The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) ruled that two direct mailing adverts from Dunfermline-based CORGI HomePlan Ltd comparing coverage deals with their competitors did not make it sufficiently clear that the packages included different services.

An advertisement received in February 2016 claimed that a CORGI HomePlan policy could cost less than half of that offered by one of its competitors.

Another advertisement dated 29^th October 2015 claimed that its competitor’s plan would carry an average monthly premium of £28.75 over two years, while their own would cost only £17.50.

However, the ASA found that while both deals covered central heating, boiler, plumbing and electrics, the more expensive competitor’s package also covered pests, security, roofing and repairs to dripping taps and running toilets.

In addition, the plan in the October advert did not include cover for the water supply pipe, gas supply pipe or drains, elements that were covered by the rival’s plan.

Furthermore, one advertisement did not reference the exclusion of tap and toilet repairs, while the other did not reference gas supply and water repairs.

Although CORGI HomePlan highlighted these additional services in a footnote on the advertisements, the ASA ruled that the size and placement of the text was not sufficiently prominent to make the differences clear to consumers.

In response, CORGI HomePlan insisted that their competitor’s bundle was the closest match in terms of a “like for like” comparison and that the ads made clear that their own cover plan was subject to applicable limitations and exceptions.

The firm also believed that any differences between the two products were minor in nature.

Despite this, the ASA concluded that the comparisons in both adverts were misleading.

CORGI HomePlan was told that the adverts must not appear again in the forms complained about, and instructed to ensure that comparisons with identifiable competitors make all significant differences between products clear to consumers.