Advertisment
Ad 1:
The www.murraymotorsport.com website as a whole was referenced by the complainant but a specific product listing of a “sport Jet helmet” was provided for example purposes. The listing displayed the product as £301.75 when the customer chose their preferred currency.
On the checkout page the delivery price was listed above a highlighted yellow box which read:
** UK CUSTOMERS PLEASE READ**
Shipments to mainland UK are subject to 20% VAT along with a handling fee (£10-£20) which will be charged to you by the shipping company before you receive the shipment.
Below this was a selection box that was required to be clicked in order to proceed. It stated: I confirm that I have read and accept this condition.
Ad 2:
The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) Executive provided the advertisers with the same product listing as it appeared to consumers when the Irish flag was selected to denote Euro as the customers preferred currency. The listing displayed the product as €355.00 +VAT and was followed by the product description.
Complaint
Issue 1:
The complainant, a UK resident, said that the www.murraymotorsport.com website was advertising prices without VAT included and didn’t make this clear until checkout that the prices excluded VAT. The complainant stated that this information only appeared after selecting a delivery option, which they found misleading.
Issue 2:
The ASA Executive raised the Issue of tax not being included in the price presented on the Irish version of the site.
Response
Issue 1:
The advertisers stated that they assumed the customer was based in mainland UK, and if so, then it was correct that their website did not display the prices including VAT, or any note referring to it on the product page.
They stated that they were based in the EU, and that the UK was not in the EU, and so they were selling items to all non-EU countries DAP, meaning that they paid their local taxes/import fees in their own countries. They advised that this payment was managed by the shipping company customers chose.
They stated that the same applied if a customer was based in USA, Australia, UAE etc. They stated they did not display their prices including each USA states taxes, or reference to their prices excluding them, nor did they display “excluding gst + import fees” for Australian customers.
They stated that they made it very clear before the customer checked out, that they would be charged import fees calculated by HMRC, by the shipping company. They advised this was the same situation if any UK based customer purchased from any EU based company, who were shipping under DAP terms.
Issue 2:
The advertisers did not respond to the matter raised at issue 2.
Conclusion
Issue 1: Upheld.
The Independent Complaints Council considered the detail of the complaint and the advertisers’ response.
The Council noted the requirement of the Code that a marketing communication should
not mislead, or be likely to mislead, by inaccuracy, ambiguity, exaggeration, omission or otherwise.
The Council noted that in this case where the product was advertised to UK consumers, the price quoted was exclusive of VAT and did not specify until the check-out page that consumers would be subject to 20% VAT and a handling fee of £10-£20. The Council also noted that in this case the VAT and handling fee was collected at the point of delivery.
The Council considered that to comply with the Code it should be clear to consumers before they start their purchase journey that there would be additional costs payable to the delivery company.
The Council considered that the absence of an indication what the additional costs would be was likely to mislead and therefore the advertising was in breach of Code Sections 4.1.
Issue 2: Upheld.
The Council expressed concern at the advertisers’ failure to respond to the complaint raised at issue 2. They reminded them that there is an onus on advertisers to ensure that their advertising is in conformity with the Code.
The Council noted the requirement of the Code that, except in marketing communications addressed primarily to the trade, prices quoted in a marketing communication should normally include VAT and other taxes, duties or inescapable costs to the consumer. The Council noted that in this case, the advertisement listed the product price with “+VAT” beside it. The Council noted that to comply with the Code requirement it was not sufficient to include +VAT beside the VAT-exclusive price.
The Council considered that the price quoted in the advertisement should have included VAT and in the absence of a VAT inclusive price, the advertising was in breach of Code Sections 4.1 and 4.23.
Action Required:
For non-EU purchases, the advertising must be amended to indicate that additional costs would arise from on delivery, with an indication of what they would be.
For EU purchase, the advertising must be amended to display a total price inclusive of VAT.
