court system etc, exist to protect the consumer. In this case I have followed the correct procedure in bringing several complaints about false and misleading advertising claims. I did so out of a sense of duty to protect and inform members of an industry that I have been a part of for twenty years, as well as to protect my business and its employees.

If a window cleaner appeared in your area claiming to be a member of the NFMWGC, displayed the logo on his van, stationary and advertising, claimed to be insured and was undercutting you and taking your work, would you report him to the appropriate authorities if you later discovered that he was not in-fact a member, had no insurance, charged vat but did not declare it, paid his staff cash in hand and allowed them to claim benefits (didn’t hold a license if in Scotland), or do you think that window cleaning businesses should be run this way? Would you warn other Window Cleaners in your area so that they could act to protect their businesses also? Would you do nothing at all and go do carpet cleaning instead?

My question: was it appropriate for me to expose misleading advertising claims, yes or no? I need your response because I really am questioning whether I have a misplaced sense of duty. If the vote goes against me I will have learned a valuable lesson.

Kind regards

Craig Mawlam

[williamx]

Do the moderators on the another forum forum have a personal interest in the ruling?

[Craig_Mawlam]

I do not believe that the moderators at another forum have any personal interest in the ruling as such. I imagine that they removed the post because of protests from the advertiser whose misleading claims were exposed.

I think that because they gave in to protests and removed the post it may look to others as though they condone such practices because they acted to protect them.

In my opinion if one is unable to prove the claims one makes for ones products and chooses to advance ones sales prospects by making false or misleading claims then one should accept the consequences if found out.

When the FMVSS-208 “TYPE” claim was being made on the another forum forum I complained to one of the moderators who thought that it was OK for them to make the claim and so its use was allowed to continue for some considerable time. Had they acted with the speed that they have demonstrated they are capable of it may not have been necessary for me to make the complaint to the ASA at all.

Now that an independent authority has investigated the complaint thoroughly and published their adjudication for all to see, I believe that it was right and proper to highlight that decision to all who have an interest in the subject. I would have thought that the moderators would have placed the adjudication of the ASA above the protests of the advertiser who has repeatedly made false and misleading claims about their products.

Kind regards

Craig Mawlam

[riz]

Craig,

If people have brought these machines with the understanding of some form of type crash testing will they have some comeback?

Paul

[Craig_Mawlam]

Paul,

If anyone believes that they were mis-sold goods then I believe that the ruling may be used as the basis for a claim, or complaint to the appropriate authority. This would be a matter for the individual and will depend on what  they percieved the claim to mean.

Rgds
Craig

[karlosdaze]

My question: was it appropriate for me to expose misleading advertising claims, yes or no? I need your response because I really am questioning whether I have a misplaced sense of duty. If the vote goes against me I will have learned a valuable lesson.

Kind regards

Craig Mawlam

I actually used the link you provided to put it on Peters site. Any misleading information that is window cleaning related should be highlighted. As moderator of the site mentioned, I personally think people should be aware of the facts.  Skypole systems have already been busted for claiming they had nothing to do with their own company.
I still can't understand "another forum" decision. Perhaps the moderators want to keep it nicey-nicey. The big loosers are the purchasers, credit to you Craig for trying to protect them.

http://www.window-tools.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl?board=admin;action=display;num=1089930413

[replacement]

Yeah god knows why it was removed, such a silly mistake.

Justin

Ps It was not me before u ask.

[Philip Hanson]

This is a very interesting case.  

When I personally saw the advert in question I made several conclusions which the ASA has has now upheld as incorrect.  

For example I took it to mean that Brodex had, after all of the contraversy, finally entered into some program of crash testing.  Of course that is what they wanted the consumer to think, but that is not true.  It is a blatant attempt to benefit from a well-publicized feature of a competitors product.

Companies who do this depend on the fact that most competitors won't bother to go to the expense and trouble of legal action.  Well done to Craig for taking that trouble, its the consumer that benefits in the long run.

The ASA publishes these rulings on their website because they are public.  Of course, we wouldnt know to go to the ASA and look for this ruling unless we had been told about it, and it's we in the window cleaning industry who are affected, so thanks to Craig for bringing this to our attention.

-Philip

[The_Fed_Man]

Hi Craig,

I would think what you have done is fair play. A false claim has been made and you have made this public knowledge.

I think what the another forum Moderator is trying to do is avoid turning the forum into a legal arena where nobody is really qualified to decide whether a statement is legally correct or not, and may be held liable.

Some forums exist with no rules, maybe the rules should be established further and made clearer, or maybe there should be none at all, with a waiver of any resposibility.

Martin