Ad description
Claims on a website promoting a housing development, www.martingranthomes.co.uk, stated "Milton Place, Worth, West Sussex, RH10 7RU ... The appeal of living within a thriving community, with a rich heritage and just a stone's throw from beautiful countryside is hard to resist. It is the perfect setting for enjoying life at a relaxed pace and for bringing up a family. While finding a home that can combine those qualities with the needs of modern living and is also within easy commuting distance of London can be a challenge, this attractive new development in Worth, West Sussex, provides the perfect answer".
A different page featured a map with a mark indicating the location of the development, between two areas labelled as "POUND HILL" and "WORTH". Text below stated "Surrounded by an exciting choice of leisure, retail and educational possibilites [sic], a home in Milton Place has something for everyone ... Mentioned in the Domesday Book, and with a history going back to Saxon times. Worth boasts a number of notable places to explore. These include Worth Church, Worth Abbey and Worth Park Gardens. For those who want to roam a little further, Worth Way, an old railway track revitalised as a linear Country Park, offers a haven for wildlife and is ideal for walkers, cyclists and horse riders".
Issue
Two complainants challenged whether the claims that the development was in Worth were misleading and could be substantiated, because they understood the development was in the Pound Hill neighbourhood of Crawley rather than Worth (which had a reputation for being more affluent).
Response
Martin Grant Homes said they believed that the property was situated in the parish of Worth, an area within the administrative boundary of Pound Hill, Crawley. They provided a copy of the H.M. Land Registry Title Plan for the development that showed it to be within the Worth Parish in the Mid Sussex District. They considered that, because the Land Registry was the government department created to register the ownership of land and property in England and Wales, that evidence was paramount.
Martin Grant Homes said there was a geographical disconnection between the boundaries of the Worth Parish Council and the former village known as Worth, caused by the expansion of Crawley, which meant that the place of Worth and the Parish Council bearing its name were no longer connected. However, they said there was still an area known as and referred to as Worth within Crawley and, although there was no single objective criterion that could be used to identify that area, they considered that it was reasonable to describe the development's locale as either Worth or Pound Hill as it was on the boundary between those two imprecisely defined areas. They gave a number of reasons in support of that assertion, including that the development was within the Church Parish of "Worth, Maidenbower and Pound Hill" and was also within the Town Ward of "Pound Hill South and Worth", and that the Post Office recognised the development's postcode as falling within either Worth or Pound Hill. They stated that the locale of Worth was based around the Church of St Nicholas, Worth, which was around 580‒600 yards (530‒549 m) from the property. They said other businesses within the RH10 postcode used Worth within their addresses, and provided examples of that. They said local residents also identified the area to be Worth and provided photographs of local street signs that listed Worth under the street name.
Martin Grant Homes also provided a number of documents that referred to the property's address being listed as "Worth", including the Water Agreement with Southern Water, extracts from the valuation from their Surveyors, insurance quotation, planning application plans for the development and correspondence from their bank. Additionally, they provided copies of Landmark Information Group Environmental and Flood Report plan extracts, which labelled the wider area that the development sat in to be Worth. They said those plans showed that the road maps that were used by recognised third parties, including those used to do land searches for acquisitions, indicated that the parish of Worth was within 500 m of the development site so it was reasonable to conclude that the property was within Worth.
Assessment
THIS ADJUDICATION REPLACES THAT PUBLISHED ON 9 APRIL 2014. THE VERDICT HAS CHANGED, MAKING THE COMPLAINT NOT UPHELD.
Not upheld
The ASA noted that the ad included a number of claims that the development was situated in Worth, including "Milton Place, Worth, West Sussex, RH10 7RU" and "… this attractive new development in Worth, West Sussex …". We noted that the Title Plan provided by Martin Grant showed the development to be within the Worth Parish in the Mid Sussex District and that the documents submitted by Martin Grant listed the development's address to be "Worth". However, we noted that the postcode of the development was currently listed to be within the Crawley borough and not within the Mid Sussex District. Further, we noted that the original planning application for the development available on the Crawley Borough Council website showed the address of the development to be Pound Hill, and not Worth.
We spoke to the Planning Department at Crawley Borough Council. They said there had been a long running historical dispute regarding the areas named Pound Hill and Worth. They told us that the development site had formally been in the Worth Parish in the Mid Sussex District, but in 1984 the area in which the development was situated had been incorporated into the Crawley Borough. They stated that, at that time, the area ceased officially to be known as Worth and became part of the neighbourhood of Pound Hill. They said the Worth parish continued to exist on the Eastern and East South Eastern side of the M23, outside of the Crawley Borough. They said the name Worth still existed on Ordnance Survey plans and other maps, which hadn't been updated as a result of the boundary changes. They said there was a Worth Conservation area and a "Pound Hill South & Worth" Electoral ward within Crawley borough, but they had no bearing on the official address of the development. They provided a map of the Worth conservation area, which did not include the development site. We also saw a letter from an MP within Crawley who confirmed that the development was officially within the Pound Hill neighbourhood of Crawley but that Royal Mail would accept either description for the address − Pound Hill or Worth.
We recognised that the official address of the development was in Pound Hill and that the location of the development fell in the Crawley Borough Council civil parish, but notwithstanding this, we considered that there were a number of other relevant factors that should be taken into account when considering how to describe the area within which the development was situated. In particular we noted that the development lay in closest proximity to the village called Worth and its historic centre; that it is shown on most maps as being in the vicinity of the place called Worth; and that the parish name, town ward name and post code all indicated that it was situated in the vicinity of a place that included the name of Worth. We also noted that the area is recognised locally by many residents as being in the locality of Worth and that this is their widely preferred descriptor for the area they live in. For these reasons we concluded that someone considering the purchase of a property in the development would not be likely to be misled by a description of the location as being in Worth.
We considered the ad under CAP Code rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 3.7 Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation. (Substantiation), but did not find it in breach.
Action
No further action necessary.
