The ASA...

Hi there long time lurker first time poster.

Was watching Bid one night when I saw them flouting a ruling set by the ASA and submitted a claim. Got an email reply back from them a few days later stating that

"we have previously adjudicated on the claims you outline in your recent complaint to us and therefore we have concluded this challenge will be best dealt with by our Compliance Team"

I was wondering if anyone else has had something like this and how it panned out? :thinking: As it seems to be ongoing I'm being deliberately vague as to the nature of the complaint.

Great work so far on attempting to get them to clean up their act though :up:

sharpinf said:

Hi there long time lurker first time poster.

Was watching Bid one night when I saw them flouting a ruling set by the ASA and submitted a claim. Got an email reply back from them a few days later stating that

"we have previously adjudicated on the claims you outline in your recent complaint to us and therefore we have concluded this challenge will be best dealt with by our Compliance Team"

I was wondering if anyone else has had something like this and how it panned out? :thinking: As it seems to be ongoing I'm being deliberately vague as to the nature of the complaint.

Great work so far on attempting to get them to clean up their act though :up:

Click to expand...

I have never had that sort of notice from them, if they are ignoring a ruling it sounds as if they could be in trouble.

In the words of a particularly dreadful Bid presenter it would be 'delicious' if they get their comeuppance.

I totally agree you shouldn't discuss specifics but thanks for letting us all know the gist of it, well done.

And enjoy the forum, it's great fun and people on here are really helping many unsuspecting Sit Up victims erm sorry, customers.

Hi there sharpinf and welcome, it's good to have you with us
We've been campaigning for honesty and slowly things are beginning to change - Rome wasn't built in a day though!

I haven't heard a response like that but I did find the following from the ASA.....

If advertisers continue to place ads that repeatedly break the Code or seem deliberately to be refusing to work within the self-regulatory system, we can take repeat offender action against them.
In deciding whether to take action, we look at the advertiser’s compliance record, including how many formal or informal investigations the ASA has undertaken against them; how many other breaches the ASA or CAP has found and whether they have been using our Copy Advice service and following the advice given.
The action we take depends on the number, nature and severity of the Code breaches.
Usually we request a written assurance that the advertiser will act to improve its compliance record and sometimes request a meeting to discuss possible remedies to specific problems or to offer advice about future ads.

I agree with Wirral, it looks like they could be in trouble this time

Has this recent ASA adjudication been posted here yet?
http://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/2013/2/sit_up-Ltd/SHP_ADJ_214235.aspx

aqua said:

Has this recent ASA adjudication been posted here yet?
http://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/2013/2/sit_up-Ltd/SHP_ADJ_214235.aspx

Click to expand...

that's an interesting one aqua
so we're looking at the 'limited stock' thing here.........hmmm, this will be interesting!

aqua said:

Has this recent ASA adjudication been posted here yet?
http://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/2013/2/sit_up-Ltd/SHP_ADJ_214235.aspx

Click to expand...

There is an existing thread about this ruling but you are quite right to raise it again, this is a particularly sneaky tactic.

Since this ruling I have sadly witnessed a very similar example of this tactic in use.

I'm beginning to think the ASA is a waste of time

Hillary said:

I'm beginning to think the ASA is a waste of time

Click to expand...

It would be easy to consider them toothless Hilary, then again they are funded by the industry they regulate.

However, even they will surely not ignore an advertiser potentially flouting their own rulings. If they do then it may be a case of contacting Trading Standards, or OFCOM.

Personally I don't think they would, if the evidence is there. But make no mistake, there is much evidence to suggest Sit Up are still potentially misleading customers. Just yesterday I witnessed a presenter, on two separate sales, making completely and utterly false claims about the bundled free software provided on a Tablet Computer and I really do mean totally false.

Once could be a mistake, twice is not acceptable and even less so when the claim was very detailed. It certainly wasn't a passing comment.