The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has upheld complaints against Fleetcomm Mobile Networks Ltd for a number of claims on their website, www.fleet-comm.co.uk/index.htm including: that they are the largest Band II (MPT 1327) Network Provider in the United Kingdom, their coverage is improving every week, and that Fleetcomm does not deal directly with the end user.
It is not an especially unique case, but it is one that highlights the occasional stupidity in the responses to Ofcom.
Fleetcomm Mobile Networks Ltd believed that the complaint was maliciously motivated and that the complainant was a competitor and former employee
I love it when an advertiser / company thinks that this matters. It’s a bit like the endless ‘adult chat’ cases that are almost certainly all generated by competitor companies. It doesn’t matter WHO made the complaint. ALL that matters is whether or not you advertising complies with UK advertising rules.
As such Fleetcomm make lots of references to their former employee in their responses to Ofcom, whilst at the same time stating that all the claims on their website are true. Where they seem to have had a problem is that when asked to provide evidence to substantiate each of the claims and to disprove the complainant’s claims they failed to do so. I wonder why that is. For example, on their claim that Fleetcomm does not deal directly with the end user (a claim still on the website today http://www.fleet-comm.co.uk/service_providers.htm.) London Radio Networks are listed as the company who dealt with the end user, a company that coincidentally have the same company address as Fleetcomm Mobile Networks. Fleetcomm Mobile Networks said London Radio Networks was a separate company, but failed to provide any evidence to disprove the claim they were owned by the same company.
Of course, at the end of the day, this is just a wrist slap. The ASA tell Fleetcomm that the claims must not appear again in their current form and to ensure they held adequate substantiation for their claims. As far as I can tell they have yet to amend their website to fully comply with the adjudication, so are still currently in breach of UK advertising regulations and the adjudication.