1.  Upheld

The ASA considered that the claims "We are the leading gold buyers [sic] uk" in ad (a), and "NO. 1 GOLD BUYER" in ad (b) were market-leading claims and would be interpreted by consumers to mean that PGC purchased more gold than any other gold-buying company in the UK.  We considered that PGC's summary of the BBC's One Show survey which, according to PGC, compared the amount quoted by PGC and three other gold-buying companies for an identical amount of gold jewellery, did not substantiate the claims.  We therefore concluded that the claims were misleading.

On this point, the claims in ads (a) and (b) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 and 3.3 (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 (Substantiation).

2. & 3.  Upheld

We considered the results of the mystery shopping exercise and the spreadsheet showing the results.  The aim of the exercise was to compare the best prices quoted by PGC and six competitor companies for an identical weight of 9ct gold.  Each mystery shopper requested gold return packs from each company through their website and followed the instructions to send their gold to the company in question. On receipt of a quotation from the company, the mystery shoppers contacted the relevant company to achieve the best price.  Initial valuations were refused and the mystery shoppers tried to get a higher offer from the company until a final offer was received.  

We noted that the mystery shoppers requested their gold packs on different dates, posted their gold on different dates and received their quotations from the companies sampled on different dates.  We considered that daily fluctuations in gold prices would have likely influenced the results and we considered that a more robust methodology would have ensured that packs were requested and returned on the same date so as to minimise the effect of fluctuating gold prices on the results, although we recognised that the mystery shoppers would have had no control over when the companies provided their quotes.  We noted that PGC had provided a graph showing the daily fluctuations in gold prices during part of the period which showed a 4% swing across that period.  We considered that because the quotes provided by the companies surveyed were given to the nearest pence, even slight daily variations in gold prices could have affected their relative ranking in the price comparison.

We also noted that PGC did not offer the highest average best price; their average best price was £89.25 whereas the average best price for another competitor was £100.  We also noted that PGC's best final offer was £88.74, whereas the same competitor in question gave a final offer of £100.  It was also evident from the spreadsheet that certain companies did not provide any quotes.   We therefore considered that the methodology used in the mystery shopping exercise was not sufficiently robust and noted that the results actually showed that one of PGC's other competitors gave the highest average best price and final offer.

We considered the two letters from Tesco to one of the mystery shoppers.  We noted that one letter offered a price of £83.16 for the gold, and a subsequent letter offered a price of £85.68, which was presumably the final price although the letter did not state this.  We noted that PGC did not provide similar letters from Tesco to the other mystery shoppers, even though the spreadsheet indicated that Tesco had made offers to three other mystery shoppers.  We also noted that Tesco disputed two of the figures contained in the spreadsheet and maintained that it had never offered those amounts to customers.  We therefore considered that the spreadsheet alone was not adequate substantiation.

For these reasons, we considered that the claims "We pay more than our competitors!" and  "WE CAN PAY MORE.  A leading independent research company conducted a mystery shopping exercise with the top 6 postal gold buyers using identical amounts of 9ct gold ... PostGoldForCash £89 ... Tesco £85" in ad (a) had not been substantiated and were therefore misleading.

On these points, the claims in ad (a) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 and 3.3 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation), 3.11 (Exaggeration), 3.38 (Comparisons with identifiable competitors) and 3.40 (Price comparisons).

4.  Upheld

We noted PGC's comments that they considered gold leaf and gold dust were not real gold.  However, we noted that they had not provided any evidence to show this was the case and we understood from the Assay Office that gold leaf and gold dust were real gold.  We therefore considered that the claim "We buy absolutely all kinds of gold, silver and platinum!" in ad (a) was misleading, because a statement in the section headed "Common Questions" clarified that PGC did not buy gold dust or gold leaf.

On this point, the claims in ad (a) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 and 3.3 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation) and 3.11 (Exaggeration).

5. Upheld

We noted PGC's comments that the claim was not a standalone claim and contained a letter confirming how the price comparison had been calculated, although we had not seen this.  However, we noted that the claim was not immediately qualified to explain how the price comparison had been calculated or who the comparison was with.  We considered that PGC could not rely on information contained within the letter to explain the basis of the comparison because there was no signpost on the envelope directing consumers to look inside for further details and it was not obvious where this information could be found.  We therefore concluded that the claim "We pay over double guaranteed" in ad (b) was misleading, because the basis of the comparison was not explained.

On this point, the claim in ad (b) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 and 3.3 (Misleading advertising) and 3.11 (Exaggeration).