Resolution Statement – 08643-19 Singh v
thescottishsun.co.uk
Summary of Complaint
1. Sohan Singh complained to the Independent Press Standards
Organisation that thescottishsun.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the
Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “'DISHONEST CHEAT' Shamed
ex-Glasgow councillor suing restaurant boss for £50K over political bribes
accusation”, published on 1 September 2019. Another article, published on 3
November 2019, repeated some of the alleged inaccuracies. It appeared under the
headline “COURT FIGHT Shamed ex-Glasgow councillor who is suing restaurant boss
for £50k hires Scotland’s top advocate”.
2. The article reported that the complainant was pursuing
libel action against a named individual. It stated that the complainant, a
hotelier and ex-councillor, was previously “carpeted by [the] Labour [Party]
for illegally using a disabled parking pass” and “suspended…for three years”
for doing so. It stated that the complainant was a “rogue landlord” who had
“illegally rented out a series of Glasgow flats without being registered with
the council” and that he was “issued with a written warning by his own
council…over licensing breaches” at his hotel. The article also stated that
that the complainant owned the hotel when it held the wake of a named “slain
gangster” and that the hotel “is a well known hang-out of [a named] crime
clan”.
3. The complainant said it was inaccurate to state that he
“was suspended by Labour for three years after using a relative’s disabled
parking” as he was actually suspended for a matter of weeks. He said it was
inaccurate to state that he was “issued with a written warning by his own
council…over licensing breaches” as he was not censured personally. He also
said it was inaccurate to describe him as a “rogue landlord” that had
“illegally rented out” a series of flats as this was simply a genuine
administrative error. He said he did not own the hotel when the wake referred
to in the article was held in 2010 and also said it was misleading to claim
that the hotel was a “well known hang-out” of a named crime gang. The complainant
also alleged many other inaccurate or misleading statements in the articles.
4. The publication did not accept that the article breached
the Code. It said that the alleged inaccuracies identified by the complainant
were minor and not significant in context. It stated that it had made clear the
basis of its claim that the complainant was a “rogue landlord” and that a
report about licensing breaches at the complainant's hotel had remained in the
public domain, undisputed, since 2012. It did not consider that the reference
to the complainant’s three-year suspension was significantly inaccurate, in
circumstances where he had received this length of suspension for something
else. Finally, it stated that the hotel had long been associated with criminals
and that the complainant did not dispute that he owned the hotel in 2016, when
a criminal’s wake was held, even if he did not own it during another criminal’s
wake in 2010 as the article had stated.
Relevant Code Provisions
5. 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
6. The complaint was not resolved through direct
correspondence between the parties. IPSO therefore began an investigation into
the matter.
7. During IPSO’s investigation, the newspaper offered to
amend both articles to include the following statement from the complainant:
“Singh said: “I am not a 'rogue landlord.
The Government describes this as someone who lets sub-standard
property and takes advantage of vulnerable tenants. My family and I have rented
out commercial and private properties for years and never had any complaints.
In this case, there was simply a brief lapse in the
registration of rented properties with the council.
I was not personally censured over the licensing issues at
the Lorne Hotel.
The Lorne is open to everyone and I have never been made
aware of it being frequented by criminals, nor do I personally associate with
criminals.””
8. The publication also offered to pass on the complainant’s
request to be contacted in future before any story, concerning him personally,
is published. Finally, it also offered to add the following footnote correction
to both online articles:
A previous version of this article said that Sohan Singh
owned the Lorne Hotel when Kevin Carroll's wake was held there in 2010. To
clarify, Mr Singh did not buy the hotel until the following year. The article
also said that Mr Singh was suspended from the Labour Party for three years for
using a relative's disabled parking badge. He was in fact suspended for a
matter of weeks. The three-year suspension was for an unrelated matter.
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: 08/11/2019
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 24/04/2020
Back to ruling listing