Representing A Burst Web Space Service Providor
Photo of Dundreggan Dam (c) 2013 Mr Peter Moore
——————————————————————————————————-
Just ONE example of why Webhost UK Ltd., are NOT a company we would recommend putting your faith in, or internet site on…
OFFICIAL RULING AGAINST WEBHOST UK LTD…
SOURCE:
http://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/2012/11/WEBHOSTUK-Ltd/SHP_ADJ_207547.aspx
——————————————————————————————————
Now on the Advertising Standards Warning List of Non-Compliant Companies
http://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Non-compliant-online-advertisers/WEBHOSTUK-Ltd.aspx
Further Infractions Due…
http://www.asa.org.uk/Industry-advertisers/Sanctions/Online.aspx
—————————————————————————————————–
NAME AND SHAME LIST
http://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Non-compliant-online-advertisers.aspx
——————————————————————————————————
ASA Adjudication on WEBHOSTUK Ltd
WEBHOSTUK Ltd t/a WebHost.UK.Net
3rd Floor
14 Hanover Street
Hanover Square
London
W1S 1YH
Date:
14 November 2012
Media:
Internet (on own site)
Sector:
Computers and telecommunications
Number of complaints:
1
Complaint Ref:
A12-207547
Background
Ad
A claim on a website for domain hosting services, www.webhost.uk.net, stated “Why choose us? 100% customer satisfaction”.
Issue
The complainant, a customer, challenged whether the claim “100% customer satisfaction” was misleading and could be substantiated, because he had experienced a network failure lasting over 168 hours.
CAP Code (Edition 12)
Response
WEBHOSTUK Ltd did not respond to the ASA’s enquiries.
Assessment
Upheld
The ASA was concerned by WEBHOSTUK Ltd’s lack of substantive response and apparent disregard for the Code, which was a breach of CAP Code rule 1.7 (Unreasonable delay). We reminded them of their responsibility to provide a substantive response to our enquiries and told them to do so in future.
Because WEBHOSTUK Ltd had not provided any evidence to substantiate the claim “100% customer satisfaction”, we concluded that the claim was misleading.
The claim breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 1.7 (Unreasonable delay), 3.1 (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 (Substantiation).
Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form. We referred the matter to CAP’s Compliance team.
——————————————————————————————————-
