Limits to the Advertising Standards Authority powers.

Anyone wanting to complain about false or misleading claims made by some of the 'IVA providers' swarming all over the internet might think that the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) was a sensible place to start but - as with everything else to do with the regulation of voluntary arrangements - the common sense solution ain't necessarily the right solution.

The Mole has lodged a number of complaints with the ASA about claims made online by the IVA industry. The internet is, after all, a crucial contributory factor in the explosion of IVA sales because it is the point where many debtors start their search for information - a search that can all too frequently lead to misinformation and bad advice. But, sadly, the ASA can only deal with the first click in the search and not the destination.

If the IVA provider is using 'paid for' advertising like google ads, banner or pop-up adverts then the ASA can take action. They can also act if there are grounds for complaints about the content of commercial e-mails or 'sales promotions' that appear on web sites.

This means that the ASA cannot act if an IVA provider is making false and misleading claims on their own web site or in the 'unpaid' google listings that first led the debtor to that site - despite the fact that search engine links might themselves have been promoted to higher visibility for a fee.

The ASA's explained these limits on its powers in a recent letter to The Mole and, as the explanation seemed logical, it bears repeating here. The ASA said:

"The Internet allows organisations to communicate directly with those who have actively sought out their websites in much the same way as consumers or businesses might develop relationships with organisations in a retail environment after being introduced to them by advertisements. Furthermore, the directness of tha relationship bypasses the mddlemen (the owners of newspapers, magazines, poster sites and other media) on whom the ASA has traditionally relied to help apply the Code to the 'introduction' process but not to the subsequent 'relationship' that develops between the consumer and the organisation. The ASA believes that by applying the Code to all online claims would go too far into regulating the 'relationship' and would, moreover, prove impossible to enforce effectively."

These limits on the ASA's reach may well make sense in defining the demarcation line between the various authorities who may ( or may not ) have a finger in the regulatory pie and they may also take honest account of their limited powers, but they nonetheless provide - from a complainant's viewpoint - a good example of the prior knowledge that debtors will need to help them overcome the bureaucratic hurdles that can be placed in the way of their complaints.

How many hurdles would the average - relatively uninformed - debtor be prepared to jump before they gave up with their complaint ?

If the ASA cannot act on false or misleading claims on a web site - many of which operate as fishing holes for sales contact details - and the OFT cannot 'name and shame' because of the potential harm it may cause to the debt advisor's business - where does the complaining debtor go to get satisfaction ? Next stop Trading Standards or the Financial Services Authority ?