|
Fair Play
8 The College Business Centre
Uttoxeter New Road
Derby
DE22 3WZ Complaint:
Objection to a direct mailing for a homeworking scheme. The advertisement was headlined "FILL ENVELOPES TO EARN EXTRA CASH!!! WE PAY £450 FOR 1000 ENVELOPES!!! PLACES ARE LIMITED - APPLY TODAY!!!
Would you like to earn extra cash working from home? We urgently need more homeworkers to fill envelopes for us. Only occasionally do these vacancies arise. As a busy and reputable mail order company we mail out thousands of items each week. A limited number of vacancies for agents have now arisen. Unlike other homeworking plans, as an agent you will not have to sell or advertise anything. Instead, you are paid a set amount for your work and currently that is £450 per thousand envelopes. No experience is necessary and there is no risk to yourself. As an agent you will receive a manual detailing all the steps to do the work. The work is both easy and enjoyable, and can be done by the young and old alike. No special skills needed. Your job will be to insert ONE piece of paper together with an envelope into another envelope, attach a label and stamp and return these envelopes to us. What could be as easy or as simple as that? These vacancies are limited so we suggest that to be successful, you reply today. We do require a small deposit which covers sending out your starter pack and setting up the administrative procedures necessary for your agency. It also shows us that you are serious about working from home. However, this is refunded to you as soon as you have completed your first 1000 envelopes. The additional outgoings required are more than covered by our excellent rates of pay and our agents also benefit by receiving any further advice they may need FREE OF CHARGE". The complainant objected to the mailing because: 1. it did not give an accurate description of the work;
2. he believed it exaggerated the likely achievable earnings; and
3. he challenged whether the advertised places were limited. Codes Section: 3.1, 7.1, 54.4b, 54.4d (Ed 10)
Adjudication:
1. Complaint upheld The advertisers asserted that the work required of their agents was exactly as described in the mailing. The advertisers sent a copy of the starter pack mentioned in the mailing; it gave information about the work. The Authority noted that agents had to pay for the materials to enable them to do the work. Because the mailing did not describe the work involved and specify financial outlay required, the Authority concluded that it was misleading. The Authority asked the advertisers to amend the mailing. 2. Complaint upheld The advertisers sent a list of 31 agents who had received £450. They commented that they could not provide invoices because they did not require the agents to issue invoices. The Authority considered that the evidence provided did not prove the quoted sum had been paid to the advertisers' workers. It asked the advertisers to withdraw the earnings claim from future mailings. 3. Complaint upheld The advertisers asserted that places were limited because they did not always have enough work for all respondents. They sent a list of the 21 people who had been refused work since September 1999. The advertisers explained that they could not provide the computer-generated letter that they had sent to the listed people. They pointed out that they refunded the agency fee if work was not available. The Authority was concerned that the advertisers were not able to supply documentary evidence in the form of letters of rejection or proof of refunds having been made to prove the listed people had been refused work. The Authority asked the advertisers to amend the advertisement to remove the claims that places were limited. |
Home 
Articles 
