Advertisment
The advertisement was seen on a page of the advertisers’ own website which listed various vehicles for rent, some of which were marked as being “guaranteed” vehicles while others were marked as being that vehicle “or similar”.
The vehicle at the centre of this complaint was a BMW X5 SUV which was listed on the website as a “guaranteed model”.
Complaint
The complainant said that having seen the BMW X5 advertised as a “guaranteed vehicle” on the advertisers’ website, they proceeded to make a booking to rent the car for an upcoming trip to Latvia. However, they noticed that on the advertisers’ app, the BMW X5 was marked as being that vehicle “or similar” after they had made the booking.
The complainant said that they contacted the advertisers for clarification in this regard and were informed that the vehicle was not a guaranteed model, and that the renter would receive whichever vehicle was similar and available. The complainant therefore considered the advertising to be misleading.
Response
The advertisers said that the BMW X5 was guaranteed as advertised on their Irish website for customers wishing to rent the vehicle in Latvia. They clarified that where a vehicle was not a guaranteed model, it was advertised as being that model “or similar”.
The advertisers explained that when booking this category of vehicle for collection at Riga Airport, it was booked on a ‘request’ basis. The advertisers said that this was advertised throughout the booking process.
Further Information:
The Executive replicated the customer journey as if booking a car to be collected at Riga Airport. Nowhere throughout the booking process, right up to the confirmation of details, did it state that the advertised vehicle was only available upon request.
Conclusion
Complaint Upheld.
The Complaints Committee considered the detail of the complaint and the advertisers’ response.
The Committee considered that the use of the words “guaranteed vehicle” within the advertising created the impression that there were no terms and conditions which would affect deliverance of the vehicle. As the vehicle was in fact only available on a request basis and therefore not always guaranteed, the Committee considered that the advertisement had the potential to mislead consumers and that it was therefore in breach of the Code at sections 4.01, 4.04, 4.27 and 4.28(a)(b).
Action Required:
The advertisement must not reappear in its current form.
