As we get closer to the consumer rules in the DMCC Act coming into force, the ASA has issued another ruling illustrating how important it is to get your pricing claims right.

The holiday company Haven published a paid-for Facebook ad which linked to information on its website about a holiday park in Tenby called Penally Court. The ads said that four nights were available from £55 and £59 respectively. 

The complainant was unable to find dates at the advertised prices.  Therefore, they challenged whether the claims were misleading.

Issue

Haven Leisure Ltd said that at the time the ad was seen, there should have been five dates available in 2025 at the advertised price points. Instead, only one break was available to book because two had sold out and two had been incorrectly priced too high. They explained that there was a lower availability of caravans at the Penally Court Holiday Park compared to their other parks, which they had not taken into account when making the price claim. That meant the advertised price points for Penally Court, in contrast to other Haven caravan parks, could have sold out after only one booking...

Haven Leisure said that they had removed the price claims for Penally Court and would ensure promotional prices were dynamically updated in the future.

Holiday... give me a break...

With that explanation in mind, it is not surprising that the ASA upheld the complaints. It said that consumers would have expected four night breaks at the holiday park to be available to book from £55/£59 and that there would be a significant proportion of breaks which started from that price. 

It was not clear why the prices differed between the ads, but in any event, the ASA expected Haven Leisure to hold adequate evidence to substantiate those price claims. At the time the ads appeared, only one break was available to book at one of the advertised price points. It considered that meant there was not a significant number of breaks available at either of the price claims, plus they were not available across a range of dates. It acknowledged that was due to both Penally Court being a small caravan park and because of internal pricing errors. However, because only a small proportion of the available breaks were available at that price, which did not cover a suitable range of dates, the claims were misleading.

Ruling

The ASA upheld the complaint and found the ads breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation), 3.17 and 3.22 (Prices).

Take-away

The ruling is another reminder of the importance of substantiating price claims and the very high bar enforced by the ASA. And a reminder that the ASA has its sights set on businesses large and small!

Get DMCC Ready

The CMA's new powers kick in from April this year. Pricing claims are top of their agenda. If you would like to find out more, visit our Get DMCC Ready hub.