RSPCA 'Home for Life' ads escape ban even though some pets are put down.

An RSPCA ad campaign that offered to care for pets if their owner dies has escaped a ban, despite the charity admitting that almost one in five animals in the scheme are put down.

The RSPCA ran a TV and newspaper campaign for its free Home for Life service – featuring clip of a cat pawing at a window of an empty house and the story of a poodle called Pepe – which rehomes pets in the event an owner dies.

"When you pass away, you'll want to know that your pet is safe and happy," read one press ad. "We can help take care of your pet after you've gone. You'll rest in peace, knowing they're being looked after."

The Advertising Standards Authority received a complaint from a member of the public and Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming.

They argued that the RSPCA's advertising was misleading for not mentioning that it puts down some animals in its care.

The RSPCA admitted that in 2011 it had put down 10 of the 58, or 17.2%, of the animals taken in as part of its Home for Life service.

However, the organisation said that it strongly disagreed that the ads were misleading.

The RSPCA said that its ads did not give a cast-iron guarantee that a new home would be found; instead phrases such as "do all we can" and "we'll try our very best" were used.

It added that some animals were not able to be rehomed because of health problems, or because they had an "unsound or aggressive temperament". There were also legislative barriers regarding certain breeds such as pit bull terriers.

The ASA backed the RSPCA, concluding that members of the public should understand from the ads that it pledged to do its best to rehome pets.

"Because consumers would also understand that there might be instances when it would not be in an animal's best interests to be rehomed, which we also understood was the case, the ads did not breach the [advertising] code," said the ASA. "Ads for the RSPCA's Home for Life service [were] not found to be misleading for not explicitly stating that some animals were euthanised."

Yep...knew this was a con the minute I read of  it.  Have heard of this, and you can bet your sweet life it is NOT a free service so I imagine what happens is that it is advertised as a free service to get your interest but when you enquire they twist your arm and apply pliers to your fingernails until you agree to leave them your condo in Florida and penthouse in NY. Nothing will be free if it's run by the Gestapo...we all know that!! 

At least this is becoming common knowledge T.
Anyone that thought their pet was safe knows differently now, that can only be a good thing.

I do so agree!! And the good thing now is that you don't even  have to buy a newspaper...their despicable lies and misdemeanours are  there for the whole world to see online. They are surely on the way out. Smuggy Grant was paid something like 40% (I think)  more than his predecessor (who wasn't exactly living on the bread-line) but was out of the post in no time...a couple of years at most...have to wonder why as I don't think it was health problems.