The advertising standards watchdog agreed with the complainant that the adverts were misleading and went on to welcome the decision of the advertiser to withdraw them.
The ASA decision was hailed as a victory by independent IFA Ned Naylor, who has waged a campaign against Ashley Law who he believes, misled him when he signed up as a franchisee.
The dispute centres around the issue of client ownership with Naylor disputing claims in the advert that franchisees would be given ‘guaranteed client ownership’.
“If you leave Ashley Law they still maintain client ownership and retain commissions on renewals. I believe they are not actually doing the right thing for their members,” said Naylor.
The ASA ruling stated: “the advertisers had not shown that they offered a contract that included guaranteed client ownership. It concluded that the advertisements were misleading and welcomed the advertisers’ decision to withdraw them.”
However Ashley Law’s managing director Jock Cassidy responded: “The ASA decision is based on a general world at large interpretation of one word rather than the far narrower interpretation appropriate in the context of the financial services industry.
“Financial advisers would fully understand our position and our adverts were restricted to the appropriate trade press and appropriate audience. It is regrettable that the ASA reached such a decision although I fully accept under its remit it was the only conclusion that it could reach.”
Cassidy said that Naylor had joined and subsequently left Ashley Law before the advertisements in question had appeared.
Cassidy said he was unable to comment further due to ongoing legal proceedings against former members, which included a principal of the firm where Ned Naylor is a Registered Individual, AP Financial Services Ltd.
