Finger Protector Wars.
After embarking upon a search in the UK for Finger Protectors, a door safety device to prevent fingers being trapped and injured in doors, I found myself in an arena comprising three parties. The ASA (Advertising Standards Authority), Safety Assured Ltd and Fingersafe (GB) Ltd.
|
URGENT
SAFETY ALERT |
A leaflet that came with the letter contained a table with the following headline;
Door
Safety Devices Evaluation
"
... BEST BUY FOR SAFETY & VALUE ... Fits: 99% all door types Fitting Time:
1-5 minutes ... Protection against shield collapse: Best" [highest rating
on a five-point scale] " ... H&S practicable: Pass Durability and
product life rating: Average+" [fourth rating on a five-point scale]
"Overall best value rating: Best" [highest rating on a five-point
scale].
"Health
and Safety Practicable This is an interpretation of door safety requirement
based upon common law and the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations
1974 and 1992 (inc. Section 3). Where risk assessment identifies a risk of
injury. Pro-active action should be taken to eliminate risk only if a practicable
(suitable) device is available. To be practicable (suitable) the device should
be safe in use, effective, unobtrusive, easy to fit and maintain, not adversely
affect users [sic] daily routines during installation or maintenance, universal,
user friendly and affordable based upon the risk. To be reactive to this risk,
following an accident can lead to prosecution for negligence and litigation.
*This percentage is based upon permutation of hinge type, door material and
door thickness up to 180? door opening angle. Because standard butt hinges
are so common products highlighted could fit circa 70-85% of doors in the
average building variable based upon device used ... A product fails it''s
[sic] suitability for use on fire doors where fitting requires the use of
screws, nails or other fixings which perforate the door surface and thereby
affect the integrity of the fire door ...".
Fingersafe
complained to the ASA on twelve points relating to “tools required”, “% of doors it fits”, “fitting time”, “service time” and other technical issues.
Adjudication:
The advertisers said their product was patented and
had been endorsed by the Design Council and commended by the Prime Minister
and several MPs. They sent product samples of Finger Protector and Fingersafe
and fitting instructions for Finger Protector. They pointed out that none
of the other companies whose products were featured in the leaflet had complained
that the evaluation was unfair.
1. Complaint not upheld
The advertisers said penetrating the surface of doors
with tec screws corroded the doors and tec screws were not recommended for
fixing to UPVC. They said crittall doors were still in manufacture and were
made of rolled steel, not cast iron. They argued that crittall doors, ATM
security doors, bomb shelter doors, solid steel doors and heavy gauge steel
door frames all needed to be pre-drilled to install Fingersafe; some of those
doors were commonly found in schools. They pointed out that the complainants''
website stated that consumers might need to pre-drill holes in the door for
the screws.
The Authority noted the complainants'' website stated
"Self-tapping tek screws are provided which will penetrate metal or wood.
If for any reason you need to pre-drill holes for the screws, you may use
a 3/32 bit". It considered that a drill bit was sometimes necessary to
install Fingersafe. It did not object.
2. & 3. Complaints upheld
The advertisers said the "99%" claim was
conservative because they had not found a single door that Finger Protector
did not fit. They said the Finger Protector shield opened beyond 90 degrees
and did not collapse; the design allowed the shield to extend to fit any door
size but most doors needed only a single shield; the product could open to
180 degrees in standard and extended versions and neither version imploded.
The advertisers believed Fingersafe would not work on sliding doors but did
not state whether Finger Protector worked on sliding doors. They sent a table
that showed 15 types of door and stated, according to the results of the advertisers''
own testing, which doors Fingersafe fitted and which it did not; they said
Finger Protector fitted all the doors shown in the table. They sent a current
version of the leaflet and pointed out that it now stated that Fingersafe
fitted 34% of all door types, to reflect that Fingersafe now fitted bi-fold
doors.
The Authority noted the table did not state whether
Fingersafe fitted sliding doors, although the advertisers had asserted that
it did not. It considered that the results of their internal testing were
insufficient to prove the claims. Because the advertisers could not substantiate
the claims, the Authority told the advertisers to remove them.
4. & 5. Complaints not upheld
The advertisers said Finger Protector could be fitted
in a test in as few as 16 seconds and, on average, it took them one minute
to clean the door and one minute to fit the product. They said Fingersafe
had 40 to 46 separate parts, including screws, and 10-15 minutes would be
the fastest fitting time on record, not the average time. The advertisers
sent a video recording of timed demonstrations of Finger Protector and Fingersafe
being fitted. The fitter, who was independent of the door safety device industry,
had been given time to read the fitting instructions before fitting the products.
The video was produced in 2002-03.
The Authority watched the video fitting demonstration.
It noted the fitter took four minutes to fit Finger Protector and 37 minutes
to fit Fingersafe. It considered that it was unlikely to take 5-10 minutes
to clean the average door of dust, dirt and loose paint before fitting Finger
Protector, as asserted by the complainants. It noted the evaluation stated
a fitting time of 1-5 minutes for Finger Protector and 20-40 minutes for Fingersafe,
and considered that the claims were acceptable. The Authority did not object.
6. Complaint upheld
The advertisers asserted that servicing Fingersafe,
for maintenance purposes or emergency access, involved removing up to 23 screws
and the shield section, then replacing them; they believed that took twice
as long as fitting the product.
The Authority considered that readers would infer from
the claim "Service time" that, to maintain Fingersafe, regular servicing
was necessary. It understood from the complainants, however, that the product
did not need regular servicing and required only an occasional wipe with a
cloth. Because it had not seen evidence that Fingersafe required regular servicing,
or evidence to substantiate the service time claim, the Authority concluded
that the claim was misleading and told the advertisers to remove it.
7. Complaint not upheld
The advertisers pointed out that the leaflet stated
" ... A product fails it''s [sic] suitability for use on fire doors where
fitting requires the use of screws, nails or other fixings which perforate
the door surface and thereby affect the integrity of the fire door ...".
They said the perforation of the surface of a fire door with tec screws, as
required to install Fingersafe, affected the integrity of the fire door, and
a standard had not been set to test the fire restraining capability of a door
which had a system that used perforation fixings attached to it; the complainants''
USA fire testing did not take into account the risk caused by perforation
fixings. The advertisers sent copies of correspondence from the London Fire
Brigade and the British Research Establishment to support their assertions.
The Authority understood that the question of whether
perforations to the surface of a fire door affected its integrity depended
on many factors, such as what the screws were made from, how many screws there
were, how deeply they penetrated the fire door and how resistant the fire
door was. It noted the complainants held a fire certificate from UL but understood
that there were no British Standards for the testing of products that were
attached to fire doors. It considered that, because the complainants'' UL
testing was not recognised by British Standards, and because the perforation
of the surface of a fire door had the potential to affect its performance
in a fire, the claim was acceptable. It did not object.
8. & 9. Complaints upheld
The advertisers said the Health and Safety Executive
had declared Finger Protector practicable. They argued that Finger Protector
could extend to 180 degrees without implosion. They believed the complainants
had confused shield collapse with the shield unclipping if vandalised or fitted
incorrectly; the shield unclipping mechanism was part of the design. The advertisers
said the position of a door stop could be chosen to avoid creating a trip
hazard. They said Fingersafe needed extra screws to ensure that the shield
remained fixed to its counterparts and the Fingersafe shield was too large
on most doors and could not be extended to fit larger doors. They argued that
Fingersafe was not health and safety practicable because the product imploded
and was cumbersome.
The Authority noted the advertisers said the Health
and Safety Executive had declared Finger Protector practicable but had sent
no evidence to prove that or to prove that the Health and Safety Executive
had declared the other products in the leaflet impracticable. The Authority
considered that the leaflet misleadingly implied the health and safety practicability
of the products had been judged by an independent party. It concluded that
the claims were misleading and told the advertisers to remove them.
10. & 11. Complaints upheld
The advertisers said the Fingersafe shield did collapse,
although the product scored highly on their shield collapse test. They said
Finger Protector had anti-implosion straps to eliminate shield collapse when
the product was extended. They said Finger Protector''s shield was co-extruded
in both dynamic and rigid UPVC material; the overlap of material increased
the strength between the flexible and rigid sections and gave an increased
surface area to combat stress. The advertisers sent a video that showed attempts
to make Finger Protector''s and Fingersafe''s shields collapse when the products
were fitted to various types of door.
The Authority considered that the video seemed to show
that, when fingers were pushed into the hinge cavity area, the Finger Protector
shield did not collapse and the Fingersafe shield did. It considered, however,
that the questions of how durable the product was and whether its shield collapsed
were likely to depend on several factors, such as frequency of use, how many
children used it, the ages of those children and how active they were. It
noted the advertisers had not explained how they had assessed and compared
the durability and product life of all the products and the shield collapse
video related only to Finger Protector and Fingersafe, not to the other products
in the evaluation. It considered that, in any case, the leaflet implied the
protection against shield collapse and durability and product life ratings
had been independently verified or were a result of independent testing. Because
they were not, the Authority considered that the claimed ratings were misleading
and told the advertisers to remove them.
12. Complaint upheld
The advertisers pointed out that the complainants''
product was more expensive than their product; they believed their product
was the best value, based on user-friendliness, simplicity, capability and
price.
The Authority considered that the claim "best
value" would be seen by readers to refer back to all the previous ratings
in the evaluation. Because the claims in points 2, 3, 6 and 8-11 had not been
adequately substantiated, the Authority considered that the best value rating
"best" for Finger Protector and "worse" for Fingersafe
were misleading. It told the advertisers to remove the claims.
The Advertising Standards Authority
upheld 50% of the complaints. Half were accepted and half rejected. So those
interested in reading both the complaints and adjudication will no doubt form
their own opinion. Some may feel it is simply a case of ‘sour grapes’ because
a competitor took the initiative in creating this marketing campaign. Others
may feel that the complaints were in the public interest and a number may
question why the Advertising Standards Authority does not allow a ‘right to
respond’ to the adjudication.
My main concern in looking for a finger
protector was to protect my daughters’ fingers in a newly fitted conservatory
door. The subject relating to the number of screws and matters of drill bits,
I found to be way down my list of priorities. I even found myself asking who
actually pays for such investigations into these complaints? However, I’m
sure they may be important issues to someone.
I contacted Safety Assured Limited
and spoke with Mr. Steven Wells. I asked if he had any comments relating to
these complaints and his Finger Protector marketing campaign. He said; “
I had always assumed it was my birthright
to remain innocent until proven guilty. Not according to the ASA. Despite
all the other miscarriages of justice and refusal to allow a face to face
presentation in our defence at the ASA’s choice of venue we managed against
the odds to get some elements of the complaints made not upheld. Even when
given independently commissioned evidence in pictures, uncut professionally
and independently filmed sequences we have been denied acceptance of two crucial
facts.