ASA Adjudication
In 2006 the Advertising Standards Authority - (ASA) adjudicated in favour of Elka Heating in a complaint brought by the company "Electrorad" and found the claims of Elka Heating to be true and/or not likely to mislead. Summary below or
View the full adjudication on the ASA website.
Adjudication Conclusions
1. Complaint not upheld
The ASA noted the documentation sent by Elka Heating demonstrated that the company had been in continuous family ownership since 1945 and had manufactured electrical and heating related products. We noted the CAP Copy Advice team had advised Elka Heating that the claim "Mfg Est since 1946" was likely to be seen as a reference to the German manufacturer, not the particular product. We considered that readers would understand from the claim "Mfg Est Since 1946" that the manufacturer had been established since 1946. We considered that readers were unlikely to infer that the advertised product had been manufactured continuously since 1946. We concluded the claim was unlikely to mislead.
On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness) but did not find it in breach.
2. Complaint not upheld
We noted the CAP Copy Advice team had advised Elka Heating that "no other heating can compare" was likely to be acceptable under Code clause 8.1, which stated "marketers may give a view about any matter, including the qualities… of their products, provided it is clear that they are expressing their own opinion rather than stating a fact." We considered that the claim was unlikely to be seen by readers as a direct qualitative comparison to other heating products because it was presented as an opinion and the ad did not refer to any other types of heating. We concluded that the ad was unlikely to mislead.
On this point we investigated the ad under CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 19.1 (Comparisons) but did not find it in breach.
Action
No further action required.