· Decision of the Complaints Committee 00854-15 Wilson v Daily Record
Summary
of complaint
1. Douglas Wilson complained to the Independent Press
Standards Organisation that the Daily Record had breached Clause 1 (Accuracy)
of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Revealed: Highland
laird wannabes fooled into thinking they have bought Scottish land in
multi-million-pound global scheme”, published on 21 February 2015.
2. The article reported that customers of Highland
Titles, a company of which the complainant is the Director, were “fooled” into
believing that they had bought land, stating that they in fact received
“nothing” in return for their money.
3. The complainant said that Highland Titles does not
deceive its customers or misrepresent its product. He said that customers
receive a “personal right to their plot of land”, and also a gift set. He said
that details of the legal position regarding ownership of the land were
published prominently on the company’s website. The Advertising Standards
Authority (ASA) had previously found that selling a personal right to the land
was sufficient to justify the claim that customers could “buy land in
Scotland”. The complainant said that the company received excellent customer
feedback.
4. The complainant said that the CEO of the company, Dr
Peter Bevis, does not live in Spean Bridge, as reported, but in Alderney. He
had not lived in the Highlands since 2006. He was also concerned that the
article stated that Dr Bevis “claims to plough the profits into conservation”;
this is not a “claim”, the company does put a portion of its profits into
conservation. The complainant also said that it was inaccurate to say that Dr
Bevis ran Highland Titles through a charity, the Highland Titles Charitable
Trust; the Trust owns Highland Titles, but it could not be described as running
the company, and Dr Bevis is not involved in the Trust.
5. The journalist had contacted the complainant for
comment prior to publication, but the complainant was concerned that his
comments had not been properly considered, and some important aspects of the
article had not been put to him for comment.
6. The newspaper believed that its article was a
legitimate interpretation of Highland Titles’ business model and the content of
its website. It said that the plots cannot be registered with the Land Registry
of Scotland, as the area of land is so small that the Land Registry does not
recognise it. It said that the company’s website gives the impression that its
customers would be able to legitimately use the title of “Laird” or “Lady”, as
a consequence of having purchased land in Scotland. In fact, anyone can assume
such a title, and apply to have their name changed by deed poll. The newspaper
sought clarification on the legal position from the University of Edinburgh, which
said that “ownership cannot transfer to a buyer of a souvenir plot,” and
“Scotland does not recognise a personal right of ownership” (the complainant
did not dispute this). While the newspaper accepted the complainant’s position
that customers receive a gift set, it said that Highland Titles’ customers do
not own any land as a result of their transactions with the company; Highland
Titles retains ownership.
7. The newspaper provided screenshots which showed that
changes had been made to Highland Titles’ website since the complainant had
brought his complaint. These changes included the amendment of the phrase “buy
land in Scotland” to “buy a souvenir plot in Scotland” and the amendment of
“enjoy the full land ownership experience” to “enjoy the landowner experience”.
The newspaper also provided screenshots of the questions and answers page of
the website, which showed that customers were being told that “you are still
the owner of your plot in any situation”, “ownership is perpetual”, and that
customers could resell their land in future. The newspaper cited these as
evidence that customers were being “fooled” into believing that they actually
acquired full legal title in the land.
8. The newspaper said that Highland Titles does not
publish its charity accounts, and so there was no independent means of
establishing what the charity was doing with its profits. It said that Highland
Titles is wholly owned by the Highland Titles Charitable Trust; in this context
it did not believe that it was inaccurate to say that the company is run
through the Trust. The newspaper accepted that Dr Bevis does not live in the
Highlands, but lives in Alderney; this was an error.
9. The newspaper offered to publish the following
correction on page 2 of a forthcoming edition, and online:
“Following our article of 21 February which claimed that
members of the public were being fooled into buying Scottish land, we have been
asked to make clear that the Highland Titles website itself states that small
plots of land sold as souvenir gifts cannot be registered with the land
registry. Buyers do not receive ‘nothing’, they receive a substantial gift set.
Further, Peter Bevis, who is a director of Highland Titles does not live in
Scotland, he lives in Alderney and does not run the Highland Titles Charitable
Trust. We apologise for this error.”
10. The complainant said that this was insufficient as it
did not include the company’s position that its customers were not being
“fooled”.
Relevant Code Provisions
11. Clause 1 (Accuracy)
i) The press must take care not to publish inaccurate,
misleading or distorted information, including pictures.
ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or
distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence,
and – where appropriate – an apology published.
iii) The press, whilst free to be partisan, must
distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.
Findings of the Committee
12. The Committee understood the complainant’s concern
about the use of the claim “Highland laird wannabes [have been] fooled into
thinking they have bought Scottish land in multi-million-pound global scheme.”
The article had provided the basis for the claim, which included that customers
would understand that they had “bought a plot of land” in the sense that this
is ordinarily understood, when in fact title in the land had not passed to the
customer, and it was not possible for a customer to register the sale at the
Land Registry. The newspaper had contacted Highland Titles prior to
publication, and had also included in the article the company’s position that
“our customers obtain a personal right to the land, we make our sales on the advice
of our Scottish solicitors and the Advertising Standards Authority are
satisfied that we make that sufficiently clear on our website.” The Committee
noted that the questions and answers page of the company’s website demonstrated
that some customers had been confused about the nature of the land transaction
and that the company had revised some of the pages of its website to make the
position clearer following publication of the article. In all the
circumstances, the Committee considered that the central claim of the article
represented the newspaper’s characterisation of some customers’ confusion
arising from the lack of clarity that had previously been provided by the
company as to precisely what interest their customers acquired in the land.
This interpretation did not raise a breach of Clause 1.
13. Further, while it was accepted that customers
received a gift set, as opposed to “nothing”, the article clearly related to
the legitimacy of the company’s main product, which is souvenir plots of land.
It was not significantly misleading in this context to omit that they receive a
gift set. This omission did not breach Clause 1.
14. While the claim that Dr Bevis lived in Spean Bridge
was evidently inaccurate, it was not a central claim in the article, and Dr
Bevis did live in the Highlands until 2006. The inaccuracy was not significant
and did not require correction.
15. The Committee found that the newspaper was entitled
to report that Highland Titles “claims to plough the profits into
conservation”. The company does make such a claim and, given that it does not
publish the relevant accounts which would show its contributions to
conservation efforts in financial terms, the way in which the newspaper
presented this information did not raise a breach of Clause 1.
16. Lastly, the Committee found that, given that Highland
Titles is wholly owned by the charitable Trust, and Dr Bevis runs Highland
Titles, it was not significantly inaccurate to state that “Bevis…runs the firm
through a charity.” There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.
17. While the Committee welcomed the newspaper’s prompt
offer to publish a correction, it was not required in order to fulfil the
newspaper’s obligations under the Editors’ Code.
Conclusions
18. The complaint was not upheld.
Remedial Action Required
N/A
Date complaint received: 24/02/2015
Date decision issued: 06/05/2015