Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 04366-21 Ali v Lancashire Telegraph
Summary
of Complaint
1. Imtiaz
Ali complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that the
Lancashire Telegraph breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 2 (Privacy), and
Clause 9 (Reporting of Crime) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article
headlined “Businessman owed £14k by disappearing 'doctor' – claim”, published
on 2 February 2021.
2. The
article reported on claims that a businessman was “owed £14,500” and that “[i]n
messages seen by the Lancashire Telegraph the man who took the money, Hannan
Ali, promises to pay money back but has been uncontactable since the spring”.
It went on to report that money had been “transferred as an investment to Arain
Investments Ltd” and that “the now dissolved Arain Investments was according to
records registered at 85a Bank Top with ‘Dr Hannan Ali’ as a director”. The
article went on to state that Hannan Ali “is now also listed as a director of
the newly-created Arain Ltd registered at the same address” and that
“[e]vidence shows a final payment of £15,000 to Arain Investments was made on
January 30, 2020.”
3. The
article also said that two individuals claimed that Hannan Ali had told them
that he was a doctor, and that “[t]he General Medical Council (GMC) confirmed
it had no record of a ‘Hannan Ali’ and he was not a registered doctor. The
title ‘Dr’ is not protected by legislation and it means that anyone can use the
title without breaking the law. However, it is an offence to ‘hold oneself out
to be’ a registered and licensed doctor when you are not.”
4. The
article also reported that the 85a Bank Top address was located “directly above
Top Link Travel and Money Exchange which is run by Mr Ali’s father, Imtiaz Ali,
the former Conservative councillor”. It then went on to state that: “In a text
message received in September 2020 seen by [the publication], Imtiaz Ali states
that ‘my younger son was unwell since January 2020. As he was working in a
hospital during a pandemic his health deteriorated, so we flew him out of the
country for his health and treatment, now he is doing all right.’ When [the publication]
contacted Imtiaz Ali later he said he was living at a different address and had
no contact with Hannan ‘since before the lockdown’. We asked: ‘Are you able to
confirm if your son is a doctor? And when was the last time you saw him?’ to
which Imtiaz Ali responded: ‘Yes and prior to initial lockdown’ and ‘I have
nothing further to provide unfortunately.’”
5. The
article was accompanied by a photograph showing the shuttered exterior of Top
Link Travel and Money Exchange, taken from the street.
6. The
article also appeared in substantially the same form online, under the headline
“Businessman claims disappearing ‘doctor’ owes him £14k”.
7. The
complainant was the father of Hannan Ali, Imtiaz Ali, who was referenced and
quoted in the article. He said that the article was inaccurate in breach of
Clause 1, first stating that there was no business called ‘Arain Investments’
registered at 85a Bank Top and, to the best of his knowledge, no business with
such a name existed. He accepted that a business called ‘Arain Ltd’ had been
registered at the address, but did not accept that this meant it was accurate
for the article to report that ‘Arain Investments Ltd’ was based at the
address.
8. The
complainant further said that it was inaccurate for the article to refer to him
at all, where his son was an adult and the article was focussed on allegations
against him. He also said that the allegations included in the article
regarding the unpaid money had not been put to him prior to publication.
9. The
complainant also said that the article breached Clause 2 as it included
photographs of his business, and the publication did not have his consent to
publish these. He did not believe that the photograph was in the public domain.
He further said that it was a breach of his privacy for the article to refer to
him at all, where it was based on allegations against his son and he was not
relevant to the story.
10.
Where the complainant said that the story should not have referred to him as he
was not relevant to the story, and he therefore considered that the article was
in breach of Clause 9.
11. The
publication denied that the Code had been breached. It first said that it was
satisfied that the article had not inaccurately reported that “the now
dissolved Arain Investments was according to records registered at 85a Bank Top
with ‘Dr Hannan Ali’ as a director” and that Hannan Ali “is now also listed as
a director of the newly-created Arain Ltd registered at the same address.” The
publication said that this was the case as it had statements from sources, who
wished to remain anonymous, confirming that Hannan Ali was running a company
called ‘Arain Investments’ from the address. It did not provide these
statements, as it wanted to protect the identity of its sources, but it did
provide redacted WhatsApp messages showing that an individual had deposited
£15,000 into an account called ’A I Ltd’ or Arain Investments, and that the
individual believed the account to be Hannan Ali’s. It also provided
screenshots taken from the Companies House website, which showed two active
company listings – Arain Ltd and Arain Motors Limited – listed at the 85a Bank
Top address.
12.
Turning to the complainant’s concerns that the article had breached Clause 1 by
referring to him and that he had not been approached for comment, the
publication said that it was not inaccurate or misleading for the article to
refer to him. It said it had contacted the complainant as it had not been able
to get in touch with Hannan Ali; in these circumstances it considered that the
responsible course of action was to seek comment from his father. It provided
WhatsApp messages, sent in November 2020, between a journalist working for the
newspaper and the complainant, demonstrating that the allegations about the
complainant’s son had been put to the complainant, and explicitly stating that
they were seeking to give the complainant’s son “a right to reply to these
accusations”. The messages also showed that the complainant had responded
stating that he had had no contact with his son, had confirmed that his son was
a doctor, that he had not seen him since prior to the Covid-19 UK lockdown, and
that he had nothing further to provide apart from these comments. The
publication said that it had also posted a letter to the complainant’s home
address, which it said he shared with his son, and provided a copy of the
letter. Finally, the publication said that a journalist contacted the
complainant on what it believed to be his Facebook page in late November 2020 –
after the WhatsApp messages – but had not received a response. In the Facebook
message, the journalist also provided his phone number for the complainant to
call. It said that the Facebook account was still being updated, and it
therefore considered that this was an active Facebook account that the
complainant could access and respond to the messages.
13.
Turning to the alleged breach of Clause 2 arising from the photograph of the
complainant’s office, the publication said that this was taken from a public
street; it therefore did not accept that the complainant had a reasonable
expectation of privacy over the photograph of his business. It noted that the
address of the business was also listed on its publicly available Facebook
page, and provided a screenshot demonstrating this.
14. The publication further said that no breach
of Clause 2 arose from the inclusion of details about the complainant – his
name, his relation to his son, the ownership of his business, and comments he
had made to the journalist via WhatsApp – in the article. It said that it had
approached the complainant only in relation to the allegations against his son,
and this was the sole reason why he had been quoted. It further noted that at
no point in the article did it suggest that the complainant had any involvement
in his son’s activities.
15. Regarding the alleged breach of Clause 9, the
newspaper said that it did not consider that the complainant was an individual
convicted or accused of a crime, and the article did not state that this was
the case. Regardless, it said that the references to the complainant were
relevant to the article; he was a former Conservative Councillor and had been
approached for comment – which he had given – in relation to the whereabouts of
his son.
16.
While the publication did not accept that the article breached the Code, it
offered to amend the online article as a gesture of goodwill. It said that it
was happy to amend the article to make clear that it was investors who alleged
that Hannan Ali was running the business from the 85a Bank Top address, that
Hannan Ali was not linked to Top Link Money and Travel Exchange, and that the
complainant had no links to the allegations made in the article, and was
approached only to comment on his son’s whereabouts.
17.
While the complainant accepted that he had spoken to a journalist working for
the newspaper over WhatsApp, he said that at no point during the conversation
had the journalist said that his name, relationships, business details, and
“political life” would be included in the article. He also noted that the
article referred to him being a councillor, and had been published 3 months
prior to the local elections. He therefore questioned the motives of the
newspaper, and said that it had, prior to publication, approached his
“political organisation” for comment and made clear that the situation did not
relate to him. He questioned why, therefore, the article mentioned him at all,
where he said his “political organisation” had previously been told that the matter
did not relate to him. He also said that he had received no letter, and was
unaware that the newspaper had posted one to his address.
18. The
complainant also said that according to the WhatsApp messages, showing an
exchange between an investor and an individual alleged to be Hannan Ali, the
contact name was listed as ‘Hanana’ rather than ‘Hannan’. He also said that he
did not accept that the transfer shown in these messages was the one referred
to in the article, as he did not see a reference to a £15,000 payment in the
article itself.
19. The
complainant then said that, contrary to what the publication said, his business
was the only one registered at the 85a Bank Top address. He further said that
he was not content with the amendments proposed by the newspaper, and wanted
the article to be removed and for the newspaper to publish an apology.
20. The publication said that it had not
approached a political organisation for comment, and reiterated that it would
be content to amend the article in the manner previously suggested.
Relevant
Code Provisions
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.
Clause 2
(Privacy)*
i)
Everyone is entitled to respect for their private and family life, home,
physical and mental 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.
Clause 9
(Reporting of Crime)*
i)
Relatives or friends of persons convicted or accused of crime should not
generally be identified without their consent, unless they are genuinely
relevant to the story.
Findings
of the Committee
21. The
Committee noted that it did not appear that there was a business by the name of
‘Arain Investments Ltd’, or ‘Arain Investments’, located at 85a Bank Top.
However, there were two companies called ‘Arain Limited’ – one of which was
dissolved, and one which was active – and an ‘Arain Motors Ltd’ registered at
the address, according to Companies House listings provided by the publication.
As such, while the article was inaccurate in reporting that that “the now
dissolved Arain Investments was according to records registered at 85a Bank Top
with ‘Dr Hannan Ali’ as a director”, the Committee was satisfied the inaccuracy
was not significant, where two companies with similar names had been registered
to the address and the director of those companies was, according to Companies
House, Hannan Ali. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.
22.
While the Committee did not consider the inaccuracy arising from the company
name to be significant, it nevertheless welcomed the publication’s offer to
amend the article to clarify this point.
23. The
complainant had said that the article was inaccurate as it referred to him,
when his son’s actions did not relate to him and his son was an adult.
Newspapers have the right to choose which pieces of information they publish,
as long as this does not lead to a breach of the Code. In this case, the
inclusion of references to the complainant did not render the article
inaccurate, where he did not dispute the accuracy of the references themselves
and accepted that the publication had contacted him for comment and that he had
replied in the manner set out in the article. There was no breach of Clause 1
on this point.
24. The
publication had provided WhatsApp messages showing that it had asked the
complainant for comment on the allegations outlined in the article prior to
publication, and the complainant had not disputed that he had received these
messages and replied. While the Committee understood that the messages had not
explicitly stated that the newspaper would publish the complainant’s comment
and his biographical details, the complainant was aware that he was talking to
a representative of the newspaper, and had not told him that he wished to
remain anonymous, or that he did not wish for his responses to be published. No
breach of Clause 1 from the inclusion of the complainant’s response within the
article.
25.
While the Committee noted that the complainant disputed the accuracy of the
WhatsApp messages provided by the publication to support its claim that
“[e]vidence shows a final payment of £15,000 to Arain Investments was made on
January 30, 2020”, it considered that it was not in a position to make an finding
on the accuracy of this claim. This was because the messages and bank money
transfers were allegedly sent to Hannan Ali, and the complainant was not in a
position to dispute the accuracy of these messages or say for certain whether
his son had received the payment referenced in the messages.
26. The
Committee noted that there was a disputed point of fact between the
complainant’s account and the publication’s account, where the complainant said
that his political organisation had been approached for comment, and the
publication said it did not do so. However, where the Committee did not
consider that the discrepancy related to a potential breach of the Code, it did
not consider that it was necessary to resolve this discrepancy.
27. The
Committee next considered the alleged breaches of Clause 2. It noted that the
photograph simply showed the business as it would appear to passers-by. It did
not consider that the complainant had complainant a reasonable expectation of
privacy in relation to the view of the exterior of his business premises. There
was, therefore, no breach of Clause 2 in relation to the photograph of the
complainant’s business.
28. The
complainant had also said that the inclusion of details about him within the
article raised a breach of Clause 2. The details included in the article were
his name, his relation to his son, the ownership of his business, the fact that
he had previously been a Conservative Councillor, and comments he had made to
the journalist via WhatsApp. The Committee did not consider that the
complainant had a reasonable expectation of privacy over his name, his
relationship to his son, the ownership of his business, or the fact that he had
previously been a councillor: the fact of someone being a local politician or
owning a business is generally widely known, and is often in the public domain.
Turning to whether the complainant had a reasonable expectation of privacy over
the WhatsApp messages, the Committee noted that the terms of Clause 2 include
an explicit reference to digital communications. However, the Committee also
noted that the complainant was aware that he was speaking to a journalist via
WhatsApp, and had not indicated to the journalist that he wished for the
information included in the messages to remain private, and had chosen to reply
to the allegations against his son. For these reasons, there was no breach of
Clause 2 on this point.
29. Turning
to Clause 9, the Committee noted that the article did not state that the son of
the complainant had committed or been accused of a crime; it claimed that he
allegedly owed money to a private individual, and that he had told people he
was a doctor. It did not state that he had been questioned, arrested, or
accused of any crime, and the complainant had denied that this was the case.
Therefore, the Committee considered that the terms of Clause 9 were not engaged
by the complainant’s concerns, where his son was not an individual convicted or
accused of a crime.
Conclusions
30. The
complaint was not upheld.
Remedial
Action Required
31. N/A
Date
complaint received: 24/04/2021
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 28/10/2021
Back to ruling listing