Where am I? 
Home Better Business
A decision not to uphold complaints against a banking giant's advertising campaign claiming it offers customers "impartial" financial guidance has been dubbed "shocking and disgusting".
The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) says NatWest's MoneySense advertising campaign, promoting its in-house financial advice service, might be misleading but says it will not be taking action against the bank, part of RBS.
Donna Hopton, director of cherryFind, which lead the campaign against the advert, says: "Thousands of financial advisers and also many consumers across the UK will share our sense of shock and disgust at the ASA's decision not to uphold our complaint made against the NatWest's campaign which suggests it provides impartial financial guidance to its customers."
A recent Which? investigation suggested just four out of 20 MoneySense reviews attended by undercover researchers provided impartial information without any attempt to promote NatWest products.
The ASA ruling comes the day after the financial ombudsman (FOS) revealed NatWest had 60% of almost 2,400 customer complaints against it upheld.
cherryFind's chief complaint concerned the term ‘impartial' being used by the bank, arguing it could cause confusion given that, in terms of financial services products, NatWest can only offer its own to customers.
"The fact of the matter is NatWest can only sell its own products and it has used the MoneySense campaign to get people into its branches to do just that, not to provide impartial advice," Hopton adds.
"It is a scandal that could and should have been avoided. Consumers need bodies like the ASA to look after their needs but, in this, they seem to have failed miserably."
Louise Hanson, head of campaigns at Which?, adds: "This is a disappointing judgement. I fail to see how the ASA can reconcile the kind of biased sales pitch our mystery shoppers got from MoneySense 'advisers' with the advertising of an 'impartial' service."
| Share | |
| Comment | Anger at NatWest 'impartial' advice ad verdict |
More better business news
Email alerts
Recommended reading
Categories
Topics
Comments
IFA
Are we really surprised at this? Is this not further testament to the fact that when it comes to taking on the banks, organisations such as the ASA, as well as the financial bodies, simply don't have the stomach to do the right thing and they back out at the first opportunity, without so much as anything even approaching a logical reason why. Not even a body like FOS can get any joy when they report record complaints against the banks...yet if it was an IFA firm, i.e., an easier target to hit, there would be the proverbial ton of bricks decsending at a rate of knots onto the head of the errant advertiser....plus a fine wherever possible....a bit like the school bully who only picks on the little ones because he can...when it comes to taking on the big guys, he meekly backs off. Consumer protection from those charged with it? What a laugh...it would be interesting to know how many of the ASA board are Natwest / RBS shareholders....
Posted by: PAUL FIELDING
Related articles
Most Read
Audio / Visual
With the industry's biggest fund managers, IFAonline welcomes you to the media centre.
This year we have 14 awards designed to mark out the very best products in a highly competitive and innovative market. This includes three new awards for 2011 to reflect the developments in this rapidly growing market: Best Dual/Multi-Index Product, Best Structured (Oeic) Fund and Best Structured Product Provider.
Events
Poll
|
|
Job search
Ifaonlinejobs will open the right investment career path for you. Search hundreds of vacancies on www.ifaonlinejobs.co.uk now
In Focus
Viewpoints
About 2.66 million people are looking to increase the amount of money...
sponsored by
Chartered Financial Planner
In some ways it is easy to sit back and think does this matter? In reality I think it does. It is just another way that the banks get away with murder and are allowed to mislead clients. In my experience some clients really are that nieve and will be suckered in by this. I'm also bemused that the FSA hasn't stomped all over the Nat West for promoting a proposition i.e impartial advice that it quite clearly can't deliver. I know the Nat West is all but nationalised but I don't think Alistair Darling and Gordon Brown see it being staffed by civil servants offering a free impartial advice shop. Surely it is a very fine line that differentiates between impartial and independent, do they not go hand in hand? There is currently pressure from the Solicitors Regulation Authority and hopefully the ICAEW (soon) for solicitors and accountants to clean their acts up. Why can't we lead the way and get the FSA to stop this nonsense. Would the FSA allow a firm of tied (Zurich/ St. James' Place) advisers promote themselves as impartial advisers without giving the caveat before any discussion takes place that they might be sold one of their own products? FSA caught asleep at the wheel (again) and it is left to the Advertising Standards Authority to act as our industry policeman.....you couldn't make it up, could you?
Posted by: Phil Stevenson