PDA

View Full Version : 3 more complaints upheld



1 MEGADROP
05-12-2012, 09:46 PM
http://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/2012/12/sit_up-Ltd/SHP_ADJ_207418.aspx
http://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/2012/12/sit_up-Ltd/SHP_ADJ_206851.aspx -
http://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/2012/12/sit_up-Ltd/SHP_ADJ_205006.aspx -

Thanks to bilky asko on TV Forum for the links

mr_rossi
05-12-2012, 10:02 PM
The first one sounds like James Russell and the second Peter Simon. Kings of bullshit.

Adam82
05-12-2012, 11:26 PM
The tv tuner sounds like paul becque constantly slagging of sky virgin media, when they have this tuner thing.

aqua
06-12-2012, 12:19 AM
Well done to the ASA and to the complainant(s)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Creamedcage
06-12-2012, 01:59 AM
Bid TV are told not to do it again. Is that it? Why no fine?

Bennyxp
06-12-2012, 06:18 AM
http://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/2012/12/sit_up-Ltd/SHP_ADJ_207418.aspx
http://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/2012/12/sit_up-Ltd/SHP_ADJ_206851.aspx -
http://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/2012/12/sit_up-Ltd/SHP_ADJ_205006.aspx -

Thanks to bilky asko on TV Forum for the links

Mine was the second one, and wasn't Peter Simon! lol

vegiboy
06-12-2012, 11:40 AM
"They said that during the presentation the price dropped to 69.99 and then to 59.99 and the host stated that the price was due to an error. They said this was delivered in a manner of jest and mocking disbelief and was not a true statement of serious shock that it was a genuine mistake. They said this was part of the fun gambit that viewers experienced on their channel and was intended as entertainment value, rather than a misrepresentation of the price."

Oh, so they lie to us for entertainment value? Oh, that's ok then! :)

Price Plunge
06-12-2012, 11:42 AM
A-ha! Got caught out for the old "We made a mistake; the price shouldn't have gone so low" trick when they went on to drop the price AGAIN (judgement 1). My guess: James Russell, the lying toad.

And I'm somewhat surprised that the second judgement doesn't relate to Peter Simon, especially given the awkward grammatical constructions used (his speciality). And who does an assistant named Helen (Bates?) usually work with?

The bit that made me laugh the most was Bid TV's excuse for "TV deals" versus "Fixed price purchases" on their website which "offered consumers different shopping experiences" :mysmilie_483:

(Actually I'm bright enough to realise the difference between the two, but of course they don't want you to notice that.)

As for the third, well it could be a number of (lying) presenters responsible here. The tuner reference (not upheld) is spurious in this case, because strictly speaking internet 'radio' stations aren't wireless either.

Anyway, they may not have been directly punished for these three judgements but they all add up in the longer term as things that they're not supposed to do again, and certainly cuts down the amount of lies they can employ on their unsuspecting customers. It will be very interesting to see where they go from here...

bidtvbs
06-12-2012, 11:44 AM
If the second one isn't Peter SImon then it is Mike Mason as it's only those 2 and Russell that work with Helen.

Greenie
06-12-2012, 12:12 PM
The second one can't be Peter Simon because they're complete sentences.

radio_dayz
06-12-2012, 03:41 PM
The second one can't be Peter Simon because they're complete sentences.

Like it.

So true!

Bennyxp
06-12-2012, 08:39 PM
If the second one isn't Peter SImon then it is Mike Mason as it's only those 2 and Russell that work with Helen.

It was indeed mike

Hillary
07-12-2012, 06:42 AM
Why on earth aren't they fined? How do they get away with it? Surely, if some of their lies were advertised in a High St store, they would be prosecuted.

merryone
07-12-2012, 11:58 AM
I wish we were able to see the details of the complaints that were made but not upheld but still dealt with, eg, the presenters verbally misleading the viewers regarding the extra charges, so now they're having to display them in much more bold lettering. Presumably someone has put in a complaint about the B/S that used to surround the JPD fragrances, the massive advert, which turned out to be an infomercial, but it's the for sale in Macy's that got me, surely they wouldn't be able to just lie to the viewers and get away with it, so I reckon (forgive me if I'm being slow...derr!) but I reckon they must have had a "pop up" stand in Macy's at some stage, as you do in Debenhams and BHS sometimes where infomerical products are sold for say one day and a presenter with a microphone does demo's once an hour on the hour...of course that doesn't equate to that store actually stocking the product in question, but in their world, it probably does!

Paul_s
07-12-2012, 01:38 PM
If you ask me the ASA should be shut down as well.

What should happen if a complaint is upheld;

a) All customers who purchased said goods at the time of deception/mis-selling should be written to and offered a choice of full refund and/or return of item free of charge.
b) Sit-up should be fined 10,000.
c) If more than 10 upheld complaints within the same calendar month... ASA should monitor channel daily (months worth) for any breach of ASA codes. (Full ASA costs to be met by sit-up for this monitoring)
d) If still found in breach of ASA codes company must go on a 'Thinking Skills' programme like all the scrotes who end up in Court (who should really goto jail).

that is all.

bilky asko
07-12-2012, 10:40 PM
The first link was Mark Ryes.

Don't forget that the ASA, unlike Ofcom, doesn't have the power to fine, but they can refer cases to Ofcom if they believe it warrants it - the route they took with Auction World.TV

Bennyxp
08-12-2012, 05:08 PM
If you ask me the ASA should be shut down as well.

What should happen if a complaint is upheld;

a) All customers who purchased said goods at the time of deception/mis-selling should be written to and offered a choice of full refund and/or return of item free of charge.


That does happen when the product has been misleadingly sold.

Also, about monitoring the channel. They are! They have told me to give them feedback about everything I find suspicious.


"Thank you for contacting the ASA. We have been in contact with the advertiser regarding your concerns regarding the following case references: A12-214443 and A12-214503.

A12-214443

I understand that you had raised concerns that all of the units had not been sold in a Jewellery Jeopardy programme. The advertiser has confirmed that in this instance the product had sold out before the presenter moved on to the next item. They have explained that although the on screen text showed that there were 14 units still remaining, there is a slight delay between the factual information and how this appears to the viewer. As the advertiser has provided an assurance that all of the units were sold, we consider that further action is not warranted on this occasion.

A12-214503

I understand that you had raised a concern that the presenter in this instance was referring to items being worth 1p and 5p in a multi-buy, however the cost of postage and phone call was not vocally referred to. I can confirm that after receiving similar complaints to yours in relation to this point, this issue is being considered further by our Investigations team. I have therefore added your complaint to that case and one of my colleagues should be in contact with you in due course.

I note that you have a submitted a further two complaints with us recently. Just to let you know that we are currently in the process of obtaining further information from the advertiser in relation to these.


Kind regards,"

1 MEGADROP
08-12-2012, 05:51 PM
I understand that you had raised a concern that the presenter in this instance was referring to items being worth “1p” and “5p” in a multi-buy, however the cost of postage and phone call was not vocally referred to. I can confirm that after receiving similar complaints to yours in relation to this point, this issue is being considered further by our Investigations team. I have therefore added your complaint to that case and one of my colleagues should be in contact with you in due course.

I note that you have a submitted a further two complaints with us recently. Just to let you know that we are currently in the process of obtaining further information from the advertiser in relation to these.


Kind regards,"

Sally Jax was at it again just then with a pair of Amethyst studs for 1 she said you can buy upto 9 of these for just 9, Also the p&p did not say per item