Property (Commercial)

Advertising in legal magazines referred to the fact that Finders International was:
“Regulated by the IAPPR – The Probate research Regulator”.

The complainants, Erin International, said the statement “Regulated by the IAPPR – the Probate research Regulator” was misleading to both professionals and consumers as there was no probate research regulator in existence. They said that the founder of Finders International had set up the organisation and claimed that their own organisation was regulated by them, thus giving the impression that they were being regulated by a separate entity which was not the case. They said the use of this statement implied that the advertisers were more reputable than their competitors and therefore put other companies at a disadvantage.

The complainants said they had been asked by their clients who had read the statement if they were also regulated by the IAPPR as they had also considered the IAPPR to be an official regulator.

The advertisers said they had not anticipated that their advertising would be considered to be misleading. They said they had adjusted the wording used and instead of saying “Regulated by the IAPPR – The Probate Research Regulator” they would say “Regulated by the International Association of Professional Probate Researchers www.iappr.org” The advertisers said that the IAPPR was a company limited by guarantee which meant that all members had an equal share in the organisation which was governed by the memorandum and articles of association. All members had to abide by their code of conduct. Should a complaint be received against any member of the IAPPR the Company Secretary had the power to conduct an independent investigation and recommend any sanction to the Executive Committee, the ultimate being expulsion from the organisation. To date they said this had not been necessary.
In conclusion the advertisers said they had a very strict process in place for vetting those who wished to become members of their organisation. Before being accepted for membership, prospective members had to be unanimously approved by the existing members and provide the required documentation to the company. Nevertheless, they said they had made changes to their advertising and there was now no reference to the IAPPR being “a regulator” or “the regulator, and they had also e-mailed their members to inform them not to refer to the IAPPR in those terms in the future.

Complaint upheld.

The Complaints Committee considered the detail of the complaint and the advertisers’ response and noted that the advertisement had been discontinued.

The Complaints Committee considered the claim that had been made, “Regulated by the IAPPR – The Probate research Regulator”. The Committee noted that the IAPPR was established by and had in membership organisations in the probate research field, although without universal coverage. They considered that the use of the definitive article ‘The’ in the phrase ‘The Probate research Regulator’ could imply that the organisation had either universal coverage or was a State Regulator, rather than an industry membership-only organisation. Without qualification, they considered that the claim had the potential to mislead consumers and was in breach of Section 4.1 and 4.4 of the Code.

Action Required:

As the advertising had been amended no further action was required in this case.