Household

The advertisement was text above a search bar on the advertisers’ website.

The text read: –

‘Interested in becoming a Bord na Móna Recycling Customer?’

Beneath the text there was a search bar for a consumer to enter their address to assess their eligibility for the service. Beneath the search bar it stated:

“Enter your full address or Eircode below to learn more about services in your area”

After a consumer entered their details, and if it was found that their address was in the catchment area for the advertisers’ service, they were presented with a message which read: –

‘Good news! We serve your area. / Open your account today with a €50 payment’

Below this the consumer was presented with the price plans on offer for the service.

Under the details of the plans on offer a footnote stated: –

‘**Subject to area availability’

The complainant considered the advertisement was misleading as they had entered their Eircode into the ‘address checker’ and had been told they were eligible for the service. They had paid a €50 activation fee based on this information. They did not receive the service advertised as when an employee of the advertisers attempted to deliver their bins that they would need to avail of the service it was found that the complainant was outside the catchment area.

The advertisers said that they took all customer concerns seriously and they were committed to transparency in their advertising. They appreciated the opportunity to respond to this specific complaint.

They said that the online address checker was designed to provide the most accurate information available regarding service availability. Due to operational reasons- such as collection routes, borders, and infrastructure- they conceded that while the online address checker may have given an impression of ‘service confirmation’ to a customer, a further manual check may have been required.

They said that in light of the complaint they had initiated a review concerning the operation of the online tool. They said that the language on the address checker results screen would be updated to include that the outcome was indicative only, and subject to routing confirmation. The advertisers went on to say that they would be working with their technical partner to refine how the boundaries were defined. They would also seek to improve customer communication and would inform customers that a final verification would be necessary before the service could be activated. They said that if a customer signed up online and was later found to be ineligible, then an apology was issued, and their sign-up deposit was refunded.

Upheld:
The Complaints Council considered the detail of the complaint and the advertisers’ response. The Council noted that the advertising had been amended to state “Service availability subject to email confirmation”.

The Complaints Council noted the original advertising was an invitation to check whether services were provided in an area and that in order to check, a consumer had to provide their address or Eircode. The Council also noted that the messaging to advise that an area was served stated “Good News! We serve your area” and that the reasonable impression created by such a message was that the results were accurate, particularly as price plans were included on the webpage together with a ‘sign up’ button. Notwithstanding the statement “Good News! We serve your area”, the Council noted that manual checks may be required in order to determine whether an address was within the relevant catchment area.
The Council also noted that the results webpage had included a footnote, in small font, at the bottom of the page stating that the service was “subject to area availability”. The Council considered that the fact that the service may not be available despite favourable results from the address checker, coupled with the location of the notification that the service was subject to area availability, could mislead consumers as to the availability of the service. In the circumstances, they considered that the advertising at the time of the complaint was in breach of Sections 4.1 and 4.4 of the Code.

Action Required:
As the advertising had been amended, no further action was required.