Warwickshire News Mine

Mr Nazir trading as Advanced Communications Group had advertised a phone in a national newspaper under the banner headline FREE LINE RENTAL without any indication of how long the free line rental was available.  In fact the maximum amount of free line rental available with the phone was 3 months.  Trading Standards Officers considered that an ordinary shopper was likely to be misled by the headline that appeared to promise more free line rental than was actually available.

Further, small print in the advertisement purported to make the airtime contract subject to terms and conditions which were available on request.  However, no written terms and conditions were available on request and whilst the lettering of the headline was 18mm, the wording of the footnote was in letters 1mm high, and as such was insufficiently prominent to qualify the headline. 

Anthea Davies, Assistant Head of Trading Standards for Warwickshire County Council said:

This case demonstrates that Warwickshire Trading Standards are determined to see clearer advertising in the mobile industry.  There are so many different deals on offer, consumers can end up baffled by the choices and unable to compare the different deals available to them. 

Any offers made in advertisements should at least be clearly explained:  it is not acceptable for bold headlines only to be clarified by very small print which is almost impossible to read.  We will continue to work with others to try and stamp out misleading advertisements so that there is fair competition and consumers can make informed choices when they are looking for a mobile phone.’

The case was brought following an investigation in to mobile phone advertising carried out by the Trading Standards Service in 2004. Trading Standards surveyed 500 young people aged between 13 and 17 yrs old, examined over 70 mobile phone advertisements, and visited various mobile phone outlets. The survey revealed that information on the cost of purchasing and using a mobile phone was too often unavailable, inaccessible, unclear or even misleading, and the terms and conditions relating to mobile phone packages were nearly always inaccessible or unavailable to consumers before purchasing. In many cases information on costs were hidden in small print almost too tiny to read!

At Leamington Magistrates Court on 25th May 2006, Mr Wasim Nazir (D.O.B: 02/11/1976), of Toller Grove, Bradford, West Yorkshire, a sole trader trading as Advanced Communications Group, (Valley Road Business Park, Liversedge, West Yorkshire), pleaded guilty to one offence under s20(1) of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 of giving a misleading indication of the price at which a mobile phone was available. 

Mr Nazir was represented by Mr Ken Sykes, Director of Legal Services for Advanced Communications Group. In mitigation Mr Sykes said that the advertisement was in a similar form to those of Mr Nazir’s competitors.  The reference to terms and conditions in small print at the foot of the page was not unusual and was necessary because this was an extremely complicated industry. 

He went on to say that the offence was largely of historical significance because it occurred over a year ago and Mr Nazir in common with his competitors had eased off on advertising for economic reasons since January 2006 and had not advertised in the press since March 06.  Therefore the offence was not going to be repeated.

Link to WCC