Resolution Statement – 01026-25 Odufaderin v metro.co.uk

Summary of Complaint

1. Adebola Odufaderin complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that metro.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) and Clause 2 (Privacy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “I didn’t even know I had PTSD until my work coach helped me”, published on 7 November 2024.

2. The article, which appeared online only, reported the complainant’s ex-wife’s account of her marriage. It said she “talked about escaping her violent marriage”; “had endured ’14 years in an abusive marriage’ and coercive control”, “said she was regularly beaten” and that “[d]uring the lockdown, her ex-husband broke her arm with a piece of wood.” It went on to report: “She said: ‘In Nigeria, I was working in the media but he kept taking my money. When we got to the UK it became even worse because everything relied on him. I was dependent on him. I was working seven days a week. I made about £3,000 per month which I would transfer to him. There was no bed in my room, I was sleeping on the floor. He used the money I gave him to furnish a house for his mistress. ‘I didn’t even know my rights in the UK.’”

3. The article further reported: “Later, her daughter’s school alerted the authorities after discovering fresh bruises on the girl’s body during a PE class. Her children were taken away temporarily by the social service. But it was her brave children who told the authorities that their mother was being abused too as [the complainant’s ex-wife] had been too scared to speak out and she felt like it was her fault the children were taken away. [The complainant’s ex-wife] feared her husband was going to ‘find and kill me,’ but she was eventually moved to a Home Office emergency accommodation. Her children were not safe from abuse either.”

4. The complainant said the article breached Clause 1 as he denied all of the allegations reported, and said that the publication had not taken care to verify his ex-wife’s version of events. He said the alleged incidents had been reported to the police, however they had resulted in no further action - he provided a letter from the police confirming such. He also said he had not been approached for comment prior to the article’s publication.

5. The complainant said that the article breached Clause 2 by publishing unverified allegations about him which he said caused him distress.

6. The publication said it had not considered it necessary to take steps to verify the complainant’s ex-wife’s account of events, as the article reported on comments she had made at an event in front of Members of Parliament about being assisted by a domestic abuse charity. It said the charity had published her story as part of their awareness-raising campaign and that the article was framed as her lived experience, and therefore it had not corroborated her claims using police records.

7. The publication removed the article on the complainant’s request in the interest of resolving the complaint. It also offered a standalone correction.

8. The complainant said removal of the article alone was not sufficient to resolve his complaint and that he would like to request further remedial action.

Relevant Clause 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 publication offered to publish the following standalone correction on is homepage for 24 hours, before being archived on its Clarifications and Corrections page:

On 7 November we published an article – since deleted - which reported on allegations of domestic abuse made by a woman, [named individual], which she shared during a public meeting at North Central London WorkWell centre, attended by Liz Kendall and Wes Streeting. Following publication we were contacted by [her] former partner, who made it clear that he denies the claims made in the article. He also provided documentation indicating that the police took no further action in relation to the complaints, citing insufficient evidence. We are happy to put his position on the record.

11. The complainant said that this would resolve the matter to his satisfaction.

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: 20/03/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 27/11/2025