A PHOTO processing company was fined thousands of pounds yesterday after being found guilty of misleading the public with a 49p price claim.

The mail order firm was charged on two counts for producing envelopes that gave people the idea that their camera films could be developed at a very low cost.

Hertfordshire company Bonus Print was prosecuted by North Yorkshire's trading standards, after the boss of the unit, Stuart Pudney, was taken in by the incredible offer.

"I looked at the envelope and was struck by the 49p offer. I just couldn't work out how they could get to that figure," Mr Pudney told Richmond Magistrates' Court.

Prosecuting on behalf of trading standards, Helen Gamble said: "The trick is to do something that immediately attracts the person's attention, such as putting quite ridiculous claims on the front of the envelopes."

The court found that the 49p printed in boldly on one side of the envelope led consumers to believe they could develop a film at that price. In reality, the offer price stated by Bonus Print required customers to send at least three films in to be processed, two of which would cost 99p. The offer price also excluded postage and packaging of 70p per film.

Miss Gamble said: "The reality was that the minimum cost for the consumer is £4.57, not 49p."

Bonus Print was charged under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 for two different envelopes that went into print in last spring and summer. The envelopes, which would have reached about seven million households, were inserted into national newspapers and magazines.

The company's managing director Anthony Ward told the court: "We genuinely believed our envelopes were not misleading, but when we found out that the authorities were uncomfortable with them, we acted in good faith and were happy to withdraw them."

Stressing that Bonus Print had acted "courteously" to the authority's concerns, defence solicitor John Kings said: "It would be harsh at best for this company to be subject to a successful prosecution."

Bonus Print has 28 days to pay fines for the two charges, totalling £7,000, and costs of £825 - figures that would have been higher had it not been the company's first offence, said chairman of the bench Peter Hibbard.