Decision of the Complaints Committee – 28482-20 Chott v
Yellow Advertiser
Summary of Complaint
1. Vic Chott complained to the Independent Press Standards
Organisation that Yellow Advertiser breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the
Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Landlord fined after Ilford
property used as a brothel”, published on 31 July 2020.
2. The online article reported that Woodland Properties
Management Ltd was fined £23,500 for operating an unlicensed House in Multiple
Occupation (HMO) and for “serious failures in fire safety and property
management”. It went on to report that the property “came to the council’s
attention after multiple complaints from local people that it was overcrowded
and a hotbed of antisocial behaviour, including use as a brothel”.
3. The complainant, who represented Woodland Properties Management
Ltd, said the headline was significantly inaccurate and misleading as it stated
as fact that the organisation was fined because the property was “used as a
brothel”, adding that he was not even aware of this particular allegation. The
complainant also expressed concern that the article incorrectly stated that
Woodland Properties Management was the landlord of the property, when it was in
fact the managing agent. He also disputed that that the property in question
had been “overcrowded” but accepted that the organisation had been fined for
non-compliance with HMO licensing.
4. The publication accepted that the headline had been
misleading. After it was contacted by the complainant directly, it amended the
headline to include the word “allegedly”. During IPSO’s investigation, the
publication offered to publish the following wording as a footnote
clarification: “An earlier version of this story was posted without the word
"alleged" in the headline. This was only on our website for a very
short time and was altered as soon as it was brought to our attention. However,
we would like to emphasise that claims about the property being used as a
brothel were allegations, as is clearly stated in the article, and should be
regarded as such.”
5. Whilst the publication accepted that the complainant’s
first point of complaint represented an inaccuracy, amending the headline, it
did not accept that his further concerns raised a breach of the Code. It said
that the body of the article made clear that the claim the property was
“overcrowded” was an allegation, attributed to local people who had complained
to the council. It did not consider it significantly inaccurate to refer to the
complainant’s company as the “landlord”. It added that the article had been
based upon a press release issued by Redbridge Council, with copy provided by
the BBC's Local Democracy Reporting Service, and published in good faith. The
publication did not provide IPSO with a copy of this press release and
suggested that it was not responsible for the accuracy of third-party copy.
6. The complainant considered that the actions already taken
and proposed by the publication were insufficient to resolve his complaint.
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.
Findings of the Committee
7. The Committee recognised the publication’s position that
the information included had come from trusted and credible sources. However,
the obligations of the Code are clear: publications must demonstrate that they
have taken care not to publish inaccurate or misleading information. This
requirement extends to all editorial content published by members, including
material obtained from third parties.
8. The terms of Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Code are explicit
in their requirement that headlines have to be supported by the text of the
article. The Committee emphasised that this should not be interpreted to mean
that the body of the article can be relied upon to correct an actively
misleading impression given by a headline. In this case, the omission of
“allegedly” from the headline gave the misleading impression that it had been
established as fact that the property in question had been “used as a brothel”.
Whilst the body of the article made clear that the headline reference reflected
an allegation, this was not sufficient to rectify the misleading impression already
given by headline. Notwithstanding this, the inclusion of “after” in the
headline referenced the order of events; it did not imply that the fine was
imposed because of this particular allegation where the body of the article
made clear the grounds for which the company had been fined. Nevertheless, in
the view of the Committee, the publication of the headline amounted to a clear
failure by the newspaper to take care not to publish misleading information in
breach of Clause 1 (i).
9. In the light of this, the Committee considered that the
headline required correction under Clause 1 (ii). The headline of the online
article had been amended before IPSO’s investigation. At the beginning of
IPSO’s investigation, the publication offered to publish a footnote
clarification. The Committee considered this had been offered promptly,
especially with the earlier amendment of the online article’s headline, and was
of due prominence. The wording acknowledged the inaccuracy and put the correct position
on record. As such, the Committee considered that this was sufficient to meet
the terms of Clause 1 (ii).
10. The Committee did not find that the other points
identified by the complainant raised a breach of Clause 1. Given that Woodland
Properties Management Ltd had been held responsible by the council for the
operation of the house and had been issued with the resulting fine, the
description of the company as a “landlord”, rather than a managing agent, was
not significantly inaccurate or misleading in the context of the whole article.
The article made clear that the claim the house had been “overcrowded” was an
allegation made within a complaint to the council about the property, rather
than necessarily being an established point of fact. There was no breach of
Clause 1 on these points.
Conclusions
11. The complaint was upheld in part. Remedial action
required.
12. The proposed footnote clarification put the correct
position on record and was offered promptly and with due prominence. This
should now be published to avoid a breach of Clause 1 (ii).
Date complaint received: 13/10/2020
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 05/03/2021
Back to ruling listing