Save Spodden Valley official complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority

Save Spodden Valley has submitted an official complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority alleging seriously misleading information has been included in a glossy brochure produced by MMC Estates and supported by Countryside Properties.

The brochure has been distributed to 50,000 households in the Borough.

An abridged version of the complaint is reproduced below:

BY POST TO:

Advertising Standards Authority
Mid City Place
71 High Holborn
London WC1V 6QT

COMPLAINT OF AN ADVERTISEMENT ALLEDGED TO BE IN BREACH OF THE CAP (NON-BROADCAST) CODE, 11th EDITION:

Where and when I saw the advertisement:

An 8 page brochure/leaflet entitled:

“Spodden Valley Regeneration  - Community News - Autumn 2005.

MMC Estates. Supported by Countryside Properties PLC”.

Unknown author.

(Associated press release published by Helen Thomas of Meredith Thomas PR Agents 0161 839 0838).

The press release suggests that 50,000 copies are to be distributed.

My complaint:

This submission will limit itself to the most seriously misleading, dishonest and unsubstantiated statements in the published printed brochure and on the webpages accessed via:

http://www.spoddenvalleyregeneration.com/Community+News

Page 2: “In 2004 the site was sold by Federal Mogul to MMC Estates and the Rathbone Trust”.

There are a number of factual inaccuracies in the above statement.

It is submitted that the most seriously misleading reference relates to the reference of a ‘Rathbone Trust’.  The co-owner of the site in question is an offshore Channel Islands company called Rathbone Jersey Limited (see attached Land Registry document [Doc 1] ). It does not have charitable status. The impression the brochure gives, evidenced by correspondence, is that an environmental charity is committed to the remediation of the Spodden Valley. The misleading use of the term “Trust” after the Rathbone name when referring to the limited company that co-owns the land has created a real confusion with members of the public who have mistakenly concluded that trustees of the Rathbone charity (see: http://www.rathbonetraining.co.uk/who.aspx?ID=4 ) and/or The Eleanor Rathbone Charitable Trust (Charity No 233241) (see:  http://www.eleanorrathbonetrust.org/ ) are associated with Rathbone Jersey Limited.      

It has been confirmed that neither charities have any involvement in the ownership or remediation of the site.  
It is submitted that the reference to a “Rathbone Trust” is a breach of the CAP codes (11th Ed):  2.1,  2.5,  3.1,  3.4,  6.1,  7.1.  

Page 5: “…the tests have identified that ‘Crush’ is free of asbestos.”

It is submitted that the limited number of tests have been conducted on the crush material cannot be used to assert that the whole pile of rubble (approximately 1500 tonnes) is free of asbestos. There has been no such conclusion made by the organisations responsible for the tests (the Health and Safety Laboratories (HSL) and the Institute of Occupational Medicine (IOM)).

It is submitted that there has been a breach of CAP codes (11th Ed) : 2.1,  2.5,  3.1,  3.2,  6.1,  7.1,  8.1,  14.1,  14.5. 

Page 6: “…the Health and Safety Executive have regarded concentrations of less than 0.01% [asbestos in soil] as ‘safe’.

It is submitted that the HSE have never published, any such statement.

In recent correspondence, Alex Albon, the person accredited with the statements on pages 5 and 6 of the brochure, has suggested that the source of the HSE statement was HSE Contract Report 83/1996.  However, this is NOT an official HSE document, it includes a disclaimer to that effect (page 2 of 83/1996 attached [Doc 2] ). The document makes no reference to a ‘safe’ level for asbestos in soil. The only reference made is to ‘action thresholds’ of 0.001% and not the 0.01% misleadingly stated as a ‘safe’ level in the brochure. (page 2 of 83/1996 attached)    

In addition, correspondence has been received from a senior inspector of the HSE that the brochure’s published statement:  “the Health and Safety Executive have regarded concentrations of less than 0.01% [asbestos in soil] as ‘safe’” is not supported by the HSE and has never been official HSE policy.

It is submitted that there has been a breach of CAP codes (11th Ed):  2.1,  2.5,  3.1,  3.2,  7.1,  6.1,  8.1,  14.1,  14.3,  14.5. 

The brochure is entitled “Community News” (at Page 1).

There is an “MMC Estates” logo on Page 1. Beneath this is the sentence: “Supported by Countryside Properties PLC” On Page 8 it is suggested that readers contact a website, whose domain name is owned and administered by Countryside Properties PLC, as “the best way to find information about the proposals and the progress of the site”. 

References are made to the local community campaign group “Save Spodden Valley” (Page 6), also: Rochdale Borough Council, Atkins Global, The Environment Agency and the HSE (page 8). It is submitted that these groups were not involved in the production and publication of the brochure. Correspondence indicates that some readers of the brochure have been misled into believing that these organisations agreed with and contributed to the contents of the brochure. 

The brochure was distributed in local newspapers. No reference was made anywhere on the brochure that it was an advertising announcement disseminated in exchange for a payment.

It is submitted that there has been a breach of CAP codes (11th Ed): 2.1,  2.5,  7.1,  8.1,  23.1,  23.2.