Supercar lifestyle spamming again
Discussion
So after the last shambles, fake competition etc, I requested to be removed from all mailing lists, so somewhat of a surprise to get spam from them today.
Anyone else?
I've got to wonder how much the insurance will be for this "OFFER". Any guesses?
>>>>
Supercar Summer offer.
As a valued previous customer Supercar Lifestyle would like to offer you a scorching summer deal.
Come along to our MIRA venue on August 4th, 17th or 18th and drive one of our cars for only £19.99.
Full Safety briefing
Demonstration Laps
Two driving laps in your chosen car
Driving certificate
Only £19.99
Call the booking team now on 01782 454 005
Anyone else?
I've got to wonder how much the insurance will be for this "OFFER". Any guesses?
>>>>
Supercar Summer offer.
As a valued previous customer Supercar Lifestyle would like to offer you a scorching summer deal.
Come along to our MIRA venue on August 4th, 17th or 18th and drive one of our cars for only £19.99.
Full Safety briefing
Demonstration Laps
Two driving laps in your chosen car
Driving certificate
Only £19.99
Call the booking team now on 01782 454 005
backwoodsman said:
edo said:
fake competition
Tell me more, sounds interesting."Runners up prize" sent to everyone. "FREE" bar a rather substantial insurance/membership fee.
I'll bet my right testicle the offer they just sent in my OP wont be had for £19.99. I cant be bothered to waste a minute of my life or a phonecall proving it.
Naughty. Appears that the ASA slapped their wrists the last time.
http://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/2013/6...
They'll be getting an email from me, and I suggest you do the same if you have received it.
ASA Adjudication on Supercar Lifestyle Ltd
Supercar Lifestyle Ltd
Unit 15 Bradwell Works
Davenport Street
Longport
Stoke-on-Trent
Staffordshire
ST6 4LL
Date: 12 June 2013
Media: Magazine
Sector: Leisure
Number of complaints: 1
Complaint Ref: A13-225392
Background
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated both of which were Upheld.
Ad
A prize promotion, sent by e-mail to entrants to a competition in the November 2012 edition of Evo magazine, was received on 10 February, offering a racing tuition prize. It stated "Congratulations [name] you have won one of our runners up prizes! A FREE TUITION SESSION WITH EX F1 DRIVER IAN ASHLEY AND THE TEAM As a runner up you will be coached on how to drive like a professional racing driver" and set out what the session would involve. Text continued "The session will run from MIRA's secret Test facility in Nuneaton ... To claim your exclusive tuition session please contacts our booking team on 01XXX XXXXXX or simply fill in our contact form by selecting the link below ... We look forward to seeing you in 2013".
Issue
The complainant challenged whether:
1. the ad was misleading and had been administered properly because, on contacting Supercar Lifestyle to claim the runners up prize he was informed that an insurance payment of £199 would be required in order to claim the prize, which was not stated in the terms and conditions; and.
2. the runners up prize offered was a genuine prize, because he believed it had been offered to all remaining entrants.
CAP Code (Edition 12)
3.13.38.18.17.18.198.208.218.21.1
Response
1. & 2. Supercar Lifestyle Ltd (Supercar Lifestyle) said they had run a legitimate competition in conjunction with Evo magazine (Dennis Publishing), which had been published in Evo in November 2012, where the prize was to "WIN A DAY'S TUITION FROM FORMULA 1 VETERANS IN A 535BHP GT3 SPLC SPORTSCAR". They said they had named the first prize winner, who had booked his day's tuition for June 2013.
They pointed out the e-mail had stated that terms and conditions applied and the competition was subject to liability and registration. They said the tuition was free of charge, Supercar Lifestyle were paying for the track time, ex F1 instructor fee, fuel, vehicle maintenance and refreshments. They said the applicable fee covered any damage to vehicles, damage to the circuit and personal injury cover whilst the client was in control of the car.
They said four clients had attended the event and the feedback was excellent. They said they could provide the testimonials. They said there had been some negative information on a web forum, but the majority of forum posts had come from people who had not spoken with Supercar Lifestyle or entered the competition.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA noted that an ad in the November 2012 edition of Evo magazine had promoted a competition to "WIN A DAY'S TUITION FROM FORMULA 1 VETERANS IN A 535BHP GT3 SPLC SPORTSCAR" and that that magazine ad had stated "There's one prize up for grabs". We noted that that competition was run by Supercar Lifestyle in conjunction with the publishers, Dennis Publishing Ltd. We consulted Dennis Publishing Ltd and understood that, after that competition was over and the winner had claimed the prize, Supercar Lifestyle had decided to run a second competition, which was detailed in the e-mail ad under investigation, and which was addressed to all remaining participants in the original competition. We noted that Dennis Publishing Ltd maintained that they had not been aware of that second competition and the e-mail had been sent to all participants of the original competition by Supercar Lifestyle without their knowledge. We also understood that there was no runners up prize agreed in the original competition.
We noted that the e-mail stated "Congratulations [name] you have won one of our runners up prizes!". However, we had not seen any documentation showing how the advertisers had selected the runners up or had ensured that the completion was genuine. We therefore considered that, in the absence of supporting documentation, the "FREE TUITION SESSION" offered in the e-mail was not a genuine competition prize, on the basis that it had been offered to all participants in the original competition and had not been won by selected runners up.
We therefore considered that the e-mail was promoting a free tuition session to all original participants, for which we noted there was a £199 insurance fee, and, because we had not seen any supporting documentation showing that the free tuition session had been offered to selected runners up as a prize, we concluded that the prize was not a genuine prize and the ad was misleading on that basis.
On that point, the promotion breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1, 3.3 (Misleading advertising), 8.1 (Sales promotions), 8.17.1 (Significant conditions for promotions), 8.19, 8.20 and 8.21 (Prize promotions).
2. Upheld
We understood that the insurance payment of £199 would cover driving tuition sessions for a period of 12 months. We noted that the insurance fee was to cover any damage to vehicles, damage to the circuit and personal injury cover whilst the client was in control of the car. We acknowledged that insurance coverage was required to take part in the tuition session and considered that having insurance, and therefore paying the insurance fee, was a significant condition of the promotion and the fee should therefore have been made clear to consumers and should have been set out in the e-mail. Because we noted that that information was not included in the ad, we concluded that the promotion was misleading.
On that point, the promotion breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1, 3.3 (Misleading advertising), 8.1 (Sales promotions), 8.17.1 (Significant conditions for promotions) and 8.21.1 (Prize promotions).
Action
The claims must not appear again in their current form. We told the advertisers to ensure their competitions offered genuine prizes, in line with the requirements of the CAP Code and that all significant conditions of the offer were clear to consumers.
http://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/2013/6...
They'll be getting an email from me, and I suggest you do the same if you have received it.
ASA Adjudication on Supercar Lifestyle Ltd
Supercar Lifestyle Ltd
Unit 15 Bradwell Works
Davenport Street
Longport
Stoke-on-Trent
Staffordshire
ST6 4LL
Date: 12 June 2013
Media: Magazine
Sector: Leisure
Number of complaints: 1
Complaint Ref: A13-225392
Background
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated both of which were Upheld.
Ad
A prize promotion, sent by e-mail to entrants to a competition in the November 2012 edition of Evo magazine, was received on 10 February, offering a racing tuition prize. It stated "Congratulations [name] you have won one of our runners up prizes! A FREE TUITION SESSION WITH EX F1 DRIVER IAN ASHLEY AND THE TEAM As a runner up you will be coached on how to drive like a professional racing driver" and set out what the session would involve. Text continued "The session will run from MIRA's secret Test facility in Nuneaton ... To claim your exclusive tuition session please contacts our booking team on 01XXX XXXXXX or simply fill in our contact form by selecting the link below ... We look forward to seeing you in 2013".
Issue
The complainant challenged whether:
1. the ad was misleading and had been administered properly because, on contacting Supercar Lifestyle to claim the runners up prize he was informed that an insurance payment of £199 would be required in order to claim the prize, which was not stated in the terms and conditions; and.
2. the runners up prize offered was a genuine prize, because he believed it had been offered to all remaining entrants.
CAP Code (Edition 12)
3.13.38.18.17.18.198.208.218.21.1
Response
1. & 2. Supercar Lifestyle Ltd (Supercar Lifestyle) said they had run a legitimate competition in conjunction with Evo magazine (Dennis Publishing), which had been published in Evo in November 2012, where the prize was to "WIN A DAY'S TUITION FROM FORMULA 1 VETERANS IN A 535BHP GT3 SPLC SPORTSCAR". They said they had named the first prize winner, who had booked his day's tuition for June 2013.
They pointed out the e-mail had stated that terms and conditions applied and the competition was subject to liability and registration. They said the tuition was free of charge, Supercar Lifestyle were paying for the track time, ex F1 instructor fee, fuel, vehicle maintenance and refreshments. They said the applicable fee covered any damage to vehicles, damage to the circuit and personal injury cover whilst the client was in control of the car.
They said four clients had attended the event and the feedback was excellent. They said they could provide the testimonials. They said there had been some negative information on a web forum, but the majority of forum posts had come from people who had not spoken with Supercar Lifestyle or entered the competition.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA noted that an ad in the November 2012 edition of Evo magazine had promoted a competition to "WIN A DAY'S TUITION FROM FORMULA 1 VETERANS IN A 535BHP GT3 SPLC SPORTSCAR" and that that magazine ad had stated "There's one prize up for grabs". We noted that that competition was run by Supercar Lifestyle in conjunction with the publishers, Dennis Publishing Ltd. We consulted Dennis Publishing Ltd and understood that, after that competition was over and the winner had claimed the prize, Supercar Lifestyle had decided to run a second competition, which was detailed in the e-mail ad under investigation, and which was addressed to all remaining participants in the original competition. We noted that Dennis Publishing Ltd maintained that they had not been aware of that second competition and the e-mail had been sent to all participants of the original competition by Supercar Lifestyle without their knowledge. We also understood that there was no runners up prize agreed in the original competition.
We noted that the e-mail stated "Congratulations [name] you have won one of our runners up prizes!". However, we had not seen any documentation showing how the advertisers had selected the runners up or had ensured that the completion was genuine. We therefore considered that, in the absence of supporting documentation, the "FREE TUITION SESSION" offered in the e-mail was not a genuine competition prize, on the basis that it had been offered to all participants in the original competition and had not been won by selected runners up.
We therefore considered that the e-mail was promoting a free tuition session to all original participants, for which we noted there was a £199 insurance fee, and, because we had not seen any supporting documentation showing that the free tuition session had been offered to selected runners up as a prize, we concluded that the prize was not a genuine prize and the ad was misleading on that basis.
On that point, the promotion breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1, 3.3 (Misleading advertising), 8.1 (Sales promotions), 8.17.1 (Significant conditions for promotions), 8.19, 8.20 and 8.21 (Prize promotions).
2. Upheld
We understood that the insurance payment of £199 would cover driving tuition sessions for a period of 12 months. We noted that the insurance fee was to cover any damage to vehicles, damage to the circuit and personal injury cover whilst the client was in control of the car. We acknowledged that insurance coverage was required to take part in the tuition session and considered that having insurance, and therefore paying the insurance fee, was a significant condition of the promotion and the fee should therefore have been made clear to consumers and should have been set out in the e-mail. Because we noted that that information was not included in the ad, we concluded that the promotion was misleading.
On that point, the promotion breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1, 3.3 (Misleading advertising), 8.1 (Sales promotions), 8.17.1 (Significant conditions for promotions) and 8.21.1 (Prize promotions).
Action
The claims must not appear again in their current form. We told the advertisers to ensure their competitions offered genuine prizes, in line with the requirements of the CAP Code and that all significant conditions of the offer were clear to consumers.
StottyZr said:
At least they advertised this as an offer and not that you've won a competition 
Reckon they still fall foul of this judgement though:"We acknowledged that insurance coverage was required to take part in the tuition session and considered that having insurance, and therefore paying the insurance fee, was a significant condition of the promotion and the fee should therefore have been made clear to consumers and should have been set out in the e-mail. Because we noted that that information was not included in the ad, we concluded that the promotion was misleading.
On that point, the promotion breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1, 3.3 (Misleading advertising), 8.1 (Sales promotions), 8.17.1 (Significant conditions for promotions)..."
Sounds much like a rather dodgy paintball company that does a lot of advertising around christmas. They do vouchers for all day paintball for something silly like £10. Then charge £100 for insurance, gear hire etc but don't say anything about this until the punter turns up!
Been pulled up on it a few times.
Been pulled up on it a few times.
SSBB said:
StottyZr said:
At least they advertised this as an offer and not that you've won a competition
Reckon they still fall foul of this judgement though:"We acknowledged that insurance coverage was required to take part in the tuition session and considered that having insurance, and therefore paying the insurance fee, was a significant condition of the promotion and the fee should therefore have been made clear to consumers and should have been set out in the e-mail. Because we noted that that information was not included in the ad, we concluded that the promotion was misleading.
On that point, the promotion breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1, 3.3 (Misleading advertising), 8.1 (Sales promotions), 8.17.1 (Significant conditions for promotions)..."
Edo it take it you're reporting them again? Especially after the phone conversation.
StottyZr said:
SSBB said:
StottyZr said:
At least they advertised this as an offer and not that you've won a competition
Reckon they still fall foul of this judgement though:"We acknowledged that insurance coverage was required to take part in the tuition session and considered that having insurance, and therefore paying the insurance fee, was a significant condition of the promotion and the fee should therefore have been made clear to consumers and should have been set out in the e-mail. Because we noted that that information was not included in the ad, we concluded that the promotion was misleading.
On that point, the promotion breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1, 3.3 (Misleading advertising), 8.1 (Sales promotions), 8.17.1 (Significant conditions for promotions)..."
Edo it take it you're reporting them again? Especially after the phone conversation.
In addition they have failed to take note of a request some months ago in writing to remove me from their database.
edo said:
Couldn't help myself. I rang up.
Yup that's the total price sir. Apart from the extras on the day.
Like what?
Well insurance/fuelling the car etc for the 2 laps is £35.
So it's £54.99?
Yes, plus anything else on the day.
LOL.
Surely it must be against some advertising law for them to state you can do this for £20, if the car 'isn't' fuelled for that price?Yup that's the total price sir. Apart from the extras on the day.
Like what?
Well insurance/fuelling the car etc for the 2 laps is £35.
So it's £54.99?
Yes, plus anything else on the day.
LOL.
Im guessing they couldn't even state the offer as 'from' 19.99 as you couldn't do the basics.
Fantuzzi said:
edo said:
Couldn't help myself. I rang up.
Yup that's the total price sir. Apart from the extras on the day.
Like what?
Well insurance/fuelling the car etc for the 2 laps is £35.
So it's £54.99?
Yes, plus anything else on the day.
LOL.
Surely it must be against some advertising law for them to state you can do this for £20, if the car 'isn't' fuelled for that price?Yup that's the total price sir. Apart from the extras on the day.
Like what?
Well insurance/fuelling the car etc for the 2 laps is £35.
So it's £54.99?
Yes, plus anything else on the day.
LOL.
Im guessing they couldn't even state the offer as 'from' 19.99 as you couldn't do the basics.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff