Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 08316-23 Webb v metro.co.uk
Summary
of Complaint
1. Kelly Webb complained to the Independent Press Standards
Organisation that metro.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) and Clause 2
(Privacy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Woman buys
house next to cricket pitch and complains about cricket balls landing in her
garden”, published on 9 January 2023.
2.
The article – which appeared online only – reported on a cricket club which had
been subject to a complaint from a local neighbour. It said that “when a nearby
house was bought by a new owner in 2021, she soon started complaining about
batsmen hitting sixes into her property“ and that the “historic cricket club
has been threatened with closure after complaints from a new neighbour about
balls landing in her garden”. The article described how the cricket club had
had to make changes to how it operated as a result of these complaints and had
now “suspend[ed] adult cricket”.
3.
The article also included a quote from someone who played at the grounds: “Two
years ago a neighbour moved in and started complaining about the balls hitting
her fence and going into her property. ‘I’ve been playing here for 14 years and
have never known a serious issue with balls. She has put pressure on the
committee to make changes. We’ve tried several things – initially we started
playing away from her part of the field.”
4.
The article was accompanied by a bird’s eye image of the cricket club grounds
and the surrounding houses. It had circled one of the houses – the IPSO
complainant’s home – in red, and the image was captioned: “A historic cricket
club has been threatened with closure after complaints from a new
neighbour about balls in their yard”. The article then repeated the image
with a different caption: “But when a large detached house bordering the pitch
was purchased by a new owner in 2021, she began to complain about batsmen
hitting sixes into her garden”.
5.
The IPSO complainant said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause
1, as the images it included showed her house within a red circle. By singling
out her home in this manner, she considered that the article suggested that she
was the person who had made the 2021 complaint after buying her home the same
year. The IPSO complainant said that she had in fact purchased her property in
2014 and that she was not the "new neighbour” who had been petitioning for
the club to stop playing sixes. She said that, as a result of this article,
other newspapers and radio programmes had identified her and she had been
threatened with violence online and been the subject of a hate campaign on
social media. The IPSO complainant said the article and its impact had been
very distressing for her and her family and had damaged her reputation.
6.
The IPSO complainant acknowledged that she had spoken to the cricket club in
2022 previously about the issue of cricket balls entering her garden and had
offered to help pay for a fence to prevent balls from entering her garden.
However, she said that the exchanges were cordial, and they had never communicated
specifically about sixes.
7.
The IPSO complainant further said that the article had breached Clause 2, as it
had revealed her address – which she considered to be an intrusion into her
privacy. She said that she was a prominent member of the community and
therefore many people had connected her house with the complaint described. The
IPSO complainant said that a written apology and compensation would be an
appropriate remedy to the alleged breach of the Code.
8.
The publication did not accept a breach of the Code. It said that the article
had been written in good faith based on a report from a reputable news agency,
who had also provided the images. However, upon being contacted directly by the
IPSO complainant on 10 January, the publication offered to remove the circle
which identified the IPSO complainant’s house as a gesture of goodwill.
9.
The publication said that the image of the house – which had been supplied by
the news agency – had been identified by one of the club members as the homes
of one of the people who had complained about errant cricket balls landing in
their garden. The publication said it was unable to independently verify the
image of the house, as this information had been provided by the agency and
therefore there was no “corroborating evidence”. While the newspaper accepted
that the article, in circling the IPSO complainant’s home, had inaccurately
described the IPSO complainant as having moved into her home more recently than
she did, it said the inaccuracy was not significant, as she had previously
complained to the club. However, in order to resolve the complaint, the
publication offered to publish the following footnote correction on 3 February:
“A previous version of this article included an
image with a house circled. The text suggested that the owner of his house had
complained to the club after moving into the property in 2021. We are happy to
clarify the complainant living in that house moved into the area in 2014.”
10.
In response to the concerns raised under Clause 2, the publication said the
article did not refer to the IPSO complainant by name, or include any details
beyond the image provided by the news agency. It did not accept that the
article intruded into her expectation of privacy. It said it had removed and
replaced the image on receipt of the original complaint, as a gesture of
goodwill. It did not believe that a written apology or compensation was
appropriate.
11.
The IPSO complainant did not accept the correction offered by the publication,
and said that, despite the updated article, the picture of her circled house
still existed on social media. She said correcting when she had moved into her
house did not rectify anything as the entire story was about the 2021 complaint
– which she had not made – and how it had disrupted the future of the club.
Relevant
Clause 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.
Findings
of the Committee
12.
The Committee acknowledged that the IPSO complainant had had some past
interactions with the cricket club about balls being hit into her garden.
However, the article was reporting on a recent complaint by a person who
had bought their house in 2021; this was the complaint which had resulted in
the suspension of adult cricket at the club. By accompanying a report of the
2021 complaint with an image which showed the IPSO complainant’s house within a
red circle, the article had linked the 2021 club complaint to the IPSO
complainant, when it was accepted by all parties that the IPSO complainant had
not lodged the 2021 cricket club complaint. The publication had also not taken
any additional steps to verify who owned the circled house in the image, and
had relied on the word of single cricket club member. As such, the newspaper
had failed to take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted
information. There was a breach of Clause 1 (i).
13.
The Committee considered this inaccuracy to be significant where the grievance
described in the article – which had resulted in unpopular changes to the
cricket club’s rules – was linked to the wrong person. As such, these unpopular
changes had been inaccurately attributed to the IPSO complainant which was
significant and required correction under Clause 1 (ii).
14.
The Committee turned next to the question of whether the action
taken by the publication was sufficiently prominent, prompt, and set out the
correct position and the original inaccuracy – as required by the terms of
Clause 1 (ii). The publication had, in its first communication with the IPSO
complainant, offered to publish a clarification making clear the IPSO
complainant and owner of the house circled in the image had moved into her
house in 2014. The Committee considered that the newspaper had offered to
publish a clarification promptly – once it became aware of the IPSO
complainant’s concerns – and had proposed to publish it in a sufficiently
prominent position as a footnote to the online article, given the newspaper had
removed the image of the circled house.
15.
However, the wording of the clarification only set out that the IPSO
complainant had moved into her house in 2014. The Committee did not consider
this addressed the fact that the article had linked the IPSO complainant to a
complaint she had not made. The clarification did not make clear the correct
position, which was that the IPSO complainant had not made the 2021 complaint.
There was, therefore, a breach of Clause 1 (ii).
16.
The Committee considered the IPSO complainant’s request for a written apology.
In this instance, on balance the Committee concluded that a written apology was
not justified where the complainant was not named in the article, and where the
publication had removed the circled image when it had first been made aware of
the IPSO complainant’s concerns.
17.
Turning to the IPSO complainant’s concerns raised under Clause 2, the Committee
recognised that circling the IPSO complainant’s house in connection with a
complaint she had not made was distressing to the IPSO complainant. However the
Committee must take other factors into account when considering a breach of
Clause 2 beyond any possible distress the article may have caused. It noted
that the image of the IPSO complainant’s house was taken from above and from a
distance and did not depict any interior spaces or private areas. It
further noted that depicting the exterior of an individual’s house generally
does not intrude into an individual’s expectation of privacy and in this case,
did not reveal anything private about the IPSO complainant. The Committee also
noted that the IPSO complainant was not named within the article in connection
to the house, and people who were able to identify the IPSO complainant from
her house would have already known her address – it did not disclose information
about the IPSO complainant to those who would not already have been aware of
this information. There was no breach of Clause 2.
Conclusions
18.
The complaint was upheld under Clause 1.
Remedial
action required
20.
The Committee had found that that linking the IPSO complainant to a complaint
made in 2021 was inaccurate. The Committee noted that the publication had
offered a clarification promptly and prominently, however this had not put the
correct position on record. Therefore, the Committee considered that a
correction setting out the full correct position was the appropriate remedy to
the breach. The correction should make clear that the person whose house was
previously identified in the image did not make the complaint the article had
described.
21.
The Committee then considered the placement of this correction. The publication
has since removed the circled image of the IPSO complainant’s home, meaning
that the article no longer included the image which inaccurately linked the
IPSO complainant to the 2021 complaint. As, such the Committee considered that
it was proportionate to require that the correction be published as a footnote.
22.
The wording should be agreed with IPSO in advance and should make clear that it
has been published following an upheld ruling by the Independent Press
Standards Organisation.
Date
complaint received: 12/01/2023
Date
complaint concluded by IPSO: 23/05/2023
The Independent Press Standards Organisation C.I.C. is a Community Interest Company limited by guarantee and registered in England and Wales with registered number 02538908.
