Upheld

The ASA noted that the ad featured a table which gave the different sizes of solar array, their prices and the corresponding annual payment from the FiT. We understood from the response provided by IEHP that the total annual benefit figures had been calculated in line with the government SAP and that the ROI figures given were accurate expressions of the annual benefit as a percentage of the outlay. We therefore considered that the ROI percentages had been substantiated.

We understood, however, that the complainant was concerned that the ROI figures, of 11.1% and upwards, gave the misleading impression that the financial gains to be had from the product were more immediate than they actually were because the cost of the solar panels would have to be recouped before the FiT could convey any financial gains.

We understood that the purchase of the solar panels was a capital outlay, the primary financial benefit of which was to be found in the repayments conferred by the FiT. We noted that taking the figures in the ad at face value, which were based on an optimum panel configuration, it would take nine years before the cost of the panels was recovered and the FiT started to confer an overall gain. Although we understood that the percentages were an accurate expression of the annual FiT payment relative to the cost of the product, we considered that the meaning of the term ROI and the relevance of the percentages would not necessarily be readily understood by all readers, some of whom were likely to understand them as comparable to interest rates, and infer that the purchase of the solar panels would begin to confer net financial gains soon after they were installed.

Because we considered that the ROI claim and the percentages implied that consumers would experience prompt financial gains from the product, when that was not in fact the case, we concluded that the ad was misleading.

The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1, 3.3 (Misleading advertising) and 3.7(Substantiation).