Google: Adverts needed more information
Three accident claims management companies – one of which is owned by a law firm – have been found in breach of the Advertising Standards Authority’s (ASA) rules.
Their online adverts had common problems: failing to be clear that they only handled non-fault claims and making it sound like consumers would definitely save money by using them instead of going to their insurer.
The ASA said the rulings formed part of “a wider piece of work on misleadingness in ads for accident claims management companies”.
In January, it upheld complaints over three claims management companies whose adverts it found misleading by implying that were from well-known car insurance providers through which consumers could report non-fault accidents.
It is also taking action on adverts about group actions and motor finance claims.
The latest decisions related to Accident Claim Helpline, owned by Manchester law firm Exclusive Law; Motor Claims Line, owned by Manchester company CC Response NW Ltd; and UK Motor Claims, owned by iRevolution Claims Ltd in Sunderland.
The ASA identified the problem adverts and landing pages itself, saying that consumers involved in an accident “were generally likely to be in a hurry to get assistance, and might search online for such help shortly, if not immediately, after the accident, when they were likely to be particularly vulnerable”.
It found the Google search adverts failed to make clear that the companies only dealt with no-fault claims and implied that using the services would come at no cost to the consumer – and indeed would be better financially than going through their insurer.
“However, we understood that consumers who claimed through an accident claims management company could incur additional costs that they would not usually be liable for under their insurance policy,” the regulator said.
“We understood that consumers using such services became liable for costs when they entered into a credit agreement, for example, when a replacement car was arranged. While typically costs would be met by the third-party driver’s insurer, that could not be guaranteed.”
Small text at the bottom of the Accident Claims Helpline webpage – which the ASA said consumers may well overlook – stated: “There is nothing to pay up front for our services and all costs are recovered Via the at Fault parties [sic] insurer (TPI). Personal Injury Claims are ‘NO WIN NO FEE’ and the success fee is deducted at the end of the successful claim directly from the damages paid VIA the TPI it is not paid by our clients.”
The ASA said this did not make clear the risks or costs associated with making a claim using its services if a claim was disputed or unsuccessful, “or how costs were recovered and fees deducted via the ‘no win no fee’ arrangement”.
The ASA deprecated efforts to discourage consumers from contacting their insurers as well. The UK Motor Claims webpage was headed “Going to your car insurance provider after an accident is crazy!!!!”.
It said: “While we recognised consumers might choose to use an accident claims management company to handle a claim, we understood that most insurance policies required policyholders to notify their insurer of any accident, regardless of whether any damage was caused to their vehicle, irrespective of whether a claim was made, or of who was at fault.
“We further understood that failing to notify an insurer could affect future cover.”
The Accident Claim Helpline landing page was also found to have misleadingly implied Citizens Advice endorsed accident management services, when the article on the Citizen’s Advice website it linked to provided only general insurance claims information.
In each case, the advertisers said they had made changes to address the concerns, which the ASA welcomed. But it found them in breach and ordered them not to use the same adverts again.
Leave a Comment