AquaJoy
Bathlifts Falls Foul of ASA
A
complaint, objecting to a brochure for AquaJoy Bathlifts of Consett, County
Durham was upheld in ten of the twelve objections, according to published
details from the Advertising Standards Authority.
A brochure, for AquaJoy Bathlifts, stated on the front cover 'The No 1
choice for OTs & the Community Equipment Service'. Underneath were
a number of testimonials including ‘ ... 'I especially like how lightweight
the bathlift is and how easy it was to assemble' ... 'I can't believe
how much legroom clients have with this bathlift - its [sic] fantastic'
... 'The best bathlift I have seen to date' ...’. Inside the brochure
text stated ‘AquaJoy Premier Plus Bathlift - Why choose any other?
Healthcare Professionals and Loan Equipment staff have always had a choice
of bathlifts available to them and their clients. However, never before
has a bathlift been designed and developed 100% around their needs ...
the AquaJoy Premier Plus bathlift is more versatile than any other ...
AquaJoy Premier Plus Bathlift - We've Listened Developed and designed
with YOU in mind Features ... Maximises legroom in the bath The easiest
bathlift to take apart and put together ... lightweight ... Ideal for
awkward baths - corner, deep, narrow, short and dimpled ... The AquaJoy
Premier Plus is a two piece, lightweight, battery operated bathlift which
fits into any style of bath ... Why AquaJoy Bathlifts Ltd? ... Bathlift
market leader ... unbeatable levels of customer support throughout the
UK and Europe ... meeting more clients' needs than any other bathlift
has ever done before ...’.
Issue
Mountway Ltd challenged whether the following claims could be substantiated:
1. ‘No 1 choice for OTs & the Community Equipment Service’;
2. ‘ ... never before has a bathlift been designed and developed
100% around (clients') needs’;
3. ‘... the AquaJoy Premier Plus bathlift is more versatile than
any other’;
4. ‘Maximises legroom in the bath’;
5. ‘The easiest bathlift to take apart and put together’;
6. ‘lightweight’;
7. ‘Ideal for awkward baths’;
8. ‘... fits into any style of bath’;
9. ‘Bathlift market leader’;
10. ‘... unbeatable levels of customer support’;
11. ‘... meeting more clients' needs than any other bathlift has
ever done before’; and
12. whether the testimonials on the cover of the brochure were genuine.
The CAP Code: 3.1;7.1;14.1;19.1
Response
1. & 9. AquaJoy Bathlifts (AquaJoy) asserted that, for the financial
year 2006 to 2007, their Premier Plus (PP) bathlift was ranked first within
the bathlift Community Equipment Service (CES) market. They said they
had based the claims ‘bathlift market leader’ and ‘Number
one choice for OTs and the Community Equipment Service’ on the number
of bathlift units sold into the CES market sector. They sent sector market
reports which they believed supported that. They asserted that there was
no exact actual purchasing information available.
2. AquaJoy said they were formed in April 2002 with the aim of supplying
bathlifts mainly to the CES in the U.K. They argued that they had established
themselves as having an excellent reputation in the market place for quality
products and services basing sales around ‘best value’. They
said they had visited most local authorities and attended a vast number
of occupational therapist team meetings and exhibited at large trade exhibitions
to gather feedback on improving the existing products. They asserted that
they wanted to create a bathlift that did more than all the existing bathlifts.
They maintained that they had won an Innovation Award for the PP bathlift
at REHA Germany in October 2005 and they believed they were the first
U.K. bathlift company to get endorsed with the prescription number from
the German authorities. They asserted that they had won many business
awards, locally and nationally and were voted Best Product/Service at
the North East Business Awards 2004. They argued that, before the PP,
there had never been a bathlift designed to be suitable for adults and
children.
3. AquaJoy said, during the design and development stage of the PP bathlift,
they wanted to have the most versatile product on the market so that the
CES market only had to hold one bathlift in stock. They asserted that
they had carried out many joint visits with adult and paediatric occupational
therapists before they designed the PP and, through their feedback, developed
the product to be suitable for adults and children without having to adapt
the product. They believed the PP would do more than other bathlifts and
would be suitable for a wider range of clients needs; they sent customer
feedback forms that they argued substantiated that. They argued that the
PP had many more additional features than Mountway's bathlift and sent
a list of features they asserted the PP had that Mountway's did not. They
also sent a review carried out by Derbyshire County Council (DCC) occupational
therapists, Community Equipment staff and the Health and Safety Officer
identifying the positives and negatives of powered bathlifts on the market.
They said the PP bathlift had won the Innovation Award 2005 at a Rehabilitation
Exhibition in Germany.
4. AquaJoy argued that, due to its slimline backrest, the PP bathlift,
could be positioned as far back in the bath as any other bathlift. They
asserted that, if a bathlift had a smaller seat, as they believed Mountway's
bathlift had, that did not automatically mean more leg room was created.
They asserted that the legroom measurement should be from the backrest
to the tap and it was a myth that a smaller seat would mean more legroom.
They said Derbyshire County Council had carried out an independent evaluation
on the PP bathlift and had shown it provided more legroom than Mountway's
bathlift. They asserted that the suckers on the PP were smaller which
allowed the bathlift to go further back in the bath. They believed a smaller
seat merely allowed for more legroom in the bath itself rather than on
the bath seat. They maintained that they had intended the claim maximises
to mean making greatest or fullest use of rather than maximum.
5. AquaJoy sent customer feedback from the last five years from healthcare
professionals and occupational therapists who had stated the PP was the
easiest bathlift to install. They argued that that feedback substantiated
the claim.
6. AquaJoy sent the weights of all other bathlfts with a motorised action
in the CES market. They showed that the PP was 12.5 kg and there were
three lighter and five heavier bathlifts in the market. They argued that
the PP was lightweight because it was fourth out of a possible 11 bathlifts
in the list and weighed only 2.9 kg more than the lightest available.
They also argued that the PP should be regarded as lightweight because
there were other bathlifts up to 3.5 kg heavier.
7. & 8. AquaJoy said they offered a sale or return option on the PP
because they were confident that it would fit any style of bath. They
asserted that the PP had been designed in size and shape to ensure it
would fit in almost every type of bath. They asserted that the frame of
the bathlift was only 15.2 inches wide, which allowed it to fit in baths
of various shapes and sizes, including awkward shaped and corner baths.
They said their customers could confirm their bathlifts would fit into
short, narrow, deep and corner baths.
AquaJoy asserted that they provided 'sideflap diverters' with every bathlift,
free of charge, which would divert the sideflaps away from the bath handles,
should the bath have any. They said the 'sideflaps' could be easily removed
if the bathlift was fitted into a bath which had a soap tray or awkward,
raised handles.
10. AquaJoy said they had won a number of awards including 'Best New Product
/ Service' for the North East Business Awards in 2005, 'Export Award'
for the North East Business Awards, was runner up for the Chamber of Commerce
Business of the Year Award and was runner up for the Orange Business Awards
3i Growth Strategy Award. They said they were also a member of the British
Healthcare Trades Association (BHTA). They asserted that they had a reputation
for being 100% customer focused and believed they were the only bathlift
company which offered guaranteed next day delivery for any orders including
spares received before 4.00 pm; they asserted that every order received
up to 4.00 pm had been delivered next day to their customers since they
began trading. They said they ensured every phone call was logged and
responded to on the same day. They argued that their warranties were the
best on the market when they first started the business and they believed
their levels of customer support and service had forced others in the
bathlift market to change their service levels. They acknowledged that
Mountway might have won a BHTA award for customer service but maintained
that the BHTA represented mobility dealers not occupational therapists
or the CES market.
11. AquaJoy asserted that, in comparison to other bathlifts on the market,
the PP could cater for a wider range of clients' needs because it offered
more accessories and features than other bathlifts on the market. They
argued that bariartric clients' needs were met by having a 26.7 stone
weight limit as standard which was the highest weight limit available
on the market and visually impaired and partially sighted clients' needs
were met by having convex and concave operating buttons on the hand-control
as standard. They asserted that dark blue covers were available so that
there was a clear distinction between the bathlift and the bath tub, allowing
the client to locate themselves more easily onto the bathlift. They said
arthritic clients' needs were met by being able to use any part of their
hand to operate the hand-control by having the soft to touch convex and
concave operating buttons, and stroke and cerebral palsy clients needs
were met by having the option of upper body support wings which provided
support and created a safer bathing environment.
AquaJoy asserted that palliative care clients, low weight clients and
clients with pressure sores or skin problems had their needs met by having
gel filled covers as an option which created added comfort and padding
for the client. They argued that taller clients or clients with neck problems
had their needs met by having a headrest as an option which provided support
and comfort for the client; adults and children with conditions relating
to lack of upper body control had their needs met by having the option
of upper body support wings, lap harness and chest harness as options
which provided support but also created a safer bathing environment. They
believed children with conditions that affected their sitting control
or position had their needs met by having the option of a push-in pull-out
pommel or a wedge cushion which provided support, comfort and safety for
the child and reassurance for the parent.
12. AquaJoy asserted that all of the testimonials were genuine and sent
copies of them.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA noted the sales data sent by AquaJoy. We considered that readers
would understand the claim ‘No 1 choice for OTs & the Community
Equipment Service’ to mean that AquaJoy bathlifts were the best-selling
bathlifts among occupational therapists and the CES market. We noted the
evidence sent by AquaJoy stated that they were in more CES stores than
any other bathlift provider and claimed they had a higher 'approximate
annual usage' than any other provider. We understood that the 'approximate
annual usage' figure represented the volume of bathlifts CES stores estimated
they might purchase and was calculated by AquaJoy using their own market
research through contacting individual CES stores. We considered that,
because it was based only on an estimate of what CES stores might purchase,
the 'approximate annual usage' figure was not an accurate total sales
figure. We considered that the evidence did not show that Aquajoy had
sold more bathlifts to occupational therapists and the CES market than
any other bathlift provider and concluded therefore that the claim was
misleading.
On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation),
7.1 (Truthfulness) and 19.1 (Other comparisons).
2. Upheld
We considered that the claim ‘ ... never before has a bathlift been
designed and developed 100% around (clients') needs’ implied that
AquaJoy were the first UK company to design and develop their product
solely around their clients' needs. We noted they had undertaken customer
research to aid the design and development of the PP. We noted, however,
Mountway had also undertaken customer research to help design and develop
their products. We considered that we had not seen evidence to show that
no other bathlift manufacturer had previously designed and developed their
products based solely on their customers needs or that the PP was designed
and developed solely around customers needs; we concluded that the claim
was therefore misleading.
On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation),
7.1 (Truthfulness) and 19.1 (Other comparisons).
3. Upheld
We noted AquaJoy had sent customer feedback forms which showed that some
customers believed the PP was better than any other bathlift. We also
noted AquaJoy had set out to create the most versatile product on the
market and the independent evidence from DCC compared the positives and
negatives of powered bathlifts. We noted, however, the evidence from DCC
did not compare all bathlifts available on the market. We considered that
the claim ‘... the AquaJoy Premier Plus bathlift is more versatile
than any other’ implied that the PP bathlift had more features and
uses and was likely to fit into more styles of bath than any other bathlift.
Because we had not seen evidence to show that that was the case, we considered
that the claim was misleading.
On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 7.1 (Truthfulness) and
19.1 (Other comparisons).
4. Not upheld
We noted AquaJoy's assertion that the PP could be positioned as far back
in the bath as any other bathlift. We considered that the claim ‘Maximises
legroom in the bath’ did not imply that the PP offered more legroom
than all other bathlifts. We agreed that legroom should be measured from
the back of the seat to the end of the bath and considered that because
the suckers on the PP were smaller, allowing the bathlift to go further
back in the bath, the PP made the best use of the space in the bath to
offer individuals the maximum legroom they would need. We concluded that
the claim was therefore unlikely to mislead.
On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation),
7.1 (Truthfulness) and 19.1 (Other comparisons) but did not find it in
breach.
5. Upheld
We noted the customer feedback Aquajoy sent showed that many customers
believed the PP was the easiest two-piece reclining bathlift to assemble,
install and operate. We considered, however, that readers were likely
to interpret the claim ‘The easiest bathlift to take apart and put
together’ to mean that the PP was easier to put together and take
apart than any other bathlift on the market, not just two-piece reclining
bathlifts. We also considered that customer feedback alone was not sufficient
to support the claim and that we would need to see documentary evidence
to show that the PP was the easiest bathlift to take apart and put together.
Because we had not seen that evidence, we considered that the claim was
misleading.
On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation),
7.1 (Truthfulness) and 19.1 (Other comparisons).
6. Upheld
We considered that, in the context of the leaflet, readers were likely
to understand the claim ‘lightweight’ to mean that the PP was
of a similar weight to the lightest bathlifts available. We noted, based
on Aquajoy's evidence, there were some bathlifts that were heavier than
the PP and some that were lighter. We noted one bathlift was 2.9 kg lighter
than the PP and the PP was only 0.5 kg lighter than the average weight.
We also noted the PP was around a third again heavier than the lightest
bathlift and considered that that was a significant difference in weight
for a bathlift. We concluded therefore that, because it was closer in
weight to the average than the lightest bathlifts, the claim ‘lightweight’
was likely to mislead readers.
On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 7.1 (Truthfulness) and
19.1 (Other comparisons).
7. & 8. Upheld
We noted AquaJoy's assertion that the PP would fit in almost every type
of bath and that they believed their customers could confirm that. We
also noted Mountway had referred to several different styles of bath into
which they believed the PP would not fit and other styles which the PP
was not well suited to. We considered that, to substantiate the claims
‘Ideal for awkward baths’ and ‘fits into any style of bath’
we would need to see documentary evidence to show that the PP could fit
into all styles of bath and that it was better than some other bathlifts
for fitting into awkward shaped baths; we considered that customer testimonials
alone were not sufficient evidence to support such claims. Because we
had not seen evidence, we considered that the claims were misleading.
On points 7 & 8, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation),
7.1 (Truthfulness) and 19.1 (Other comparisons).
9. Upheld
We considered that readers were likely to understand the claim ‘Bathlift
market leader’ to mean that Aquajoy had sold more bathlifts than
any other provider, in all sectors. We noted Aquajoy had based the claim
on the number of bathlifts sold in the CES market only. We noted the evidence
sent by Aquajoy stated that they were in more CES stores than any other
bathlift provider and claimed they had a higher 'approximate annual usage'
than any other provider.
We considered, however, that, for the reasons stated in point one, that
evidence was not sufficient to show that Aquajoy had sold more bathlifts
to occupational therapists and the CES market than any other bathlift
provider. We considered that, because we had not seen evidence to show
that Aquajoy had sold more bathlifts than any other provider, in all sectors,
the claim was misleading.
On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation),
7.1 (Truthfulness) and 19.1 (Other comparisons).
10. Not upheld
We noted AquaJoy had won business awards and their assertion that they
provided a high level of customer support. We also noted their argument
that Mountway's customer service award from the BHTA was not relevant
because it represented mobility dealers only. We considered that readers
were likely to understand the claim ‘... unbeatable levels of customer
support’ to mean that AquaJoy offered a level of customer support
that could not be beaten by other bathlift providers; other bathlift providers
might offer a similar high level of customer support but none of them
could provide a superior level. We considered that the evidence sent by
AquaJoy and Mountway showed they both offered high levels of customer
support; however, we considered that neither company's customer support
was clearly superior to the other. Because we understood that no other
bathlift provider offered a superior level of customer support to AquaJoy,
we concluded that the claim was not misleading.
On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code clauses 7.1 (Truthfulness)
and 19.1 (Other comparisons) but did not find it in breach.
11. Upheld
We noted the evidence sent by AquaJoy showed the PP bathlift met a large
number of customer needs. We considered, however, that the claim ‘...
meeting more clients' needs than any other bathlift has ever done before’
implied that Aquajoy met more clients' needs than any other bathlift manufacturer
had previously done. Because we had seen no evidence to show that that
was the case, we concluded therefore that the claim was misleading.
On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 7.1 (Truthfulness) and
19.1 (Other comparisons).
12. Upheld
We noted Aquajoy had sent copies of comments they had received from clients.
We noted, however, some of those comments were significantly different
to the testimonials used in the ad. The Code stated that testimonials
should only be used with the written permission of those making them.
As we had not seen evidence to show that the people who had given the
testimonials had given their written permission for Aquajoy to use them
we concluded that they should not have been used.
On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 7.1 (Truthfulness) and
14.1 (Testimonials and endorsements).
Action
We told AquaJoy to remove the claims that were found in breach and to
ensure testimonials were accurate and they obtained written permission
before publishing them in future. We advised them to seek guidance from
the CAP Copy Advice team for any claims used in their future advertising.
