New Decisions: Parking signs, religious healing events and more

The following decisions have been published:

Advertiser Must Be Clearly Identified

An editorial style newspaper advertisement for the UCGK Help Centre healing events contained testimonials from people who had been helped by the power of prayer as well as details about the five centres holding events.

The Complainant said the identity of the Advertiser was not clear and unsubstantiated claims were being presented as fact.

The Advertiser said the advertisement presented their opinion about the benefits of evangelical healing. They said the organisation’s name was used eight times and the word ‘belief’ used seven times which met the requirements of an advocacy advertisement in terms of identity and opinion criteria.

The majority of the Complaints Board ruled the identity of the Advertiser was not clear. The majority of the Complaints Board also agreed the general consumer take-out was the advertisement was promoting an event for evangelical healing and this was presented as opinion that God could heal a variety of ailments. It said the disclaimer in the advertisement helped prevent any breach of the Code of Ethics.  Accordingly, the Complaints Board ruled the complaint was Upheld in Part and Not Upheld in Part.

Error on Parking Sign Rectified

The Wilson Parking sign in Christchurch outlined the parking rates and said, in part:

Per hour                                                                               $3.00

Saturday / Sunday

Valid for 12 hours from time of purchase              N/A

The Complainant said the sign was misleading because it implied there were no parking fees on a Saturday/Sunday.  The Complainant had received a fine when parking at this carpark on a Sunday and noticed a number of other vehicles with tickets.

The Chair noted the Advertiser had immediately rectified the error on the sign and voided the Complainant’s ticket as well as other breach notices issued during the short time the error was on the sign. Given the Advertiser’s co-operative engagement with the process and the self-regulatory action taken in amending the advertisement, the Chair ruled that the Complaint was settled.