Upheld

The ASA considered that the data in the circular implied that Entwistle was the best-selling agent in the specified postcode area in the relevant period.  We understood that the data collected by Vizzihome relied on agents advertising all of their properties online and ensuring they were accurately marked online as being sold.  We noted the disclaimer in the circular stated "Due to variations in publishing policies or where such information is believed to be inaccurate or otherwise manipulated, not all agents and property data may be represented.  Whilst every effort is made to ensure the accuracy of the data, no responsibility can be accepted for any errors or omissions." and noted a similar disclaimer featured on the Vizzihome website.  We therefore considered that some estate agents and some properties may not have been counted.

Because the disclaimer in the circular and on the Vizzihome website suggested that the data may not have been accurate, and we had not seen any robust evidence to substantiate the data in the circular, we concluded that the implied claim in the circular that Entwistle's Crosby office had sold the most properties in the area during the relevant period was misleading.

The circular breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation), 3.33 and 3.35 (Comparisons with Identifiable Competitors).