ASA rules against aesthetic training companies following JCCP complaints

Vague and misleading representations of qualifications and pathways to practise within aesthetics by UK training companies has led the Joint Council for Cosmetic Practitioners (JCCP) to contact the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) to relay its concerns.

A sample investigation into three establishments –Aesthetics Uni, Aesthetics Lounge Academy and Boss Babes Uni – was conducted over several months and the rulings were released this week.

The JCCP wanted to address a significant problem that exists within the aesthetics sector, working with the ASA to address the fact that some education and training bodies were misrepresenting the basis of training programmes in terms of content, the nature and duration of training, qualification obtained and whether the qualification obtained meets the standards required for admittance onto a PSA voluntary Professional Register.

The JCCP has received many complaints from members of the public, existing practitioners and from other stakeholders about education and training companies who may have advertised their training courses with misleading claims. A small sample of three companies from the extensive number of complaints received by the JCCP was forwarded to the ASA for review and they have now concluded their investigation into them. In all three cases the ASA have upheld the complaints and advised that the three cited companies had misrepresented or withheld full and correct information for potential students to be enabled to make an informed decision before contractually entering the courses advertised.

It was also apparent that the three companies examined in this test case were not alone in their actions and that there are multiple training establishments who are promoting courses with aspirational claims that cannot be substantiated and who are making unfounded guarantees that standards set out by PSA registers such as the JCCP will be met. The North West of England has been highlighted as one particular problem area with exaggerated and inaccurate forms of marketing in this manner. The Council continue to observe the advertising practices in this area and will refer any areas of concern to the ASA who will subsequently take action as necessary.

Professor David Sines, executive chair of the JCCP said, “With the recent significant growth in the non – surgical cosmetic and hair restoration surgical procedures there has been a correspondent ‘explosion’ of education and training companies offering to train people to perform these procedures. Unfortunately, some training companies have misrepresented the basis of the training provided, the level and type of qualification obtained and how their programmes relate to the standards required for admittance to relevant PSA accredited voluntary professional registers, such as the JCCP. This misrepresentation leads to trainees spending large sums of money on training programmes that have not been developed in line with required standards and regulated qualifications. We are delighted that the ASA has upheld these three complaints and would now encourage all education and training providers to consider joining the JCCP register of approved training organisations as a kite mark of quality for both the public and for the sector generally. We also advise all people seeking to develop their competence in the aesthetics sector to look carefully at the courses on offer to ensure that they lead to nationally recognised regulated qualifications, at the appropriate level for that particular treatment and they comply with nationally agreed knowledge and practice competence requirements, as outlined by the JCCP and endorsed by key stakeholders.”

Associate professor Anne McNall, chair of the JCCP Training and Education Committee, commented, “The number of aesthetic ‘academies’ and training establishments that have emerged in the past year alone demonstrates the rapid rate of growth that has occurred in what can only be described as a largely unregulated education and training market in aesthetics. This is a huge cause for concern. A number of these companies have limited experience of providing educational courses, as illustrated by their use of terms, such as ‘accredited’, ‘certified’ or ‘approved’ without providing proof this actually exists. There are limited number of organisations such as Universities and Awarding Organisations that can legitimately provide academic accreditation, and quality assure courses. The term University is protected and terms like Uni should not be used to misrepresent the nature of the organisation if it does not hold such status.”

McNall goes on to say, that, because there was no uniformity or standardisation in the UK of course content, delivery or assessment in non-surgical aesthetics, (that operates in a non- regulated sector), the JCCP has developed Education Standards and a Competence Framework setting out standards for knowledge and competence to be achieved for each type of non-surgical (and surgical hair restoration) cosmetic treatment. This is irrespective of whether the course is provided in the private, vocational, further, or higher education sector.

She added, “Education and training providers, universities and nationally approved ‘awarding organisations' who provide regulated qualifications which meet these standards can apply for approval by the JCCP. This makes it much clearer for practitioners which courses actually enable them to achieve the knowledge and competence to practise safely and enables registration with a PSA approved register such as the JCCP. Our key aim is to provide the public with access to safe and appropriately qualified practitioners, providing safe treatments, in safe environments, using safe products in order to protect the public in the interests of safety.”

Miles Lockwood, director of complaints and investigations at the ASA, said, “These rulings set a key precedent for us in taking action against advertisers in this sector. It’s important to ensure that aesthetics practitioners are being upfront and not making misleading claims about the training they provide.”

 The rulings

Aesthetics Lounge Academy , Birmingham 

ASA Ruling: Complaint upheld – breach of CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 and 3.3 (Misleading advertising)

Ad description: Advert featured on the company’s Facebook page read "Do you want to become a Dermal Filler or Anti Wrinkle (Botox) Practitioner? Do you want a qualification in NVQ Level 3 Diploma in Beauty Therapy? Our VTCT NVQ Level 3 in Beauty Therapy works as a bridging course to aesthetics" and "Our modules are specifically selected to allow our students to progress directly onto our aesthetics courses such as Dermal Fillers or Anti Wrinkles (Botox)". Text on the ‘About’ page stated "The Aesthetics Lounge Academy works closely alongside the Aesthetics Lounge and offers a wide range of accredited aesthetic training courses to all suitably qualified individuals". 

Issue: The JCCP believe the training course did not conform to their own standards and challenged whether the following claims were misleading and could be substantiated: 

1. "Our VTCT NVQ Level 3 in Beauty Therapy works as a bridging course to aesthetics"; and
2. "The Aesthetics Lounge Academy … offers a wide range of accredited aesthetic training courses to all suitably qualified individuals".

Response: 

1. Aesthetics Lounge Academy said their intention was to explain that the NVQ Level 3 course was a starting point into aesthetics and did not necessarily provide a straightforward route to it. They said they would change the claim to make it clear it was a starting point as opposed to a bridging course.

2. Aesthetics Lounge Academy said their courses were accredited by the CPD Certification Service, which offered accreditation across the industry.

Action: The ad must not appear again in the form complained of. The ASA told Aesthetics Lounge Academy Birmingham to ensure their future advertising did not omit material information, such as the requirements for acceptance onto the course, the nature and duration of the training and whether the qualifications met the standards necessary for admittance onto a relevant professional register.

 

The Aesthetics Uni

ASA ruling: Complaint upheld – The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 and 3.3 (Misleading advertising).

Ad description: Website for Aesthetics Uni, a beauty training course provider, www.aestheticsuni.com, seen on 12 February 2019, featured a page entitled "COURSE Practitioner Lip Filler", which included a course overview

Issue: The JCCP believed that the course did not conform to their own standards, challenged whether the claims on the website gave a misleading impression of the advertised courses.

Response: A.U Training Ltd t/a Aesthetics Uni said they had removed the claim “You can now enter this course as a novice and learn a range of techniques for injection of lip filler” from the web page.

Action: The ad must not appear again in the form complained of. The ASA told A.U Training Ltd t/a Aesthetics Uni to ensure their future advertising did not omit material information, such as the requirements for acceptance onto the course, the nature and duration of the training, the qualification that would be attained, and whether the qualification met the standards necessary for admittance onto a relevant professional register. 

 

Boss Babes Uni 

ASA ruling: Compliant upheld – The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 and 3.3 (Misleading advertising).

Ad description: Website and a downloadable pdf document for Boss Babes Uni, a beauty training course provider, seen on 21 February 2019:

a. www.bossbabesuni.com, featured text which stated "Boss Babes Uni Good Quality Advanced Training" and "We are Boss Babes Uni, an advanced training company who train unique beauty courses across the UK". An image of a mortarboard and scroll featured at the bottom of the page.

b. The downloadable pdf document featured text which stated "Qualification: Anti-Wrinkle Injections and Dermal Fillers ... This is our amazing 3 day course medics and non-medics. Pre course requirement's [sic] are on the therapists merit, usually the insurance will require at least level 3 a and p VTCT, full beauty level 3, or semi-permanent make-up artist".

Issue: The JCCP believed the training courses did not conform to their own standards, challenged whether the following were misleading:

1. the claims “Good Quality Advanced Training” and “an advanced training company who train unique beauty courses across the UK” in ad (a); and 

2. the claim “Qualification: Anti-Wrinkle Injections and Dermal Fillers” in ad (b).

Response:  

1. Boss Babes Uni said they ensured all their teachers were industry professionals and had a substantial amount of experience and subject knowledge. They said they offered unique courses across the UK. 
2. Boss Babes Uni said their anti-wrinkle injection and dermal filler courses were fully accredited by the CPD Certification Service and gave students CPD points upon completion. They said both courses were run by fully qualified medics. If students failed, they were deemed incompetent and were invited to resit until they reached the necessary standard. Boss Babes Uni said they worked with their insurance providers who advised them of the minimum qualifications for students to be trained and provided a copy of a document from the insurers which detailed the requirements needed for insurance. They also provided screenshots of online conversations they had had with prospective students asking for their credentials and a Facebook post from someone who had studied with them, which stated that they had registered with Safe Face. Boss Babes Uni said they were in the process of creating their own register for training academies.

Action: The ad must not appear again in the form complained of. The ASA told Boss Babes Uni to ensure their future advertising did not omit material information, such as the requirements for acceptance onto the course, the nature of the training, the qualification that would be attained, and whether the qualification met the standards necessary for admittance onto a relevant professional register.