- The Advertising Regulatory Board found that a farm advertisement contained misleading claims about key features of the property.
- Complaints included disputed room numbers, photographs allegedly showing a neighbouring farm, workshops, a jacuzzi and backup power.
- The Board ordered its members not to accept the advertisement in its current form and requested changes to similar claims on the advertiser's website.
A farm advertised as offering workshops, a jacuzzi and backup power has been found to contain misleading claims after a complaint to the Advertising Regulatory Board.
The complaint concerned a Property24 listing placed by EXP Realty South Africa for a 4.3 hectare farm near Pretoria. The advertisement described the property as a "Beautiful 4.3 Ha Farm with House, Workshops" and promoted it as an ideal farming and lifestyle opportunity with strong water supply, three-phase power, backup power, a braai area with a jacuzzi, undercover parking and workshop areas.
The complainant alleged that many of the photographs originally used in the advertisement were actually images of a neighbouring farm and not the property being sold. Although some of those photographs were later removed, the complainant maintained that several other claims in the advertisement remained inaccurate.
According to the complaint, the farm did not contain as many rooms as advertised and did not have the workshops claimed in the listing. The complainant further alleged that the advertised jacuzzi was merely a shell that had no pump or electrical connection and could not operate as a jacuzzi.
Additional concerns were raised about the claim that the farm had backup power. The complainant argued that the only available power source was a freestanding generator that was not connected to the property's electrical system.
Advertiser did not respond
EXP Realty South Africa was allowed to answer the complaint but did not submit a response.
The ARB noted that some photographs had been removed after the complaint was lodged. The number of images in the advertisement had dropped from 17 to 11 by the time the matter was finalised. The Directorate said this appeared to support the complainant's allegation that some of the original photographs showed the neighbouring farm.
However, the advertiser did not respond to the remaining allegations or provide any evidence to support the claims made in the listing.
The Directorate also identified contradictory information within the advertisement itself. One section described the farm as having three bedrooms and two bathrooms, while another section listed four bedrooms and three bathrooms. The complainant had similarly disputed the number of living areas advertised.
Without any clarification from the advertiser, the Board said it was unable to verify the actual number of bedrooms, bathrooms or living rooms on the farm.
The Directorate found that the conflicting information created ambiguity and was likely to mislead consumers.
Facilities could not be verified
The ARB also examined the claims relating to the jacuzzi, workshops and backup power.
In relation to the jacuzzi, the Directorate found that a reasonable buyer would expect a property advertised as having a jacuzzi to include a functioning jacuzzi. The advertiser did not dispute the allegation that it was merely a shell filled with water and not connected to electricity or a pump.
The Directorate agreed that a non-functioning shell would not generally be regarded as a jacuzzi by consumers.
The claim that the farm included workshops also could not be verified. The advertiser did not challenge the complaint and provided no information showing that workshops existed on the property.
The Directorate reached a similar conclusion regarding the backup power claim. It is accepted that a generator may provide emergency electricity during power outages. However, it found that consumers would generally understand backup power to mean a readily available and integrated power supply connected to the property's electrical system.
A freestanding generator that is not integrated into the electrical supply would not necessarily meet that expectation.
The ARB concluded that the advertisement created misleading expectations about the farm and therefore breached the advertising code's prohibition against misleading claims.
The regulator instructed its members not to accept advertising for the farm in its current form. It also requested that similar claims appearing on EXP Realty South Africa's own website be withdrawn or appropriately amended.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
