Resolution Statement 07191-19 Cintra Estates v Mail
Online
Summary of Complaint
1. Cintra Estates complained to the Independent Press
Standards Organisation that Mail Online breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the
Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Students are left furious
after being forced to wait up to THREE MONTHS for nearly £10,000 in rental
deposits to be returned by estate agents”, published on 10 September 2019.
2. The article reported on the claims of several students
who had not had their housing deposits returned following the end of their
tenancies. It reported that students were waiting for their “deposit to be
returned by Cintra Estates in Reading” and called the landlord of the students’
houses “an affiliate of Cintra”.
3. The complainant, who represented Cintra Estates, said
that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 of the Editors’ Code. He
said that Cintra Estates provides a service to the landlord, but that the
landlord alone held the students’ deposits and therefore it was for the
landlord to return the deposits. The complainant also disputed that the
landlord was an affiliate of Cintra Estates.
4. The publication did not accept that it had breached the
Code. It said it had not stated that Cintra Estates held the deposits but had
reported the accusations of students who said that Cintra Estates had failed to
return their deposits. It also referenced that Cintra Estates had taken a
holding deposit directly from the students which was deducted from the total
deposit. Furthermore, it believed that the landlord was an affiliate as Cintra
Estates is a guarantor for the landlord, and all properties once managed by
Cintra had been transferred to the landlord, amongst other reasons.
5. However, the publication amended the article to remove
any reference that the deposits were to be returned by Cintra Estates or by the
estate agents. It also altered the bullet point from “Cintra Estates and [the
landlord] accused of keeping tenants' deposits” to ”Cintra Estates and [the
landlord] criticised in row over deposits”. It also amended the description of
the relationship between Cintra Estates and the landlord from “affiliates” to
business associates.
Relevant Clause Provisions
6. 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.
Mediated Outcome
7. The complaint was not resolved through direct
correspondence between the parties. IPSO therefore began an investigation into
the matter.
8. The publication offered to print the following footnote
and to delete a photograph of Cintra Estates from the article:
“This article has been amended since publication to remove
suggestions that the deposits were due to be returned by Cintra Estates. We are
happy to make clear their position that they do not hold deposits for any of
[the landlord’s] properties.”
9. The complainant said that this would resolve the matter
to his satisfaction.
10. 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: 13/09/2019
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 11/10/2019