Pay-day loan provider WageDayAdvance Ltd has been told not to repeat its television advert.
A TV ad for a pay-day loan service was viewed in February 2012, and was presented in the style of a news report. The presenter stated “In other news: Kim a teacher from Aberdeen wanted to avoid her banks unauthorised overdraft fees, so she borrowed £70 at a cost of £20.65 payable on her next pay day. Nice!” Large on-screen text stated “SHE BORROWED £70 AT A COST OF £20.65”. On-screen text at the bottom of the screen during the ad stated “£80 loan for 28 days = £23.60 charges. Total of £103.62 repayable after 28 days in a single payment. REPRESENTATIVE APR = 2814.2%.”
19 complainants, who did not believe the superimposed text was legible, objected that the ad was misleading. One complainant challenged whether the APR was sufficiently prominent in the ad.
The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) noted that the superimposed text complied with the BCAP guidelines in terms of size and duration of hold, but also noted that the Code required advertisers to present qualifications clearly.
The complainants said they were unable to read the text, and that many described it as “squashed”. The ASA considered that the superimposed text did have a squashed appearance, and that consumers viewing that ad on TV might not be able to read it. It also noted this was in contrast to other on-screen text in the ad, such as “SHE BORROWED £70 AT A COST OF £20.65” in which the text was large and easy to read. The ASA found that the superimposed text was the only place in which the APR appeared in the ad, and considered this was information that could affect the decision of consumers to take out a loan. Because the superimposed text was not presented clearly, and contained information that could be material to a consumer’s transactional decision, The ASA concluded that the ad was misleading.
On this point the ad breached BCAP Code rules 3.1 and 3.2 (Misleading advertising) and 3.11 (Qualification).
The ad watchdog heard that Clearcast and WageDayAdvance believed the APR was sufficiently prominent. However, the Consumer Credit (Advertisements) Regulations 2010 stated that, where a credit advertisement included an amount relating to the cost of the credit, the ad was required to contain a representative example that must include the APR. The ASA also noted the regulations stated the example must be more prominent than any other information relating to the cost of the credit in the credit advertisement.
The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) confirmed that if an ad contains trigger information then it must also contain a representative APR, and where the trigger is financial information it must include this as part of a representative example. They considered that the presenter stating “she borrowed £70 at a cost of £20.65 payable on her next pay day” and the on-screen text “SHE BORROWED £70 AT A COST OF £20.65” both constituted trigger information. In their opinion the on-screen APR and other representative information was not more prominent than this trigger information.
The voice-over in the ad stated “[S]he borrowed £70 at a cost of £20.65 payable on her next pay day” and that large on-screen text stated “SHE BORROWED £70 AT A COST OF £20.65”. As these statements both related to the cost of the credit the ASA felt that the representative example, including the APR, should have been more prominent than these statements.
The superimposed text that included the APR appeared throughout the majority of the ad, and was on-screen when the voice-over and larger on-screen text referred to the cost of the credit. However, this was the only place in which the APR appeared during the ad, that the presenter did not refer to the APR and that the superimposed text was much smaller than the on-screen text featuring the cost of credit.
The ASA therefore considered that, in the context of the whole ad, the APR was not more prominent than the other information relating to the cost of the credit. It therefore concluded that the ad breached the Code.
On this point the ad breached BCAP Code rules 3.1 and 3.2 (Misleading advertising), 3.11 (Qualification) and 14.11 (Lending and credit).
The ASA told the pay-day lender that the ad must not appear again in its current form.