x
By using this website, you agree to our use of cookies to enhance your experience.
Written by rosalind renshaw

Industry watchdog the Advertising Standards Authority has upheld yet another complaint about Spicerhaart.

The group has had six other complaints upheld against it since last December, plus one which was not upheld, and a further four complains which were resolved informally.

This time, the complaint was to do with Spicerhaaart’s new haart ‘super-branch’ agency office in Milton Keynes, which covers a very wide area.

A leaflet contained headline text on the first page which said: “Working to get you the best possible price, in the fastest possible time, talk to haart of Shenley.”
 
The leaflet showed a man superimposed in front of a Sold sign. The text stated “Warren Brandon Shenley” and beneath the image, the text said: “Call haart of Shenley.” 

The second page explained the advantages of using haart and included the text: “The UK’s largest independent agency. We like to think of ourselves as the nation’s local estate agent and work at the centre of communities throughout the country, offering a wealth of experience, knowledge and expertise.” 

The final page said: “Call the Shenley team today to arrange your free valuation.” Under the title ‘haart of Shenley’, a contact telephone number and email address were given and underneath another title of ‘Coverage’ a further five areas and their contact details were listed.

However, a complainant objected that the advert was misleading because it implied that haart had an office in Shenley, when he believed this was not the case.

Spicerhaart Group responded that its Milton Keynes super-branch covered an extended area and, although it did not have physical branches in some locations, the central office did have specialised staff dedicated to the Shenley area.

It told the ASA that those staff spent a significant amount of their time in the area and had as great, if not greater, knowledge and commitment to Shenley than those agents who had a physical presence in that area. It also argued that the ad did not refer to a ‘Shenley Office’ and that the coverage areas clearly listed the same dialling code, indicating the central office in which it was based.

But the ASA upheld the complaint on the grounds that the leaflet made multiple references to ‘haart of Shenley’ and that most consumers would understand it to mean that haart had a branch there.

The ASA said: “We considered that the phrase was also likely to be interpreted as a play-on-words around ‘heart of Shenley’ and that consumers were likely to assume that this element of the haart group were based in the centre of Shenley.

“We considered those consumers would expect any such base to be a physical office where they could easily visit staff straight off the street or through pre-appointment. We also noted the ad pictured a specific member of the Shenley team standing in front of a sold sign which included the phrase ‘the nation’s local agent’ and the repeated phrases ‘haart of Shenley’ and ‘haart is where your home is’.”

Spicerhaart has been told not to use the literature again in its current form.

Comments

  • icon

    absolute clowns

    • 18 June 2010 14:55 PM
  • icon

    Tom: In my opinion you are incorrect in your reading of the situation. This is not about whether an Agent can be 'active' in an area without a window presence - it is about fooling the consumer (by use of clever wording etc) into believing you HAVE got a window presence, in order to win instructions.
    Had they came out with the facts - that they had a team in xxx office dedicated to selling property in yyy, then there would have been no cause for complaint, and no case to answer. But they didn't. And they should know better - it's not the first time that this type of marketing has been hauled up in front of the watchdogs.

    • 18 June 2010 12:54 PM
  • icon

    Agree on this, the notion a customer thinks when an agent says he is working in a certain town / area, that he needs to have an office there, is a litle behind the times. ASA needs to keep up to speed with what is actually going on

    • 18 June 2010 12:36 PM
  • icon

    This was topic of the day on the Modern Estate Agent blog yesterday.

    Personally, whilst I appreciate Spicerhaart and the ASA have history, I think the ASA have got this one wrong.

    Virtual offices and the concept of 'coverage' are perfectly legitimate in modern estate agency.

    Martin

    • 18 June 2010 09:23 AM
  • icon

    The leaflets went out obiovulsy, so they have achieved their goal, and i suppose any press is good press - a suitable fine and perhaps an agreement to get all advertising checked by the ASA before publishing might make them think again?

    • 18 June 2010 09:18 AM
  • icon

    It really is about time the ASA and the Estate Agency profession did something about this appalling company and banned the from operating

    • 18 June 2010 08:56 AM
  • icon

    call robin hood and the sherrif of nottingham to sort it out "robin hood,robin hood riding through the glen,robin hood riding through the glen!

    • 18 June 2010 07:28 AM
  • icon

    Once again the intent was clearly to deceive in order to gain benefit.
    Once again an Asa case, at the public expense, no punishment. Of course they will continue breaking the rules if there is no punishment when they are caught red handed time after time.
    Heavy fines would solve the problem.

    • 18 June 2010 07:08 AM
MovePal MovePal MovePal