HSBC under fire for 'identity theft' mailing

The mailing had text on the front of the envelope stating "What's the price of a happy future?". Inside the fake receipt was headed "Super.corp Milton Keynes, Sky Centre Central Greater London".

The receipt contained items including futuristic groceries and household products such as "domestic water credit 1 wk prepay £300.00... Negative cal chocs £10.64... Bananapples £12.24... Memory upgrade, personal £1,000.00... Ramsgate Rioja 2010 £100.00".

In all it totalled £2,816.64 and was dated November 29 2027.

HSBC said the till receipt direct mailing campaign was a follow-up activity and was part of a larger direct mail campaign targeted at customers aged 45 to 64 years old.

It said the initial mailing contained a copy of The Times newspaper featuring news items focusing on how the world might look in 2027.

Two weeks later, the till receipt was mailed as a follow-up to reinforce the idea of the potential high cost of weekly groceries in 20 years' time.

HSBC said that the goods and the prices listed on the receipt were a tongue-in-cheek means of conveying the idea that the future was difficult to predict, especially an individual's ever-changing financial circumstances.

The copy on the reverse of the receipt highlighted the issue of finance in the future and the importance of being prepared for the unforeseen.

HSBC said that it took its responsibilities towards customers very seriously and withdrew the advertising as soon as it realised it had been misinterpreted. The company wrote to all customers who contacted HSBC directly and apologised for any distress the mailing may have caused.

The advertising watchdog acknowledged that the till receipt contained no personal details of the customer and was clearly dated "29/11/2027" in bold text. It also noted that the receipt contained fictional items such as "Ramsgate Rioja" and "no hang-over cider" and considered that those were tongue-in-cheek and significantly detached from reality.

It did not uphold the complaints, concluding that the direct mailing was clearly identifiable as a marketing communication and was unlikely to cause undue fear and distress.