I.S.Trading
39 Queens Road
London
N11 2QP |
Complaint:
Objection to a direct mailing, for a home working scheme, that claimed "... We are involved in the distribution of clerical work which can be completed at home ...
we will provide as much mailing work for you as possible. You will be paid at the rate of £1.10 per envelope. For example, if you have managed to mail 200 envelopes, you will be paid £220.00 ... TYPING ... We pay between £6.00-£8.00 per page ... we ask £20.00 for a lifetime membership fee, which is refundable ... Good Partners will pay you £1.10 for every information pack you prepare for them and they will also pay you £8.00 commission for each person that you introduce that joins the agency. For example, if you introduce 30 people and they all join Good Partners, you will be paid 30 x £8.00 = £240.00 additional commission ... ". The complainant challenged whether the mailing exploited the vulnerable by exaggerating the likely earnings from the schemes. Codes Section: 6.1, 7.1, 54.4 (Ed 10)
Adjudication:
Complaint upheld
The advertisers said they had been sending out the mailings since 1991, with the full knowledge of their local Trading Standards Department. They believed Clauses 6.1 and 7.1 did not apply to their mailing. They said their name and address appeared on every letter they sent out, the work was described clearly and the mailing stated that respondents would not be working for them but would have their own businesses. They said they did not make earnings claims but stated the rates paid to respondents. The advertisers said the required investment was £20 but that was refundable at any time and they did not charge for raw materials, machines, components or administration. They said no limitations or conditions existed that might influence customers before they decided to participate. The advertisers sent five letters, from people who had completed work for them, requesting payment; they said they could not send more because they had sent them to Trading Standards, who had not returned them. They asserted that in future they would consider keeping records of payments made to customers. The Authority noted four of the letters the advertisers sent showed customers had received payment, two were from the same person and one was a request for payment. The Authority noted the evidence showed one person had received money for mailing envelopes and, although he had been paid at the advertised rate, he had only managed to send about half of the envelopes stated in the advertisers'' example. It noted the evidence showed that two people had received the advertised rate for typing. The Authority considered that evidence that three people had received payment at the advertised rates was not sufficient to substantiate the likely earnings that could generally be achieved by those undertaking work on behalf of the advertisers; it concluded that the mailing exaggerated respondents'' likely earnings and would exploit vulnerable people. The Authority asked the advertisers not to make claims about specific earnings potential in future mailings unless they could supply evidence that such earnings were generally achieved. |
Home 
Articles 
