ASA Adjudication on BYZ Property Services

Ad

A press ad for an estate agent stated in the headline “Moving house? 0% Commission 0% Hassle 100% Satisfaction”. Body copy text at the bottom of the ad stated “Be wise think BYZ - Pay no commission for our services - One off fee of £299 (plus VAT) - We handle all enquiries for you - Your local, friendly, Reading Estate Agents”.

Issue

1. Spicerhaart objected that the claim "0% Commission" was misleading and was contradicted by the body copy text because they believed the one-off fee was, in effect, a commission.

2. The ASA challenged whether the claim "One off fee of £299 (plus VAT)" was in breach of the Code, because it presented a price in an ad addressed to the general public that excluded VAT.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

1. BYZ Property Services (BYZ) said they were an estate agent that did not charge any commission, but rather had a standard set fee for customers. They sent us a copy of their agency agreement which confirmed they would not charge a commission, but outlined their three options of service and their corresponding fees. BYZ sent examples of other websites which made the same "0% commission" claim that similarly went on to state in additional text that they charged a one-off fee.

2. BYZ said there were not aware of the requirement to include VAT in the price and would take action to amend it.

Assessment

1. Not upheld

The ASA considered that readers would understand that a commission fee would be a percentage deduction from the total sale price of a property and would also understand that a one-off fee was distinct from a commission fee. We noted that the ad did not state or imply that there would be no cost at all to consumers, and we considered that readers would not expect an estate agent to provide their services free of charge. We acknowledged that the body copy text "One off fee of £299 (plus VAT)" made it clear that a fee applied for BYZs services and considered that it did not contradict the overall "0% commission" claim. We therefore concluded that the ad was unlikely to mislead.

On this point, we investigated under CAP Code clause 7.1 (Truthfulness) but did not find the ad in breach.

2. Upheld

We welcomed BYZs assurance that they would amend future ads so that prices were inclusive of VAT. Because the ad, addressed to the general public, presented a price excluding VAT, we concluded it had breached the Code.

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clause 15.2 (Prices).

Action

The ad must not appear again in its current form.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)