Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 10348-22 Malster v Mail Online
Summary
of Complaint
1. Dudley
Malster complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that Mail
Online breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) and Clause 2 (Privacy) of the Editors’ Code
of Practice in an article headlined “EXCLUSIVE Revealed: 'Heartless' landlord
who kicked out Ukrainian family-of-nine who fled their war-torn home for a new
life in Britain is a married senior Royal Navy officer with two young children
who has served in Afghanistan”, published on 29th June 2022.
2. The
article reported on the experience of a Ukrainian family who had been “given an
eviction notice to quit and have now had to start crowdfunding for a new home”.
The article reported that the family had “fled war-torn” Ukraine and been
hosted by a family in the UK. The hosts were described as “kicking out” the
Ukrainian family “after just one month”. It continued by stating that the
“landlord [the complainant] is a married senior officer in the navy who lives
next door to the family with his wife and two young children – and has enjoyed
a 20-year career in the military”. The article also included further, specific,
details of the father’s military service “according to his LinkedIn profile”.
It stated that the property the Ukrainian family was living in “was previously
owned by [the complainant’s wife’s] father […] before he died last year”. The
article quoted the Ukrainian family as saying “’[the complainant and his wife]
were so welcoming and made us feel this was a place where we could stay’” and also
stated that the couple “couldn’t have been nicer hosts when they arrived… [and]
[h]e said their hosts were warm, inviting and friendly”, but now said “the
landlord is being heartless”. The article said the publication had tried to
contact the complainant, but he was “not at [his] semi-detached home and did
not return calls”. The article also included an image of the complainant as
well as a picture of the eviction notice served on the Ukrainian family. It
also included an image of the house in which the Ukrainian family were living
and linked to a JustGiving page they had set up. The article also named the
town the family was being hosted in.
3. The
complainant said the article inaccurately described him as a “landlord”. He
said he was an executor of the property the Ukrainian family were staying in
and that he did not and would never own it, and therefore, he could not be a
landlord. He said the Ukrainian family did not have a tenancy, as they were
guests under the scheme, and that it was his wife who chose to host them and
who appeared on the paperwork as the sole host. He accepted that the “Notice to
Quit” document that had been sent to the Ukrainian family had described him as
a “landlord”. However, he said this was because the scheme allowing people to
host Ukrainian refugees was very new, and so there was no precedent for asking
the refugees to leave the property, and that he had been advised to use it.
4. The
complainant also disputed the term “heartless landlord” as the article quoted the
Ukrainian family who had described the complainant and his family as “kind”. He
also said it was inaccurate for the article to state the family would be
“kicked out” to live on the streets as this does not happen to families with
children in the UK. The complainant also said it was inaccurate to suggest that
the family had fled Ukraine with very little with them as they had left with
their car, and he believed the family owned properties and businesses in
Ukraine.
5. The
complainant also said that the article breached Clause 2 because it reported
information that could lead to readers locating his house, namely: a picture of
the house the Ukrainian family were staying in, and reported he lived next
door; it stated he lived in a semi-detached house and the name of the town he
lived in.
6. The
complainant also said that the article breached his privacy by reporting: his,
his wife’s, and his late father-in-law’s names; the existence of the JustGiving
page which had pictured and named the school his children attended; and an
image of the notice to quit. The complainant said that the inclusion of his
picture and information about his career compounded the intrusion into his
privacy. He asserted that, as a serving member of the UK military, and with the
media attention that resulted from asked the family to leave, exposing his name
and address put him and his family at risk.
7. The
publication said it did not accept a breach of Clause 1. It said that the
article had not reported that the complainant owned the property and it had
made clear that it had belonged the complainant’s late father-in-law. Moreover,
the publication noted that the “Notice to Quit” had named the complainant and
his wife as a “landlord”. It said, therefore, it was not inaccurate or
misleading for the article to refer to him as such. Regarding the description
of the complainant as “heartless”, the publication said this appeared in
quotation marks throughout the article to denote it as a quotation from the
Ukrainian family, and noted the full quote had been published in the article.
The publication also said it was not inaccurate to omit references to the
Ukrainian family had left with their car.
8. Furthermore,
the publication did not accept a breach of Clause 2. It said that much of the
information in the article was in the public domain. It said that the
complainant and his wife were listed on the public land registry, which gave
their precise address – which had not been included in the article. It said
that in any case, it did not consider that the information in the article would
have led to the identification of the complainant’s address. It also said the
complainant did not have an expectation of privacy over his address – it noted
he had not provided evidence to demonstrate that its publication was likely to
lead to security issues.
9. The
publication also said that the complainant’s career history was listed on his
public LinkedIn profile, and that the picture of him only showed his likeness,
which was not private information. Regarding the “Notice to Quit”, the
publication said this was not a private document and that the newspaper had
received it from the Ukrainian family. In addition, during direct
correspondence between the parties, the publication stated that the Ukrainian
family were appealing the eviction and, as a result, much of what the
complainant had said was private, including his address, had been heard in open
court after the publication of the article. The publication also said that
someone’s name was not private information, and it was standard practice for
articles to include basic biographical information.
10. In
relation to the inclusion of the complainant’s father-in-law as the owner of
the property the Ukrainian family were living in, the publication said this was
not private because ownership of a property is publicly registered. The
publication provided title deeds to showing the complainant’s father-in-law’s
ownership.
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.
Findings
of the Committee
11. The
Committee first considered the points of complaint under Clause 1. Regarding
the complainant’s concern that he was not a “landlord” because he did not own
the property and the family did not have a tenancy, the Committee considered
that, where it was not in dispute that he was formally hosting the family in
that property, and where he appeared on the relevant legal notice asking the
Ukrainian family to leave as a “landlord”, it was not significantly inaccurate
or misleading for the article to describe him as such. The article made clear
that the complainant had initially allowed the Ukrainian family to stay in the
house, and was now asking them to leave via a legal notice – the exact nature
of his relationship to the property was not significant in this context and
there was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.
12. The
complainant had said the article was also inaccurate because it described him
as “heartless”. “Heartless” appeared in quotation marks throughout the article,
and the article had included a quote from the Ukrainian family in which they
described the complainant as “heartless”. This, therefore, set out the basis of
the claim. In addition, the Committee considered that describing something as
“heartless” was clearly subjective and the publication had provided sufficient
basis for its characterisation of the complainant as so: he was making the
Ukrainian family leave the house. The publication had taken sufficient care
over this claim and there was no breach of Clause 1.
13. In
addition, the Committee did not accept the complainant’s opinion that the
article implied that the Ukrainian family had very little – it simply reported
that the family had “fled” and that they were raising money so they could find
somewhere else in the area to live. The complainant did not dispute this and
there was no breach of Clause 1. In relation to the complainant’s concerns that
the family would not be “kicked out” because a family with children would not
be forced to live on the streets, the Committee noted that the article did not
claim that the family would have to “live on the streets”. It considered that
“kicked out” was not an inaccurate characterisation where the family were being
asked to leave their current place of residence. There was no breach of Clause
1 on this point.
14. The
Committee then considered the complaint under Clause 2. Whilst the complainant
had raised concerns that the information in the article could have led readers
to identify his home, the Committee did not consider that the information in
the article identified his home: it did not show a picture of the complainant’s
house, nor did it report his address. There was no breach of Clause 2 on this
point.
15. In
addition, the names of the complainant, his wife, his late father-in-law, the
fact of his late father-in-law being the previous owner of the property (which,
again, was on the public land registry), the link and reference to fundraising
pages, and his career history which was publicly available on his LinkedIn
profile were not information over which the complainant had a reasonable
expectation of privacy. There was no breach of Clause 2.
Conclusion(s)
16. The
complaint was not upheld.
Remedial
Action Required
17. N/A
Date
complaint received: 04/07/2022
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 02/12/2022
Back to ruling listing