I notice from this weeks ASA Rulings that Bill Plant had lodged a complaint against The AA’s claim to be the “only national driving school using fully-qualified instructors”.
When I read it, I remembered that it had occurred to me a few times recently that Bill Plant was now using “only fully-qualified instructors” as a strapline on most of its cars. No problem with that, though their website does come across as a little hypocritical when it explains the differences (i.e. the weaknesses) between ADIs and PDIs. Apparently, it made the switch around 2011/12, but before that time it was happy to send PDIs out to new pupils.
I don’t have a problem with the PDI system as such – everyone has to learn somehow, and the PDI route is one way which has helped a lot of people (I didn’t go that way myself, but a lot of people do). The problems that exist with it arise largely from the lesson payment structure, with many PDIs using it as a way of making money while they are learning and charging whack, but not knowing how to teach properly and – in many cases – not being good enough to become ADIs in the end. The hapless pupil loses out either by being left without an instructor, or by being taught ineffectively or even inappropriately, having been charged full-price for the privilege. Often, both. But I digress.
Bill Plant’s ASA claim was centred on the assertion that they were also a national driving school using fully qualified instructors, so the AA’s claim to be ‘”the only” one was false. Since Bill Plant does not seem to be making such a claim for itself yet, this seems to have been a bit of an advanced preparation exercise on its part.
The adjudication makes interesting reading – certainly with regard some of the numbers. Apparently, the AA has over 1,800 liveried cars, whereas Bill Plant has “over 500” (from its own Facebook page). The AA had used Bill Plant’s website to check for lesson availability in various places and concluded that there was no instructor coverage in at least 15 post code locations. The AA used its own coverage data with 1,800 instructors to argue that Bill Plant (with only “over 500”) could not provide national coverage. Their research suggests that Bill Plant is unable to provide coverage to at least 11% of the population, meaning a “national” claim was not valid.
But this is where it gets very interesting. Upon investigation, the ASA deduced from Bill Plant’s instructor records that at least one instructor was expected to cover an absolutely huge postcode area in order to “provide coverage”, and some of the names provided for certain postcodes didn’t appear “on the full instructor database” (I’m assuming that means the ADI Register) at all.
Bill Plant doesn’t cover Northern Ireland. It argued that this was irrelevant, since the UK ADI qualification system is different to that in NI. The ASA confirmed with DVTNI that the qualification processes are identical and licence transfer was easy.
The claim by Bill Plant was not upheld. The ASA ruling also makes it clear that Bill Plant is not a “national” school – which no doubt damages its short-term plans.
Personally, I wonder why companies do this to themselves – particularly the part where there appears to be some “creativity” regarding instructor names and the areas they cover. If you’re offering lessons in an Audi (not the most economical car to run), offering “5 for £56” and “first lesson free”, and charging several pounds less than the going rate in any given area, you are not going to stay in business long if you have a lot of travel between lessons (i.e. cover large postcode areas). So any such coverage claims for an individual just have to be suspect. Likewise, with the Bill Plant instructor names given to the ASA not appearing on the Register – you can only realistically conclude one thing from that.
Edit: I’ve removed the Bill Plant logo at their request. They disagree with the article. It’s a shame – it was being used in a legitimate reporting situation.