Advertisment
The advertisers’ website provided the following information.
“Welcome to Dublin Plumbers
Are you looking for the best Plumbers Dublin? Dublin Plumbers can provide you with Fast, Professional and Reliable Plumbers. There is no Job too big or small. We offer a 24/7 helpline and Emergency Callout Service throughout Dublin. All of our highly experienced Plumbers are fully insured and qualified. We don’t charge any call out fee and offer the best plumbing services available in Dublin. Dublin Plumbing can deliver all of our professional services at guaranteed low prices!”
Complaint
The complainant queried the advertisers’ statement that they provided “guaranteed low prices” as she said they charged €120 + VAT for a full hours work even when the job only took five minutes. She said that every other company she had spoken to did not charge this amount. She said when she queried the amount with the advertisers they told her that that the amount she was charged was the plumber’s fee and they were simply passing it on. The complainant considered, however, that that if they had chosen the plumber they had a duty to verify that the price would be guaranteed to be a ‘low price’.
The complainant also considered the website to be misleading in content as it was her view that the advertisers were a maintenance company who sourced plumbers to carry out work on their behalf. In the circumstances she queried if this was the case how they could possibly guarantee ‘low prices’.
FURTHER INFORMATION: The Executive contacted the plumbing company who had carried out the work for the complainant. They said that they were handling relief on behalf of Dublin-plumbing.ie as their normal plumber was away. They said the person who had visited her premises was a gas engineer, not a regular plumber, and that is why the cost was higher.
Response
Dublin-pluming.ie failed to respond to the complaint.
Conclusion
Complaint Upheld.
The Complaints Committee considered the detail of the complaint and expressed their concern at the advertisers’ failure to respond to the complaint. The Committee noted that substantiation for the advertised claims had not been provided. In the circumstances they upheld the complaint under Sections 3.10, 4.1, 4.4, 4.9 and 4.10 of the Code.
ACTION REQUIRED: The advertisement should not be used in the same format again unless the advertisers can substantiate the claims made.
