Print This Post
Advertiser: Car Covers Ireland
Medium: Internet (Company Website)
ASAI Code 7th Edition: 2.4(c), 3.10, 4.1, 4.4, 4.9, 4.10
The advertiser’s webpage had at the top left, a silhouette of a car with the words “CarCoversIreland” inside it, in the middle an Irish Flag with the words 100% Irish Owned and on the right an email with a .ie domain.
The description of the Monsoon Outdoor Car Covers for Mazda stated the following:
“Monsoon Outdoor Car Cover to fit your Mazda
Cover is Custom fit to your Mazda Model.”
“Your order will be shipped from our Dublin based warehouse”.
The complainant considered the information contained on the advertiser’s website to be misleading and that the company does not provide custom fitted covers. The complainant also objected to the fact that the advertisers implied they were an Irish company and based in Ireland.
The complainant placed the order based on the fact that the item was designed for his vehicle type, as per product’s information page, and received a receipt from a UK based company www.cover-zone.com . Through correspondence with the advertisers he was advised they did not have an Irish stockist or outlet and that the car covers were generic and intended to fit a variety of vehicles, however, it did not fit his.
The complainant researched www.cover-zone.com company website and found that they did not provide an option to order a cover for his vehicle.
The advertisers acknowledged receipt of the complaint but did not provide a response to the complaint.
The Complaints Committee considered the detail of the complaint. They expressed concern at the advertisers’ failure to respond to the complaint and pointed out that there is an onus on advertisers to ensure that their advertising is in conformity with the Code.
The Committee noted that evidence had not been provided to demonstrate that the company was “100% Irish owned” and based in Ireland nor that the car covers were custom fit. In the absence substantiation and in the absence of a response from the advertisers, the Committee concluded that the advertisement was in breach of Code sections 3.10, 4.1, 4.4, 4.9 and 4.10 of the Code.
The advertising should not run again in its current format.