ASA Adjudication on Bourne Holidays Ltd

Ad

A TV ad and national press ad, for Warner Leisure Hotels:

a. the TV ad showed the inside of a stately home; the voice-over stated "... Warner Leisure Hotels. Exclusively for adults ...".

b. the national press ad included the text " ... Warner Leisure Hotels EXCLUSIVELY FOR ADULTS ...".

Issue

The viewer, who believed children were allowed entry on Sundays, challenged whether the claim "Exclusively for adults" could be substantiated:

1. in the TV ad; and

2. in the national press ad.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

BCAP TV Code

Response

1. & 2. Warner Leisure Hotels (WLH) said all their hotel breaks were sold as adult only and they never accepted a holiday booking that included children. They said, however, they did allow children onto their sites under certain circumstances. They said they allowed children to attend around 20 Sunday lunches a year at two of their 13 sites, including the site the viewer had stayed at.  They said they typically had approximately 100 people visit them for those lunches, of which five to ten would be children; they said they did not offer a specific children's menu and the children were usually aged 12 years or above. WLH said the lunches took place in their main dining rooms and they made clear that any children who did attend were not allowed outside the restaurant. They said residential hotel guests were welcome to partake in the lunches as well, although the Sunday lunch was not a meal that was included in their holiday package price. They said children who went to the Sunday lunches were not allowed to stay at the hotel overnight.

WLH said they occasionally put on a celebration lunch for a hotel guest for a milestone such as an 80th birthday; the guest often then invited family members to join them, which could include grandchildren.  They said such celebrations usually took place in a private room and typically amounted to another 20 children being admitted to their sites in the course of a year. They said, again, they made clear on such occasions that children must not roam outside the room and were not allowed to stay overnight.

WLH said the only other time children were allowed on site was when they held weekend weddings at seven of their sites.  They said those weddings tended to be held in a large marquee in their grounds and were concentrated around the summer months. They said there were normally 100 or more people at the weddings and they always made clear at the time of booking that they were an adult only hotel operation and insisted on limiting numbers to a handful of children. They said they always tried to keep wedding guests separate from hotel guests, regardless of whether they were children or adults.

WLH said they had over 500,000 residential guests in their hotels each year.  Those guests generated over £100 million of annual turnover; whereas around 400 children attended the Sunday lunches and provided an income of around £3500 per year. They said the Sunday lunches were well controlled and financially insignificant to them; they very rarely received complaints. WLH said they allowed weddings and visits for special celebrations because they believed it would be churlish to refuse to accommodate a family member's special celebration, or a bride the opportunity to get married in their grounds, over the issue of a small number of children.

WLH pointed out that the TV ad included the text "exclusions apply" when the voice-over stated "Exclusively for Adults".  They said, for their seven sites at which weddings could be held, their brochure stated "... hold weddings and therefore children may be present on-site as part of the wedding parties". They believed if the issue of children was important to a potential guest that text would lead them to make enquires. They said the press ad did not include any wording on the issue of children but they intended to amend future ads to include similar text to the TV ad.

Clearcast reiterated WLH's comments that children were not allowed entry to the sites except on rare occasions, and with limited access, at a handful of properties. They said the TV ad was specifically promoting short breaks at WLH's sites and they considered that the claim "exclusively for adults" would be understood by viewers to mean that breaks at the hotels were only available to adults.  They said it was true that no children would be accommodated and that the hotel breaks were only sold to, and for, adults.  Clearcast considered the claim would not be understood to mean that no children would be allowed temporary and controlled access to an occasional lunch; they believed the claim was therefore not misleading.

Assessment

1. Not upheld

The ASA noted WLH allowed children restricted access to their sites on specific occasions. We considered that the TV ad was advertising breaks at WLH hotels and the claim "Exclusively for adults" was therefore likely to be seen to mean that only adults could book breaks at WLH hotels and children would not be allowed to stay. We considered that the claim was unlikely to be seen to mean that any person staying at a WLH hotel would not see or hear a child throughout their stay or that children would not be allowed any access to the sites under any circumstances. We noted that, although children were allowed restricted admittance to some WLH hotels, they were not allowed to stay overnight and no bookings including children would be taken by WLH. We concluded that the claim "Exclusively for adults" was unlikely to mislead.  

On this point, we investigated the TV ad under CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 5.1 (Misleading advertising) and 5.2.3 (Qualifications) but did not find it in breach.

2. Not upheld

We noted WLH allowed children restricted access to their sites on specific occasions. We considered that the national press ad was advertising breaks at WLH hotels and the claim "Exclusively for adults" was therefore likely to be seen to mean that only adults could book breaks at WLH hotels and children would not be allowed to stay. We considered that the claim was unlikely to be seen to mean that any person staying at a WLH hotel would not see or hear a child throughout their stay or that children would not be allowed any access to the sites under any circumstances. We noted that, although children were allowed restricted admittance to some WLH hotels, they were not allowed to stay overnight and no bookings including children would be taken by WLH. We concluded that the claim "Exclusively for adults" was unlikely to mislead.  

On this point, we investigated the national press ad under CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness) but did not find it in breach.

Action

No further action necessary.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Broadcast)

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)