Sandton Lodge Rivonia / D Cox / 13713
Ruling of the : ASA Directorate
In the matter between:
Debbie Cox	Complainant(s)/Appellant(s)
Sandton Lodge cc	Respondent

09 Mar 2010

BACKGROUND
In Sandton Lodge Rivonia / D Cox / 13713 (12 August 2009) matter the Directorate held that the respondent’s claims on several websites were unsubstantiated and misleading.

The advertising spans across many websites and attributes, inter alia, the following claims to this establishment:

• “…boutique hotel”
• “…perfect venue for conferencing, weddings and banqueting…”
• “…conference venues…boardrooms…”
• “…restaurant…”
• “…the bar…”
• “…a short drive or walk to the Country Club, Woodmead…”

The respondent was instructed to withdraw the claims with immediate effect within the deadlines stipulated in Clause 15.3 of the Procedural Guide and not to use the advertisement again in its current format in future.

SUBSEQUENT TO THE RULING
In an email dated 10 September 2009, the respondent submitted that it has now been granted relevant rights to operate as a “hotel” in terms of the relevant conditions imposed by the City Council. However, in a ruling dated 14 January 2010 the Directorate held that the relevant permission has not yet been formally obtained as an appeal is still pending. The previous ruling remained binding and in effect.

Subsequent to the 14 January 2010 ruling, the complainant lodged a breach complaint against the respondent’s website advertising at www.johannesburg-venues.co.za/sandtonlodgerivonia/#description and www.booking.com. It was submitted that the respondent is still falsely advertising and it has not corrected its advertising.

RELEVANT CLAUSE OF THE SPONSORSHIP CODE
In light of the breach allegation, Clause 15 of the Procedural Guide (Enforcement of rulings) was taken into account.

RESPONSE
The respondent submitted that it has addressed these issues as best as possible and made necessary changes as per the ASA’s request. It was further stated that the final hearing on this matter is scheduled for April 2010.

The respondent argued that some websites do not have a category for “Boarding House” and even the South African Tourism does not have a category for “Boarding House”.

ASA DIRECTORATE RULING

The ASA Directorate considered all the relevant documentation submitted by the respective parties.

The Directorate is tasked with determining whether the respondents are in breach of the previous ASA Directorate ruling.

Clause 15.1 of the Procedural Guide states that “The responsibility for adherence to a ruling made by the Directorate or the ASA Committees lies with the person against whom such ruling has been made.

The ASA Directorate preliminary investigation into the websites, mentioned in the complaint, found that some of the claims were still appearing on the websites.

There is no clarity from the response that showed or explained how the claims ruled against were still on the website. The respondents had ample opportunity to comply with the ruling, but did not until it received the breach complaint.

Prior to the drafting of the Directorate ruling, a preliminary search on www.johannesburg-venues.co.za/sandtonlodgerivonia/#description and www.booking.com websites revealed that the offending claims were no longer there. The words, inter alia, “boutique hotel” and “...venue for conferences and weddings...” were replaced by the words “luxury accommodation”.

The Directorate commends the respondent for its effort to ensure that its amended advertising would comply with the ruling. However, a crucial step in compliance is the instruction to remove the offending claim. While the respondent has now taken steps to amend its website and to remove all offending claims, this action is belated.

Accordingly, the respondent is in breach of the Directorate ruling of 12 August 2009 and therefore in breach of Clause 15 of the Procedural Guide.

The Directorate does not believe sanctions are appropriate at this time, as the respondent does not, at this time, appear to be a habitual offender, and has not demonstrated an intent to circumvent the Code or any ASA rulings.

The respondent is cautioned, however, that the responsibility to ensure compliance with the ASA ruling lies with it. Should further justified breach allegations be received, the Directorate may consider the imposition of additional sanctions as allowed for in Clause 14 of the Procedural Guide. This ruling may also be taken into consideration at such a time.

The breach allegation is therefore upheld but no sanctions are imposed on the respondent at this time.