Resolution
Statement – 12008-22 A man v mylondon.news
Summary
of Complaint
1. A man
complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that mylondon.news
breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) and Clause 2 (Privacy) of the Editors’ Code of
Practice in an article headlined “Music from South London club so loud
residents forced to move out of their homes at weekend”, published on 6 October
2022
2. The
article reported on a hearing that had been held in relation to the licence of
a nightclub. It reported that “[a] South London nightclub has had its opening
hours slashed after the music was so loud neighbours had to move out of their
homes at the weekend” and that “[t]he venue, which is also known as Southbank
Nightclub, will only be able to open until 11pm moving forward. Previously, it
could hold parties until 5am on weekends”. The article also stated that “[a] GP
and a surgeon said they had to cancel appointments as they were so tired” and
named the GP and the surgeon who had been present at the hearing. It went on to
state that “One resident [the complainant], who lives three floors above the
club, said he had been driven to try and buy a new property outside of
Southwark to escape the noise”.
3. The
complainant – the GP referred to in the article - said that the article was
inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 for a number of reasons. He said that the
article inaccurately claimed that “A GP and a surgeon said they had to cancel
appointments as they were so tired”; he said that this had not been heard at
the hearing and instead it was heard that he was no longer working weekend
clinics as a result of the noise. The complainant further said that the article
claimed that “he had been driven to try and buy a new property outside of
Southwark to escape the noise” which he said was untrue as he had attempted to
sell the property and rent elsewhere, but it was not stated that he was trying
to buy a new property.
4. He
also said the article was inaccurate to state that “South London nightclub has
had its opening hours slashed” and that “The venue, which is also known as Southbank
Nightclub, will only be able to open until 11pm moving forward. Previously, it
could hold parties until 5am on weekends”. The complainant said that while the
licence had been amended on review, the pre-existing licence with the longer
working hours was still in place pending the outcome of an appeal and that at
the time the article was published the nightclub was permitted to operate as
per it’s pre-existing licence.
5. The
complainant said that the article had also breached Clause 2 as he considered
no respect had been shown to his private, family, or home life, particularly as
the article identified the building and the floor he lived on. He also said
that no consent had been sought for the publication of his details, and he had
experienced patients asking about the article.
6. Regarding
the cancellation of appointments, the publication said that a recording of the
hearing showed that the complainant had to stop working on weekends due to the
noise, however it accepted that while there may have been less appointments
available, this did not mean that appointments had been cancelled. Prior to the
complainant complaining to IPSO, the publication amended the article
accordingly and published a correction in relation to this point.
7. The
publication did not consider that stating the complainant had “been driven to
try and buy a new property” amounted to a significant inaccuracy given that he
had been driven to move, regardless of whether this was renting or buying a
property. In relation to the closing time of the nightclub, the publication
said that this had been heard at the hearing, however it would be happy to add
a sentence to the online article clarifying that the new hours were subject to
an appeal.
8. In
regard to Clause 2, the publication stated that it was entitled to report what
had been heard at the hearing and was not obliged to seek permission; it
provided recordings of what had been heard at the hearing.
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.
Mediated
Outcome
9. The
complaint was not resolved through direct correspondence between the parties.
IPSO therefore began an investigation into the matter.
10.
During IPSO’s investigation the complainant said that he would consider his
complaint resolved if the publication removed his name from the article.
11. The
publication agreed to remove the complainant’s name from the article in order
to resolve the complaint.
12. 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: 20/10/2022
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 21/11/2022
Back to ruling listing