Teaming up with... AVIVA

Welcome to the UKGI weekly regulation update service for Aviva ABC brokers

We hope you find the Updates useful. If you are
interested in subscribing to our affordable
ABC compliance support package, please
email us at ABC@ukgigroup.com or
call UKGI on our dedicated ABC
contact line 01925 767893.

ASA Ruling on UK Insurance Ltd t/a Direct Line

Jul 22, 2021 | ASA

Link(s):https://www.asa.org.uk/rulings/uk-insurance-ltd-a20-1078810.html

Context

Confused.com raised concerns with the ASA in respect of two adverts published by UK Insurance Ltd t/a Direct Line.

Key points to note

The ASA investigated two issues which were raised by Confused.com in respect of two adverts for Direct Line car insurance which were broadcast in September 2020. The two issues raised by Confused.com were:

  1. the claim in ad (a) “get car insurance that really solves your problems” was misleading, because it implied that car insurance through Direct Line was superior or had added benefit compared to car insurance obtained through a price comparison website; and
  2. the price comparison in ads (a) and (b) was misleading because it was based on a comparison with direct insurers only and that was not clear from the ads, which focused on price comparison websites.
  • The first issue raised was not upheld by the ASA.
  • The second issue was upheld by the ASA. The BCAP Code stated that ads that included a price comparison must make the basis of the comparison clear. The ASA considered that the ads focused on highlighting the difference between obtaining car insurance direct versus through a price comparison website.
  • The ASA considered the evidence provided by Direct Line and noted that whilst it included insurance brands across all channels, including those available on price comparison websites, it related to market position in terms of price rather than actual prices. It was therefore insufficient to show that consumers could save up to £170 by going with Direct Line versus other car insurance brands, including those available on price comparison websites.
  • In the absence of a suitable qualification explaining the basis of the comparison (that prices were compared with insurers directly and did not include prices obtained via price comparison websites), it was concluded that the price comparison was likely to mislead.

Next actions

Whilst we have included this item for information only, we suggest firms take note of the decision, particularly in relation to the use of price comparisons.