Furniture retailer Hammonds has been told to make sure future adverts are not misleading with regards to discount offers and comparative claims.

A banner ad and a page on the Hammonds Furniture Ltd website, www.hammonds-uk.com, seen on 22 May stated “Up to 40% off selected finishes + an extra 5% offer ends in […]” and included a countdown timer showing the apparent days, hours and minutes left in the promotion.

Meanwhile, the web page was titled “Why choose Hammonds?”. Text under the subheading “We won’t be beaten on quality and price” stated “Because we design and make everything ourselves, we can offer you better quality furniture at a price others can’t beat”.

Sharps Furniture Group challenged whether the use of the countdown clock in banner ad was misleading, because they understood the promotion was available for a further week after the countdown ended.

Sharps further challenged the claims “We won’t be beaten on […] price” and “we can offer you better quality furniture at a price others can’t beat” were misleading and could be substantiated; as well as the claims “We won’t be beaten on […] price” and “we can offer you better quality furniture at a price others can’t beat” were verifiable.

In response, Hammonds stated that the countdown timer in related to the “extra 5%” offer, and was due to expire at midnight on 26 May 2025. They provided a copy of their terms and conditions, which stated that the “extra 5%” offer also expired on that date. They stated that the claim “up to 40% off” referred to a separate promotion which ended a week later on 2 June 2025. They believed that consumers would understand that the countdown referred to the “extra 5%” offer, and that the “extra 5%” discount would not be available after the timer expired.

Hammonds also believed consumers would understand the claim “We won’t be beaten on […] price” to refer to their price match promise. If consumers received a like-for-like design from a competitor at a lower price they promised to match it, or if they could not match that price, explain the reasons why. They provided a spreadsheet which detailed the price match claims that they had approved or rejected between June 2024 and August 2025.

Hammonds stated that, in addition to providing a price match offer, they also conducted regular market checks against their competitors’ comparable products and services to ensure their prices were lower. Because they offered bespoke services, they said these could only be carried out by contacting their competitors to request quotes. They provided a spreadsheet which detailed the market checks they had conducted between February 2024 and August 2025.

They highlighted information on their website about the key features of their products and services, which they believed demonstrated that their products were of better quality than their competitors. They stated those features related to the design, manufacture and installation of their products, and that any consumer could check the basis of the comparisons made on their website by comparing the features they offered with the products and services offered by their competitors.

Following an investigation by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), all three claims were upheld with the first due to consumers would expect to refer to one discount which was due to expire after the countdown clock ended when this was not the case, and because the countdown clock was likely to pressurise consumers into making a swift transactional decision. It was concluded that the ad was misleading.

In addition, because it was not possible for Hammonds to make direct comparisons between their price list and those of their competitors due to their bespoke services, it was unlikely that they would be able to gather sufficient evidence that could substantiate claims. “We considered that without robust documentary evidence, or evidence of adequate price monitoring, Hammonds Furniture were unable to substantiate the claims that they could not be beaten on price. We therefore concluded the ad was misleading.”

On the last claim, as the ad did not provide sufficient information to allow consumers to verify the comparative claims, it was deemed as misleading.

The ASA ruled: “The ads must not appear again in their current form. We told Hammonds Furniture Ltd to ensure that their future advertising did not misleadingly imply that discount offers were time-limited, for example by using a countdown clock, if that was not the case.

“We also told them not to make comparative claims with identifiable competitors unless they held adequate substantiation for those claims, and to ensure such claims were verifiable.”