The encyclopedia · Advertising & PR · Marketing decision · 2026
ParkerBrand's 'WAS £399.98, 50% OFF' — a was-price nobody had paid
The machinery retailer struck through £399.98 and offered £199.99, though the item repeatedly sold for less. It never answered the ASA at all.
Parker Products · 2026-07-15
What happened
On 23 February 2026 a product page on parkerbrand.co.uk, the British garden and construction machinery retailer, advertised an item as 'IN STOCK — WAS £399.98' with the old price struck through, and '50% OFF NOW £199.99 inc. VAT'. A complainant challenged the reference price: they understood the product had repeatedly been sold at much lower prices.
The ASA asked Parker Products for evidence that £399.98 had been the usual selling price. The company never responded — no defence, no sales data, nothing. Consumers would understand the struck-through figure as the price the product was generally sold at, and a genuine £199.99 saving; with no evidence behind it, the claim was unsubstantiated and misleading.
On 15 July 2026 the ASA upheld the complaint under the CAP Code rules on misleading advertising, substantiation, prices and price comparisons — and separately flagged the non-response as an unreasonable delay showing an apparent disregard for the Code. The ad must not appear again in that form, and the matter was referred to CAP's compliance team.
Why it happened
- The struck-through £399.98 implied a usual selling price that the product had never really held — it repeatedly sold for less.
- ParkerBrand never answered the ASA's enquiries: no sales data, no defence.
- Ignoring the regulator became a second breach on the record — 'apparent disregard for the Code'.
The lesson
A was-price is a factual claim about history: ParkerBrand struck through £399.98 without evidence it was ever the usual price — and never answered the ASA, making the breach worse.
Aftermath
The ASA ruling of 15 July 2026 upheld the complaint and barred the ad in the same form. ParkerBrand must substantiate future savings claims against the usual selling price; the non-response was referred to CAP's compliance team.
Sources
spotted an error? The club wants to know.
More like this
Wowcher's mass email joked about a toddler thrown into a crocodile pit
Morrisons Clinic's weight-loss ad pointed shoppers at prescription drugs
Costcutter's Cadbury Easter page breached the new HFSS ad rules
Somewhere, someone solved the problem this company failed at. 2nd Opinion →
Comments · 0
Sign in to join the comments.