Decision of the Complaints Committee – 00544-20 Ahmed v
The Bolton News
Summary of Complaint
1. Abdul Ahmed complained to the Independent Press Standards
Organisation that The Bolton News breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) and Clause 2
(Privacy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Two years
of ‘party house’ hell”, published on 29 January 2020.
2. The article reported on a Saturday night party which had
occurred in a property that had been rented out on Airbnb, which was stated to
be across “the road from the [named] pub”. The subheadline of the article
reported that “Neighbours [had been] kept awake until 6am by teenagers using
holiday home for parties”. The article contained several allegations from
neighbours to the property who said that there had been parties at the
property. One commented that “I have contacted the owner via Airbnb on numerous
occasions to stop this happening but I have never had a response. There was
once a party on a Thursday night going on until 6.30am and the police were
called. There have been around five or six parties in the last two months”. It
also reported that the party was “another addition to two years of problems
while the house has been advertised on accommodation sites.” The article also
contained a quote from Airbnb that there had been “no previous reports of any
issues with the property” and that it had “responded to a complaint made this
weekend, made through the website’s Neighbour Support Tool, and removed the
person who booked the home from the service”.
3. The article also appeared online and had been amended
when the newspaper was alerted to the complaint, however, it was unable to
provide the original version. Nevertheless, the publication confirmed that the
original online article was identical to the version published in print.
4. The complainant, the owner of the property being rented
on Airbnb, said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 as,
whilst he accepted there had been a party on the Saturday night, there had not
been any previous parties, nor had the police been called about them, nor had
he received any complaints from the neighbours through Airbnb. He said the fact
that Airbnb had stated that this was the first complaint about this property
confirmed this. He also said that it was inaccurate to describe the house as a
“party house” as this gave the misleading impression it was being let as a
house to party in, when in fact parties were not allowed at the property. The
complainant said he had not been contacted prior to the publication in order to
deny the allegations.
5. The complainant also said that the article intruded into
his private life in breach of Clause 2 because it included photographs of the
property, one of which showed his car and its registration plate. He also said
that whilst his property could be found on Airbnb, its precise location was not
available until the person had booked it, whereas the article had stated it was
across “the road from the [named] pub”.
6. The publication did not accept a breach of the Code. It
said that the allegations that there had been several parties and that the
police had been called in the past had been based on a discussion with several
neighbours and had been presented as claims in the article rather than asserted
as fact. It did not consider that it was misleading to term the house a “party
house” where the complainant accepted that a large house party had taken place
there on the Saturday night. The publication said it believed that the
complainant had been contacted prior to the article being published, however it
could not confirm this as it no longer employed the reporter who had written
the story. Nevertheless, it did not dispute the account of the complainant that
he had not been contacted before publication. It said that, in any case, it had
received a comment from Airbnb who had confirmed that there had been a party on
the Saturday night, though as the reporter had left the publication it could
not provide any details as to which allegations had been put to Airbnb. After receiving
a complaint directly from the complainant, the online article was amended to
include that “[t]he owner of the property told The Bolton News that the terrace
is not a party house and that he shut the party down at 10.30pm”. A follow-up
article centred on the complainant’s denials was also published.
7. The publication said that the photograph of the property
was from a public listing on Airbnb and therefore there was no reasonable
expectation of privacy over it. It also said that the complainant had not been
named in the article, nor had his personal address been used.
Relevant Code Provisions
8. 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.
iv) The Press, while free to editorialise and campaign, must
distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.
9. Clause 2 (Privacy)
i) Everyone is entitled to respect for his or her private
and family life, home, health and correspondence, including digital
communications.
ii) Editors will be expected to justify intrusions into any
individual's private life without consent. In considering an individual's
reasonable expectation of privacy, account will be taken of the complainant's
own public disclosures of information and the extent to which the material
complained about is already in the public domain or will become so.
iii) It is unacceptable to photograph individuals, without
their consent, in public or private places where there is a reasonable
expectation of privacy.
Findings of the Committee
10. Clause 1 (i) requires that care is taken over the
accuracy of published information; it does not include a standalone requirement
for publications to contact the subject of stories for comment. Nonetheless, in
some circumstances such an approach may be necessary in order for a publication
to fulfil its obligation to take care. The publication in this instance had
contacted Airbnb for comment before publication; the question was whether it
was also obliged to contact the complainant directly.
11. The Committee considered the nature of the claims and
the way in which they were presented. In this instance, the article had
included comments and allegations from the complainant’s neighbours, which had
been clearly attributed to them; throughout it was made clear that the claims
were allegations and not established fact. The majority of the disputed
allegations centred on events at the house, at which the complainant was not
said to be present, and not the complainant specifically. The substance of
these allegations was addressed in the comment by Airbnb, which was included in
the article. The only disputed reference to the complainant (who was not named)
was the claim by one source that the owner had not responded to previous
complaints via Airbnb.
12. Having considered the nature of the allegations, the
manner in which they were presented, and the inclusion of the comment by
Airbnb, the Committee concluded that the publication’s decision not to contact
the complainant for his personal comment did not constitute a failure to take
care over the accuracy of the article. Nor was the article significantly
inaccurate or misleading such that a correction was required under Clause 1
(ii).
13. The headline had stated that there had been “Two years
of ‘party house’ hell”. Where the term “party house” was in quotation marks,
this was distinguishable as comment. Whilst the complainant disputed that there
had been problems for two years, it was not considered that “two years of hell”
was a statement of fact, and the article went on to make clear that the “two
years of hell” was the view of the neighbours. Where the basis was provided in
the article, the publication had taken care not to publish inaccurate material,
and had distinguished between comment, conjecture and fact. There was no breach
of Clause 1 on this point.
14. The article contained photographs which showed the outside
of the house and the complainant’s car, which could be seen from a public road.
The article did not report that the car belonged to the complainant, nor was
the registration plate included in the print version of legible in the online
version. In any case, these images did not disclose information about which the
complainant had an expectation of privacy. In addition, whilst the address of
the property was not listed publicly, the rough location described in the
article as being opposite a named pub was also not something about which the
complainant had a reasonable expectation of privacy. There was no breach of
Clause 2.
Conclusions
15. The complaint was not upheld.
Remedial Action Required
16. N/A
Date complaint received: 29/01/2020
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 22/09/2020