Wessex Water’s TV advert banned for omitting sewage report

A Wessex Water TV advert about its plans to sort out storm overflows has been banned as deceptive as a result of it omitted key details about its report on sewage air pollution.

The Advertising Requirements Company investigated after receiving a grievance in regards to the advert for the provider, which supplies water to 1.4 million prospects and sewerage providers to 2.9 million individuals within the south-west of England.

The advert stated Wessex was investing £3m a month to sort out storm overflows and featured a voiceover that claimed it was “constructing extra storm tanks to extend storage” and “separating rainwater from sewage”, including that “a greater manner, for our waterways, is already below manner”.

The ASA stated it had upheld a grievance that the advert, which aired in February, was deceptive as a result of it omitted vital details about Wessex Water’s environmental impression. It stated the advert shouldn’t seem once more in the identical kind, concluding “that the advert omitted materials data and subsequently was more likely to mislead”.

Wessex Water has been criticised for its report on sewage discharges by the Liberal Democrat chief, Ed Davey, who has known as for tighter regulation on water firms. In Could 2023, Wessex was fined £280,000 by a Swindon courtroom for supplying water unfit for human consumption for a three-week interval in 2021.

Storm overflows are supposed for use by water firms solely in excessive climate however for a few years they’ve been used routinely, discharging uncooked sewage even on dry days in some instances.

Wessex Water argued to the ASA that its advert contained no broad claims about environmental efficiency however was in regards to the problem of storm overflows. It claimed that the advert took a balanced and clear method by addressing the shortcomings of outdated programs, notably storm overflows and sewers, whereas offering an trustworthy account of their ahead progress plan.

Nonetheless, the ASA concluded that though Wessex’s plan would most likely end in environmental enhancements, its storm overflow issues had brought about hurt to the setting and “we thought of that was vital data which ought to have been made clear within the adverts”.

It stated: “On this case, we thought of that this advert gave individuals the impression that Wessex Water was taking steps to scale back environmental injury attributable to air pollution incidents related to storm overflow.”

Wessex Water stated: “We’re disenchanted with the ASA’s ruling based mostly on one single grievance it obtained about our advert seen by a whole lot of 1000’s of individuals … We acknowledge that previous environmental efficiency has fallen beneath our expectations and we have now taken steps to deal with this.”

The ASA final yr upheld complaints about different water firms and dominated in opposition to two ads by Anglian Water Services after they omitted details about the corporate’s historical past of releasing sewage into the setting. It additionally upheld complaints against Severn Trent Water on the identical problem.

Individually on Wednesday, the ASA additionally dominated in opposition to Luton Rising, the house owners of London Luton airport, over {a magazine} advert and poster on the London Underground that stated: “If we miss our environmental limits, our enlargement might be stopped in its tracks.”

The marketing campaign teams Adfree Cities and the Group for Motion on Leeds Bradford Airport had been amongst those that complained that the adverts had been deceptive as a result of they omitted vital details about emissions from flights.

Luton Rising had argued that the aim of the adverts was to point out people who mitigating environmental impacts had been central to the airport’s enlargement plans.

Luton Rising stated: “The ASA accepted that the precise carbon emissions lined by GCG [Green Controlled Growth proposals] had been set out on the Luton Rising web site, to which viewers of the commercial had been pointed. They felt that this distinction ought to have been made clearer within the commercial itself, which we’ll do in any future ads.”