Resolution Statement – 00239-21 Treatz SHEFF LTD T/A v
thestar.co.uk
Summary of Complaint
1. Treatz SHEFF LTD T/A complained to the Independent Press
Standards Organisation that thestar.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the
Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “The TEN Sheffield takeaways
fined thousands for breaching the coronavirus curfew”, published on 5 November
2020.
2. The article, which only appeared online, reported that
ten takeaways in Sheffield had “been fined £1000” each for “breaching a trading
curfew.” It also included a quote from a Sheffield City Council spokesperson,
who said that the fined businesses had “ignored the advice and warning letters
that have been issued to hospitality venues.” Finally, it stated that
“enforcement officers witnessed customers being served at the front door of
Treatz Dessert Parlour.”
3. The complaint was brought by one of the businesses named
in the article as having been fined “for breaching the coronavirus curfew.” It said that the
article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1; it had not been fined by the
council, and as the publication had not approached it for comment it had not been
able to refute these claims.
4. The publication said it had been informed by the council
that the complainant had been fined for breaching the coronavirus curfew.
However, it offered to print an interview with the owner of the complainant
business to put their side of the story on the record, and also to expand on
the challenges facing local businesses during the pandemic.
Relevant Code Provisions
5. Clause 1 (Accuracy)
i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate,
misleading or distorted information or images, including headlines not
supported by the text.
ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or
distortion must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and — where
appropriate — an apology published. In cases involving IPSO, due prominence
should be as required by the regulator.
iii) A fair opportunity to reply to significant inaccuracies
should be given, when reasonably called for.
Mediated Outcome
6. The complaint was not resolved through direct
correspondence between the parties, with the publication noting that emails it
had sent were not received by the complainant. IPSO therefore began an
investigation into the matter.
7. The publication said it received confirmation from the
council that the fine against the complainant had been dropped. It offered to
write another story about the complainant making clear that the fine had been
dropped.
8. The complainant said that this would resolve the matter
to its satisfaction.
9. As the complaint was successfully mediated, the
Complaints Committee did not make a determination as to whether there had been
any breach of the Code.
Date complaint received: 06/01/2021
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 05/03/2021
Back to ruling listing