Decision of the Complaints Committee 17325-17 The Governing Council of the Royal Albert Hall v The Times
Summary of Complaint
1. The governing
Council of the Royal Albert Hall complained to the Independent Press Standards
Organisation that The Times breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code
of Practice in the following articles:
“Anger over the resale of Royal Albert Hall tickets”,
published in print and online on 9 January 2017;
“Disgrace” of Albert Hall members who resell tickets”,
published in print and online on 19 January 2017;
“Albert Hall defiant in ticket resale row”, published in
print and online on 21 January 2017;
“The Proms should stop this ticket scandal- or leave the
Albert Hall”, published in print and online on 1 September 2017;
“Unmask seat owners, Albert Hall told”, published in
print and online on 14 September.
The articles under complaint
2. The series of
articles reported on a long running debate about the practice of Members of the
Hall, which is a charity, selling tickets for seats they own at the Hall for
“inflated prices”.
3. The first
article reported that a “fresh row” had erupted over the issue, claiming that
the complainant had “allowed debenture holders to circumvent a ban on the
resale of tickets” for a series of concerts in 2015. It said that the
complainant had “failed to enforce rules” which had been drawn up by the promoter
of these concerts, which had the intention of “limiting the number of tickets
being made available for sale on the secondary market”. The first article also
contained a statement from the complainant’s spokesperson: “Members seats are
their own private property with their rights enshrined in the hall’s royal
charter and acts of parliament; neither the hall nor the promoter has the
ability to impose restrictions on how [they] choose to use or dispose of their
tickets”.
4. The second
article reported on criticism of the complainant from the Hall’s former
President. It said that that [the Hall’s] leaders had been described as
“presiding over a ‘national disgrace’” by one of its former Presidents, who had
also accused Members of “ignoring the hall’s official system for passing on
unwanted tickets and choosing to maximise their profits by using ticket resale
websites”.
5. The online
version of the second article was amended to remove the words “presiding over”
from the first paragraph, so that the article claimed that “the leaders of the
Royal Albert Hall have been described as a 'national disgrace" by a former
president in a row over members reselling tickets”.
6. The former
President also criticised the members of the Council who own seats at the Hall
and were therefore in a position to sell their tickets. The article included
his “demand” that “trustees of the hall…declare any revenue that they make from
selling tickets”. He had claimed: “members of the hall’s council own 145 seats worth
conservatively £14.5 million. This interest is largely undeclared and as
trustees of the charity, their position of privilege and the advantages
afforded by the hall’s charitable status puts them in a position to profit
personally. For this to have been unregulated, despite being in the public
domain for so long, is a national disgrace”.
7. The third
article reported that the complainant “will defy demands” by the Charity
Commission to “overhaul its ruling council which is dominated by owners of debenture
seats and boxes”. It said that the Commission had “threatened to open a
statutory inquiry into the trust that runs the hall after concerns of an
‘inherent unresolvable conflict of interest’ caused by the majority of its
ruling council owning seats”.
8. The third
article continued by reporting that the head of an internal review into the
trust’s constitution had told the newspaper that it would “recommend reducing
the number of seat owners on the council while ensuring that they remain a
majority”. This decision, the article claimed, had “infuriated the regulator”.
The article also reported a statement from the Charity Commission’s
spokesperson: “The commission has made clear that the issue of conflicts of
interest and the independence of the council from the seat owners should be
dealt with as part of [the internal] review.”
9. The third
article also reported a statement made by the Chairman of the Charity
Commission: “the “scale of commercialisation in private sales of seats raises
questions about whether the charity is in fact operating in the public
interest”. The newspaper had obtained this quote from an interview which he had
given to another publication, in which the Chairman had continued by saying:
“The trustees should consider whether such arrangements risk damaging public
confidence in their charity. This is a matter of great concern to the
Commission and we expect the trustees to resolve the issue swiftly and openly”.
10. The third article also reported a further statement
from the former President of the Hall, whose criticism had formed the basis of
the second article. It reported that he had “accused the hall of breaching
charity law by failing to reveal the value of the seats owned by the council
members and the income received from the sale of tickets”.
11. The fourth article was an opinion piece, which
detailed the columnist’s concern at the difficulty in obtaining tickets for the
Last Night of the Proms, an event held annually at the Hall. The columnist said
that it was “extremely hard” to obtain tickets for the event by going through
“official channels” but it was “very easy if you have a few thousand quid to
spare and go to a ticket resale website”. The reason “why it’s so easy”, the
columnist had claimed, was because “1,275 of the Royal Albert Hall’s seats are
owned by members of the grandly named Corporation of the Hall of Arts and
Sciences”. The columnist suggested that the BBC, the organisation which runs
the Last Night of the Proms, were in a position to “stop this ticket scandal”
by threatening to transfer the Last Night to another venue.
12. The fifth article claimed that a former director of
the BBC Proms had “called for people who own seats at the Royal Albert Hall to
be named to curb the practice of them selling allocations of tickets at
inflated prices”. It said that the Charity Commission had “previously expressed
concern about the issue” and had “recently requested that the attorney-general
refer the matter to the Charity Tribunal for clarification”.
The complainant’s position
13. The complainant said that the newspaper had, over many months, given its readers an inaccurate and misleading impression of the Hall, its governance and the status of Members’ seats. It said that the newspaper had denied them a proper right of reply or any opportunity to comment on the articles’ serious claims.
14. The complainant said that it had no control over how
Members use or dispose of their tickets: this was their proprietary right.
15. The complainant explained that individuals who had
contributed financially to the construction of the Royal Albert Hall had been
granted property rights over seats, for a period of 999 years, by virtue of the
terms of the 1867 Royal Charter. The terms of the Charter allowed the seat
owner unfettered access to their seats, and their tickets, and did not contain
a provision which would prevent them from licensing the use of their seats to
others.
16. The complaint said that as the Charter was an Act of
Parliament, only Parliament had the power to change its terms. It explained
that amendments to the Charter could only be made by passing a resolution by a
75% majority of Members. It said that even if Members volunteered by that
majority, to relinquish their property rights and empower the Hall to make such
an application, Parliament would be required to agree that this would be
proportionate. It said that this was unlikely given that the outcome of this
process may result in the confiscation of Members’ private property rights.
17. The complainant said that it was therefore inaccurate
for the articles to suggest that it “allows” its Members to sell on their
tickets for profit, or that it was “presiding over” the practice. It said that
the restrictions put in place by the promoter of the 2015 concerts had not
applied to members’ tickets, and so it was inaccurate to state that Members had
“circumvented” a ban on resales.
18. The complainant denied that Members’ tickets were
being “re-sold”: members were selling their tickets so as to provide access to
their private property and not, as suggested, in a manner akin to the
industry-wide issue of secondary ticket sales. The characterisation of Members
as “debenture holders” was also misleading as it suggested that the terms of
the Charter had conferred a temporary agreement between a lender and a
borrower, rather than granting permanent seat ownership.
19. While the complainant maintained that it had no
control over Members’ private property and the way they use or dispose of their
tickets, it noted that it had encouraged members to sell unwanted tickets
through a voluntary Ticket Return Scheme, where 60% of all Members’ tickets are
returned.
20. The complainant said that the articles had misrepresented
its interactions with the Charity Commission; the Commission was not concerned
about Members selling their tickets in general and it had not threatened to
open a statutory inquiry into the trust that runs the Hall. The complainant
said that the inclusion of the allegations made by its former President,
rendered the third article significantly misleading, as it suggested that it
had breached charity law by failing to reveal the value of the seats owned by
Council members and the income received from the sale of tickets. The
complainant acknowledged that the Charity Commission was seeking consent from
the Attorney General to refer questions to the Charity Tribunal under s.325 of
the Charities Act 2011; however it said that the Commission’s concern was not
about tickets per se, or their “resales”.
21. The complainant acknowledged that the Commission had
previously “expressed a preference” that the Hall’s council move to a minority
of seat holding Members. The complainant said that it had commenced a constitutional
review which the Commission were being regularly updated on- this did not
amount to “defying” the Charity Commission’s “demands”. The complainant said
that inclusion of the statement from the Charity Commission’s spokesperson in
the third article was therefore misleading, as it suggested that the issue of
conflicts of interest and independence of the Council from seat owners was not
being dealt with as part of its internal review.
22. The complainant said that the second article had
distorted a quotation from its former President. It said that his concern
related to the lack of regulation regarding the “issue” of members selling
their tickets; he had not claimed that the Hall’s governing body were a
“national disgrace”. The complainant was concerned at the amendment which had
then been made to the online article, so as to accuse its trustees of being a
“national disgrace”. It said that this was not a claim made by its former
President, and was far more damaging.
23. The complainant said that the fourth article had
suggested that the issue of high prices for the Last Night of the Proms, and
the alleged difficulties for members of the public in obtaining tickets, was
primarily due to Members selling their tickets. It said that this practice did
not contradict its commitment to prevent the secondary marketing of tickets.
The complainant also said that the article had given the inaccurate impression
that the Hall’s conduct was in breach of charity law by suggesting that the
organisers of the Proms should withdraw from the Hall in order to force it to
reform.
The newspaper’s position:
24. The newspaper did not accept a breach of the Code. It
said that it was accurate to report that the complainant was allowing members
to sell the tickets they receive by virtue of their seat ownership, and that it
was “presiding over” this practice; the complainant provided Members with
tickets, and did not prevent them from selling them. It said that the meaning
of “allow” was dependent on context: the articles had been clear that the
complainant was not stopping the practice, despite the Charity Commission
putting it under pressure to deal with the conflict which this practice
creates. It was this inaction, the newspaper said, which amounted to the
complainant “allowing” the practice to continue.
25. The newspaper did not accept the complainant’s
position that it did not have a mandate to intervene in Members selling their
tickets and noted the Ticket Return Scheme which had been set up by the
complainant. The newspaper suggested that the complainant could refuse entry to
the Hall in certain circumstances, including if tickets have been bought from
secondary resale sites. It suggested that while it may be a cumbersome process,
the complainant could seek to prevent the sales via an Act of Parliament. It
noted that the complainant had previously sought to take such steps, when it
wished to make a different amendment to its constitution.
26. The newspaper said that it was accurate to report
that the complainant had “allowed” members to circumvent the 2015 ban. It said
that the article did not suggest that the complainant had failed to enforce
certain rules set out by the promoter or that the ban had applied to Members’
tickets. The article had made clear that the source of the promoter’s concern
was the complainant’s policy of allowing Members to sell tickets, when he had
sought to limit the number of resales.
27. The newspaper did not accept that referring to the
arrangements of sale as “resales”, or referring to Members as “debenture
holders” was significantly inaccurate, and noted that Members had been
described as “debentures” previously, without complaint. The newspaper noted
that the first article had reported the statement from the complainant’s
spokesperson, which had set out the private, proprietary nature of members’
interests in their seats.
28. The newspaper said that it had reported the
Commission’s concerns accurately. It was erroneous to suggest that the
Commission was not concerned with Members selling their tickets as it was such
selling that created the conflict in the complainant’s council. It was not
possible to separate the issue of ticket sales from the issue of control of the
charity, as the complainant was seeking to do. In support of this, the
newspaper provided a statement which it had received from the Charity
Commission, issued in September 2017:
“Under the Royal Charter that was created when the Hall
was built in 1860s, individuals who helped finance its construction were
rewarded with seats which could be handed down generations or sold permanently,
like property. They can also be sold, very profitably, for individual nights of
entertainment. The problem is that the seat holders are a majority of the
council that runs the charity- 19 out of 25- which raises an inherent
unresolvable conflict of interest in its governance.
The question is whether these arrangements enable the
Council to be perceived as furthering the purposes of the charity for the
public benefit. We have been engaged with the Hall for some time and, while
progress has been made in some areas, the central issue of how to deal with the
conflicts of interest, and suggested private benefit, remain unresolved and the
Hall has shown minimal appetite to address these.
The charity had sought to address these issues by
spending charitable funds to bring parliamentary proceedings to alter its
constitution, by changing the Act of Parliament on which it was founded.
However, the Commission has declined to authorise the charity to spend
charitable funds on preparing or promoting a parliamentary Bill to implement its
governance review. The Commission has concluded that it is not in the best
interests of the charity to do so.
The Commission has statutory powers to establish schemes
where it is necessary to alter an Act of Parliament which establishes or
regulates a charity, and we believe this is the appropriate route for the
outcome of a governance review requiring such constitutional changes to be
made.
Due to the complex nature of these matters, we have taken
the unprecedented step of seeking the consent of the Attorney General to refer
a number of questions to the Charity Tribunal, under s.325 of the Charities Act
2011, concerning issues relating to the charity and the exercise of the
Commission’s regulatory powers by way of a scheme, to finally address this issue”.
29. The newspaper said that the third article did not, as
the complainant had suggested, refer to an ultimatum made by the Charity
Commission. It simply reflected the long-running dispute between the
complainant and the Commission. Nor had the third article stated that the
complainant had breached charity law; it had contained an accusation made by
the complainant’s former President.
30. The newspaper said that another publication had
reported an interview with the chair of the Charity Commission, who had said
that “The Royal Albert Hall has now been given until May to put its house in
order or face a formal inquiry by the Commission”. Following this, a journalist
had contacted the Commission for comment, who had said “The Royal Albert Hall
is currently undertaking a governance review. The Commission has made clear
that the issue of conflicts of interest and the independence of the Council
from the seat owners should be dealt with as part of this review. The
Commission will not pre-judge the outcome of this review and will assess its
regulatory options once this has been presented”.
31. The newspaper said that it was entitled to report the
opinion of the complainant’s former President, and said that there was no
meaningful inaccuracy in the second article, caused by the original misquoting
of his words. The suggestion that the trustees “preside over” over the
“national disgrace” of Members selling their tickets, or that the trustees are
a disgrace themselves for presiding over this practice, were substantively
similar and would not lead to any misunderstanding of his views.
32. The newspaper said that the moment the complainant had raised concern regarding the original version of the online second article, it had apologised. It had explained that the omission of the words “presiding over” had occurred inadvertently and offered to reinsert the words. While it did not accept that the amendment to the online article had resulted in a breach of the Code, it reinserted the words “presiding over” into the first paragraph and added the following footnote on to the online article:
“This article was amended on [date] to correct an error introduced in the editing process, for which we apologise, which resulted in the article stating that a former president of the Royal Albert Hall had said that its leaders were a “national disgrace”, when in fact what he said was that they were presiding over a “national disgrace”. This is strongly denied by the Corporation that runs the Albert Hall”
33. The newspaper said that it had attempted to contact
the complainant for comment, prior to the publication of the first article. The
journalist had called the urgent out of hours number for press enquiries and
left a message but no one returned his call. It said that the journalist had
also used the complainant’s online contact form, but received no response.
34. The newspaper said it had attempted to mediate a
resolution to the complaint and had suggested a number of formulations for a
clarification, all of which had been rejected by the complainant. While it did not accept a breach of the Code,
it offered to publish the following wording in its Corrections &
Clarifications column, in addition to the footnote on the second online
article:
“In a number of recent articles, we said that the Royal
Albert Hall allowed members who own Hall seats to resell their tickets for
events and, on one occasion, to circumvent a ban on them doing so. The seats
are privately owned, non-charitable property and the sales are not “resales”.
The trustees point out that the ban did not apply to members’ seats, members
are free to sell their tickets, and the Hall cannot control these sales. They
deny they are presiding over a “national disgrace” and also say they are
committed to working with the BBC to help them fight secondary sales of Proms
tickets by non members. We are happy to clarify that the Charity Commission has
not issued them with an ultimatum or threatened a statutory inquiry and that
there has been no breach of charity law for not revealing the value of the
seats owned by the council members and the income received from ticket sales.
We apologise for any inaccuracies”.
35. The newspaper changed all references to “reselling”
in all the online articles to “selling”. It also offered to consider a letter
for publication from the complainant, subject to the right to edit it- as with
all letters submitted for publication. It also offered to circulate a note to
all of its news executives alerting them to the complainant’s concerns and,
assuming a resolution was reached, drawing their attention to the wording to be
published and asking them to bear these points in mind when publishing material
about the Royal Albert Hall in the future.
Further comments from the complainant:
36. In response to a request by IPSO to explain why it
was not possible for it to refuse entry to members of the public who had bought
Members’ tickets on the open market, the complainant said that it was not able
to dictate to Members how to dispose of their tickets. It also noted that such
entrance restrictions would pose practical problems as staff checking such
tickets upon persons entering an event would have no way of knowing whether the
ticket in question had been donated, had been transferred as part of a charity
auction, or indeed, sold at a discount.
37. The complainant said it had no record of the
newspaper seeking comment from them prior to the first article, or at all. It
did not accept the newspaper’s offer of resolution, nor its previous formulations;
the newspaper had continued to offer wording which was unsatisfactory and which
it had made clear that it would not accept. The complainant said that it sought
a fair right of reply, having been denied that in the articles.
Relevant Code provisions
38. 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.
Findings of the Committee
39. The articles under complaint contained criticism of
the complainant from a number of sources, including in one instance, a
columnist from the newspaper. At the core of this criticism was the allegation
that the complainant “allows” its Members to sell their tickets. The
complainant and the publication attributed different meanings to this claim.
The complainant said that it had no standing to allow or disallow how Members
use or dispose of their tickets. The newspaper did not dispute that Members had
a proprietary right over their seats, but argued that it was not misleading to
report that it “allows” these individuals to sell their tickets for inflated
prices, where the complainant had failed to take any action to address the
issue.
40. The question of whether the use of “allow” was
misleading in breach of Clause 1 depended on the context in which it was
placed. The first article had made the distinct claim that the complainant had
“allowed” its members to “circumvent a ban” on the resale of tickets. It was not in dispute that the terms of sale
imposed by the promoter did not apply to Members tickets; reporting that
Members had “circumvented” a ban, and the complainant had allowed them to do
so, misrepresented the terms of sale. This represented failure to take care
over the accuracy of the article. The use of the term “allow”, in that context,
was significantly inaccurate, as it suggested that the complainant had failed
to comply with an obligation to which is was subject, and required correction under
the terms of 1(ii).
41. The newspaper was entitled to take the view that the
complainant had not taken sufficient steps to publicly condemn or discourage
the practice of Members selling their tickets for high prices, despite public
statements made by the Chairman of the Charity Commission who had expressed
concern about whether the charity was acting in the public interest given the
scale of commercialism in private seat sales by council members. This was the
basis for the newspaper’s position that the complainant “allowed” Members to
sell their tickets for high prices. In circumstances where all of the articles
under complaint made clear the current legal status of Members’ property, so
that readers were able to evaluate the meaning of the term, this
characterisation was not misleading. The use of the term “allow”, or the
allegation that the leaders of the Hall were “presiding over” over Members
selling their tickets, did not represent a breach of Clause 1.
42. The articles also reported on the complainant’s long
running engagement with the Charity Commission; the complainant said that the
articles had misrepresented the nature of the Commission’s concerns.
43. In considering the care taken over the reporting of
the complainant’s interactions with its regulator, the Committee had regard to
the statement from the Commission’s Chairman which had been published in the
third article that the “scale of commercialism in the private sales of seats
raises questions about whether the charity is in fact operating in the public
interest” and the statement which had been issued by the Charity Commission in
September 2017.
44. The complainants’ interactions with the Charity
Commission were referred to in the third and fifth article. The third article
had referred explicitly to the Commission’s concern about a conflict of
interest caused by “the majority of [the complainant’s] ruling council owning
seats”. The statement of the Charity Commission had set out that seats held by
Members could be sold profitably; it had identified a “problem” with this
arrangement which was that seat holders were a majority of the council and had
said that this “raised an inherent unresolvable conflict of interest in its
governance”. It was not in dispute that trustees on the complainant’s council
were in a position to sell tickets by virtue of their seat ownership. In the
context of the vociferous concerns expressed publicly by the Commission’s
Chairman, it was not misleading to present the public statements from the
Commission as expressions of concern that council Members were selling their
tickets. There was no failure to take care over the presentation of the
complainant’s interactions with the Commission on these points, or the basis
for the reference which was being made to the Charity Tribunal. The third
article had not misrepresented the Charity Commission’s publicly expressed
concerns. Further, it did not state as fact that the Hall had breached charity
law, it had distinguished this as a claim made by a former President of the
Hall. There was no breach of Clause 1 in relation to the third article.
45. The fifth article had referred to the practice of
members selling “allocations of tickets at inflated prices”, and had gone on to
report that the Charity Commission had “previously expressed concern about the
issue”. The Commission’s publicly expressed concern did not relate to the
practice of selling of seats more generally, but to members of the council
doing so. The fifth article had not made this distinction clear. This
represented a failure to take care over the accuracy of the article, in breach
of Clause 1 (i). The misrepresentation of the Commission’s concerns and
further, the basis for the reference which was being made to the Charity
Tribunal, was a significant inaccuracy, requiring correction to avoid a breach
of 1 (ii).
46. The complainant had argued that the third article had
given the misleading impression that it was not addressing the concerns raised
by the Charity Commission. However, the head of the complainant’s internal
review was not advocating for a move to a minority of seat-holding Members on
its Council. This proposed recommendation was in spite of the “great concern”
expressed publicly by the Chairman of the Commission regarding the current
arrangements on the complainant’s Council. It was also in spite of the
statement from the Commission which had been reported in the third article,
which had made clear that this issue “should” be addressed. The complainant did
not appear to be acting in accordance with the Commission’s recommendations; it
was not misleading to report that the complainant was “defying” its “demands”.
47. The newspaper had sought comment from the Commission
who had said that it would “assess its regulatory options” following the
outcome of the complainant’s internal review. It was accepted that a statutory inquiry
into the trust that runs the Hall was an option open to the Commission, should
they choose to take it. Given the significant concern set out by the
Commission, and its clear preference that Members should be a minority on the
Council, it was not significantly misleading to characterise the possible
imposition of one regulatory option as a “threat”. This aspect of the complaint
did not breach Clause 1.
48. The second article had included the full statement
from the Hall’s former President, setting out his concern that the fact that
the lack of regulation governing Members’ selling their tickets was a “national
disgrace”. The claim that “leaders” of the Hall had been described as a
“national disgrace” – or “presiding over” a national disgrace- was not a
misleading characterisation of his concerns, in circumstances where his full
quote, setting out his concern about trustees’ conduct, was included in the
article.
49. The Committee did not establish any significant
inaccuracies in the fourth article’s discussion of ticket sales for the Last
Night of the Proms. The columnist was entitled to focus on the specific issue
of Members selling their tickets at high prices in order to illustrate the
difficulty in accessing tickets for the night. In the context of an opinion
piece, the columnist’s decision to focus on one reason why access was difficult
for the event did not suggest that the public were being prevented from
accessing the Last Night of the Proms primarily due to Members’ actions.
50. The complainant argued that reference to tickets
“resales” suggested that Members were selling their tickets in a manner akin to
the industry-wide issue of secondary ticket sales. The Committee disagreed. The
articles had made clear that Members were obtaining a financial benefit from
selling their tickets which they receive by virtue of their seat ownership. The
term “resell” did not mischaracterise this arrangement and both “resell” and
“sell” made clear the complainant’s position that Members were able to control
the sale of their tickets. In these circumstances, while it was accurate to
report that Members were “selling” their tickets, the Committee did not
establish that reporting that tickets were being “re-sold” in the first
instance was significant. While the Committee did not establish a breach of the
Code on this point, it welcomed the newspaper’s decision to remove references
to “re-selling” in the online articles.
51. The Committee noted the complainant’s position that
the term “debenture holders” suggested that Members owned a lease over their
seats. The use of the term “debenture holders” drew a distinction between
individuals who owned seats privately, and seats owned by the charity. Where
the articles had been clear that Members own their seats, the Committee did not
consider that referring to them “debenture holders” was significantly
misleading such as to require correction.
52. In response to the complainant’s request that it be
given a fair opportunity to reply, the newspaper had offered an opportunity for
the complainant to submit a letter for publication. The Committee considered
that such an opportunity was fair, given the significant inaccuracy which it
has established above. There was no breach of Clause 1(iii).
Conclusion
53. The complaint was upheld.
Remedial Action Required
54. Having upheld a breach of Clause 1, the Committee
considered what remedial action should be required.
55. The newspaper had promptly offered a correction,
prior to the complainant contacting IPSO, which had made reference to the 2015
ban and had set out that members are free to sell their tickets. It had also
subsequently offered a correction which had made clear that the Charity
Commission was concerned with the number of seat holders on the Board, not the
issue of ticket resales. The correction which the newspaper had offered in
final settlement of the complaint, and set out above, had made clear that the
“ban” did not apply to members’ seats.
56. The correction which the newspaper had offered in
final settlement of the complaint, referred to material which the Committee did
not consider to be in breach of the Code. However, the Committee welcomed the
fact that this wording provided clarification on the complainant’s position.
57. While the Committee acknowledged the complainant’s
reasons not to do so, it was unfortunate that it had not accepted the previous
wording which had been offered by the newspaper earlier-variations of which
corrected the established inaccuracies- so that the misleading impression
contained in the first and fifth articles could have been corrected as soon as
possible. The newspaper had offered a number of corrections during the course
of the complaint. These corrections had addressed all the points which the
Committee had found to be in breach of the Code. The Committee suggested that
the following wording should be published, which drew on the wording of the
corrections which had previously been offered by the newspaper:
“In a number of recent articles, we said that the Royal
Albert Hall allowed members who own Hall seats to resell their tickets for
events and, on one occasion, incorrectly stated it allowed them to circumvent a
ban on them doing so. The seats are privately owned, non-charitable property
and the sales are not “resales”. The trustees point out that the ban did not
apply to members’ seats, members are free to sell their tickets, and the Hall
cannot control these sales. We also incorrectly said that the Charity
Commission is concerned about people who own seats at the Royal Albert Hall
selling their tickets at inflated prices, and had referred this matter to the
Charity Tribunal. In fact, the Commission is not concerned about the issue of
ticket resales by Members generally; it is concerned with the number of seat
holders on the Board.
We are happy to clarify that the Charity Commission has
not issued the Hall with an ultimatum or threatened a statutory inquiry and
that there has been no breach of charity law for not revealing the value of the
seats owned by the council members and the income received from ticket sales.
The trustees deny they are presiding over a “national disgrace” and also say
they are committed to working with the BBC to help them fight secondary sales
of Proms tickets by non members. We apologise for our inaccuracies”.
58. In order to avoid a breach of Clause 1(ii) this
wording should now be published. The print correction should be published in
the newspaper’s corrections and clarifications column. The online correction
should be published as a footnote to the articles.
Date complaint received: 01/08/2017
Date decision issued: 14/03/2018