Wonga advert banned for saying 5853pc rate was ‘irrelevant’

The Advertising Requirements Authority has censured the controversial payday loan provider


A Wonga advert has been banned for implying that the representative APR of 5853pc was “irrelevant”.

The tv ad for the payday loans company featured a conversation amongst two puppets, who explained: “Right, we’re going to explain the expenses of a Wonga short-phrase loan.

“Some folks think they will pay out thousands of per cent of curiosity. They won’t of course – that is just the way annual rates are calculated. Say you borrowed £150 for 18 days, it would cost you £33.49.”

The Advertising Specifications Authority (ASA) acquired 31 complaints that the ad puzzled viewers about the interest rate applied to a Wonga loan, implied that the representative APR was irrelevant to a brief-phrase loan and was irresponsible because it encouraged shoppers to disregard the representative APR and thereby trivialised the decision to get out a quick-term loan.

Wonga mentioned its goal had been to transparently explain the complete “real” value of a quick-phrase Wonga loan.

The company noted that it was essential to include both the annual curiosity rate and the representative APR in the ad and said it “regretted that this could have confused or misled some viewers”.

Nonetheless, it stated it was not in its see fair or affordable to find that an ad which presented the two pieces of info alongside each and every other, as stipulated in regulations, brought on confusion as to the fee applicable.

Upholding the complaints, the ASA stated it understood that the ad had been meant to clarify the costs of a Wonga loan.

It explained: “Whilst we acknowledged that viewers taking out and repaying the loan within the stated time time period would not repay 5853pc of the loan, we had been however concerned that viewers would be left with out a clear comprehending of how the details in the on-display text could be utilized to a Wonga loan, given the ad’s assertion that the representative APR was not indicative of the price of the loan.”

“We deemed that, though it attempted to clarify the expenses related with a Wonga loan, the ad created confusion as to the rates that would apply. On that basis, we concluded that the ad was misleading.”

The ASA also located that the representative example, like the representative APR, was not sufficiently prominent in the ad and that the ad irresponsibly encouraged viewers to disregard the representative APR.

It ruled that the ad should not seem again in its current form.