01946-25 Smith v dailymail.co.uk

Summary of Complaint

1. Zkiah Smith complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that dailymail.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 2 (Privacy), Clause 3 (Harassment), and Clause 12 (Discrimination) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Disabled woman, 34, earning £2,300 benefits a month says she hates council house because it's making her dog 'depressed' and giving her a blocked nose and sore throat”, published on 11 May 2025.

2. The article – which appeared online only – reported on an interview with the complainant. It opened by reporting: “A disabled woman who says she earns £2,300 in benefits a month has revealed how she despises her local council for 'making her dog depressed'.” Further to this, it reported:

“despite saying she earns £27,000 in benefits a year and lives in a council house with rent of just £193.99 a month, Zkiah said she was angry with Greenwich Council.

She believes the rest of the [the estate] being built outside her flat is giving her three-year-old dog Bruno dandruff and making him depressed.

The young woman admitted her contract didn't allow for a second dog, which Bruno is, without registering him with the council but said her situation had got too bad to stay silent.

She claimed construction dust and poor air filtration was causing a multitude of health problems for herself and her dogs and she was worried they could even develop cancer.”

3. The article also included quotes from the complainant in which she said she had “been noticing [her] health declining” and “I constantly have to blow my nose. I'm sneezing excessively. My throat hurts all the time. I just don't feel very well”. It also reported that her dogs were “anxious”, and that both dogs had had “bouts of diarrhoea.”

4. The article went on to report that the complainant “believes she has sick building syndrome, an illness that may be related to poor ventilation in buildings”. Further to this, the article reported that the complainant had “felt forced to quit” her job owing to her health. It then reported:

“Zkiah moved into her current council home in November 2024 but said she was 'appalled and shocked' that the council had housed them somewhere like this.

'It's constant unrelenting noise from the building site,' she said.

'My own air purifiers - I had to change them every few weeks instead of every few months.

[…]

'In April, I found out I had an MVHR [a Mechanical Ventilation with Heat Recovery system]. 'You've left me, a disabled person, with a [ventilation] unit I didn't know existed."

5. The article closed by reporting a statement from a Greenwich Council spokesman, which included the following

“As part of the tenancy agreement, tenants accept responsibility for cleaning dust and debris from the vents of their home every few months, however we will service the filters on behalf of vulnerable and disabled tenants – now this has been brought to our attention”.

6. The article also included photographs of the complainant and her dogs. These were captioned: “Disabled former hairdresser Zkiah Smith, 34, with her dog Bruno, who she thinks the council is making 'depressed’”; and “Although she admitted she wasn't actually allowed a second dog, which Bruno is, without registering him with the council, she said her situation had got too bad to stay silent”.

7. On 5 May, the complainant contacted the publication with her story Following a period of written correspondence – as well as a telephone interview – the publication published the article on 11 May. The day after the article’s publication, the complainant complained directly to the publication.

8. Firstly, the complainant complained that the publication had “knowingly published falsehoods” – the reporter had been in possession of her tenancy agreement which, she said, disproved Greenwich Council’s claim, made in the article, that all tenants had “agreed to clean the MVHR filters”. She considered it a breach of Clause 1 for the newspaper to publish the Council’s statement “without challenge”.

9. The complainant said that the article falsely attributed quotes to her and removed their context, in breach of Clause 1. She considered that the article reduced her and her animals’ health concerns to “cartoonish smears”. She also complained under Clause 1 about the article references that she had been: “noticing [her] health declining”; suffering from a “blocked nose and sore throat”; and “constantly having to blow her nose”. She said the article did not capture the extent of her medical concerns that she relayed to the reporter.

10. Similarly, she complained where the article reported that the building was “giving her dog Bruno dandruff and making him depressed”, “upsetting her dog”, and had given both of her dogs “bouts of diarrhoea”. She said she had actually expressed concerns about widespread medical issues suffered by other tenants and their pets.

11. The complainant also complained that the article omitted to report the full extent of her disabilities, and that the article did not link to her Instagram account, which she said she had told the reporter it should.

12. In a separate complaint made to IPSO, the complainant also said that the article inaccurately reported that she paid “just £193.99” rent per month. She said she had told the reporter her rent was around £940 a month.

13. The complainant also said it was inaccurate to report that she had “admitted her contact didn’t allow a second dog”. She said that she was allowed multiple dogs, provided they were registered with the Council - she had explained to the reporter that one of her dogs was her friend’s dog, which she had started keeping full-time, and that she would officially register him once this living situation was permanent. She later added that she had not “admitted” this was in breach of her tenancy agreement.

14. The complainant then complained the article was inaccurate to report that she had “claimed” and “believe[d]” that her and her dogs’ health issues were caused by the building they lived in. She said she did not “claim” this, but had proved it via her own air quality tests and had documented evidence to prove the building site was causing illness across her estate.

15. The complainant complained that the article breached Clause 1 by reporting she “felt forced to quit work”. She said she had not used the word “felt”, and that she had had to stop working due to her health.

16. She also said the article breached Clause 1, as it reported she had had to change her air filters “every few weeks instead of every few months.” She said she had had to change every three or four weeks, when they should last around 7 months.

17. Finally, regarding the Council’s statement, the complainant also disputed the accuracy of the council’s comment that “mechanical vents are in line with building regulations”. She said this was false.

18. The complainant also complained that the article distorted her position, and this represented a breach of Clause 2.

19. The complainant complained that the article breached Clause 3. She said that, owing to its tone and framing, she had experienced public abuse and harassment.

20. She also complained that the article breached Clause 12 because it omitted to reference her multiple disabilities – she also said it reinforced harmful stereotypes about disabled people and benefit claimants.

21. On 27 May, IPSO made the newspaper aware that the complaint raised a possible breach of the Editors’ Code. The publication contacted the complainant on 6 June – it offered to remove the article to resolve the complainant’s concerns. The complainant, on 17 June, declined the publication’s offer.

22. In response, on 23 June, the publication stated that – along with the removal of the article - it said it would be happy to publish the following standalone correction:

“In an article published on 11 May about a disabled woman, Zkiah Smith, who alleged that her local council was responsible for her and her dogs' health issues, we stated that she received £2,300 a month in benefits and paid just £193.99 a month in rent. This was incorrect - in fact, Ms Smith pays £940 a month in rent. We apologise for the error.”

23. IPSO subsequently began an investigation into the complaint. The publication did not accept a breach of the Editors’ Code.

24. Regarding the complainant’s rent, the publication stated that the figure of £193.99 had been listed on the complainant’s basic tenancy agreement, which she had supplied to the reporter prior to the publication of the article. It supplied IPSO with the document in question, which stated: “Your total rent is made up of the following: Rent: £193.99 […]”. It noted that the document did not say if this fee was paid weekly or monthly.

25. The publication noted that the complainant had not supplied proof that her monthly rent was £940 - in any event, it had offered a correction in line with its requirements under the terms of Clause 1 (ii).

26. The publication turned to the statement provided by Greenwich Council, and the complainant’s concern that the publication had reported the Council’s allegedly inaccurate statement that, “as part of the tenancy agreement, tenants accept responsibility for cleaning dust and debris from the vents”. It noted that the reporter had seen the complainant’s tenancy agreement and – while it did not include the disputed obligation – it did make reference to “tenancy conditions”, which the reporter had not had sight of.

27. It also said the reporter had concerns about the trustworthiness of the complainant’s tenancy agreement and tenancy sign-up document – which, it said, were unusually short - and noted that a “welcome to your new home” booklet the complainant supplied included the following: “Extract grilles should be kept clean to avoid the build-up of dust and to ensure that thee ventilation system is able to run freely. Remember that cavity vents and extract grilles should never be blocked.” As such, the publication commented that it was satisfied the article simply relayed the Council’s position in response to the complainant.

28. The publication disputed that any of the other alleged inaccuracies raised a possible breach of Clause 1. It commented that care was taken to reflect the complainant’s statements, while also guarding her privacy, and noted that the article was written with the complainant’s cooperation. The publication also said that Clause 2, Clause 3 and Clause 12 were not engaged by the complainant’s concerns.

29. In response, the complainant stated that her tenancy agreement had been provided to the publication to evidence that there is no clause requiring tenants to maintain the ventilation system – it was not provided for the purpose of calculating or verifying her rent. She said that, in a telephone conversation with the reporter prior to the publication of the article, she had given the figure of “around £940” – she considered it a failure to take due care for the publication to have relied on the tenancy agreement document, and for the reporter to not have asked for further clarification on her rent beyond a “casual question”.

30. The complainant also provided a letter from her Council’s Rent Verification Team, which said that her monthly housing charges were £940.12.

31. Regarding the Council’s statement, the complainant pointed to correspondence between her and the Council which she considered demonstrated that there was “no clause in the tenancy agreement” – as such, she considered the Council’s statement in the article to be factually inaccurate. The complainant also commented that the documents she had supplied were official documents supplied by the Council. She said the reporter gave no indication, at the time, that he had concerns regarding the trustworthiness of the documents. She also said the extract pointed to by the publication – “Extract grilles should be kept clean to avoid the build-up of dust and to ensure that the ventilation system is able to run freely. Remember that cavity vents and extract grilles should never be blocked” – did not refer to the MVHR system.

32. The complainant also complained that the newspaper had blocked her account on its website, and her ability to comment on the article. She complained that this removed her right to reply.

33. The publication accepted the complainant’s position that her rent was £940.12 a month – in any event, it said it had already proposed a correction. It also supplied notes made by the reporter of his call with the complainant– the notes did not make any reference to the complainant’s rent. The notes included the following:

“I had been noticing my health declining

[…]

My own air purifiers – I had to change them every few weeks instead of every fw months.

In April I found out I had an MVHR.

You’ve left me, a disabled person, with a unit I didn’t know existed.

[…]

One of my dogs has gone from having a glossy coat to having dandruff and itchy skin

[…]

He [Bruno, the dog] seems quite anxious. He has always been an anxious dog but especially so from being here.

He’s not been great in his mental health since we have been here.

Both my dogs had bouts of diarrhoea since they moved here.

[…]

I constantly have to blow my noise.

I’m sneezing excessively.

My throat hurts all the times.

I just don’t feel very well.

This is sick building syndrome […]

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.

Clause 3 (Harassment)*

i) Journalists must not engage in intimidation, harassment or persistent pursuit.

ii) They must not persist in questioning, telephoning, pursuing or photographing individuals once asked to desist; nor remain on property when asked to leave and must not follow them. If requested, they must identify themselves and whom they represent.

iii) Editors must ensure these principles are observed by those working for them and take care not to use non-compliant material from other sources.

Clause 12 (Discrimination)

i) The press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual's, race, colour, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation or to any physical or mental illness or disability.

ii) Details of an individual's race, colour, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation, physical or mental illness or disability must be avoided unless genuinely relevant to the story.

Findings of the Committee

34. The publication had provided a basis for the rent figure reported in the article: the tenancy agreement the complainant had supplied. The complainant had contended that she had given the correct figure - £940 – on a telephone call with the reporter. However, the reporter’s notes of the phone call did not make reference to this.

35. The Committee was not in a position to determine whether the figure had been given on the phone call and, if it had, how clear it had been made to the reporter that this was the complainant’s rent amount. At any rate, it did not consider that the reporter’s actions constituted a failure to take due care – the complainant had supplied a tenancy agreement which listed her rent as £193.99, and the Committee considered a tenancy agreement a suitable document upon which the publication could rely for reporting rent figures. There was no breach of Clause 1 (i) on this point.

36. However, the complainant had supplied a separate letter from the Council demonstrating that her monthly rent was £940. The publication had also accepted this to be the case. The Committee therefore considered this a significant inaccuracy. The article had reported that she paid “just” this amount, and “despite” this, she was “angry” at the Council – the Committee therefore considered that the figure directly related to the wider context of the article, namely the complainant’s view on the services the Council were allegedly failing to provide in exchange for her rent. The inaccuracy therefore required correction, as per the terms of Clause 1 (ii).

37. The correction had been offered 27 days after the publication were first made aware of the inaccuracy. However, the Committee noted that the publication had – in the interim – been trying to resolve the complainant’s concerns, including by offering the total removal of the article. In light of this, the Committee was satisfied that the offer of the correction was duly prompt. Where the publication had offered to remove the article, and publish a standalone correction, the Committee was also satisfied that this represented due prominence.

38. Finally, the Committee was satisfied the correction sufficiently corrected the record – it made clear the newspaper had inaccurately reported that the complainant paid “just £193.99 a month” in rent, and clarified that she actually paid £940 a month. It also included an apology. For these reasons, the Committee was satisfied that the offered correction met the publication’s obligations under Clause 1 (ii). There was no breach of the Clause.

39. The Committee then turned to the complainant’s concerns that the newspaper had reported the Council’s statement, specifically that tenants agreed to “maintain internal MVHR filters” and “mechanical vents are in line with building regulations”.

40. The Committee took into account that the complainant’s tenancy agreement did not reference an obligation to clean the filters. In its view, this did not, however, demonstrate categorically that the statement was inaccurate or misleading – the agreement also referred to “tenancy conditions”, which the publication had not had sight of. It was also not unforeseeable the complainant may have signed further documentation not supplied to the newspaper.

41. In any event, the Committee also had regard for the context of the article – the complainant had made a number of allegations against the Council, and the Committee considered it important the article included the Council’s response to what was clearly an ongoing and contentious dispute.

42. On the above points, the Committee did not consider that a failure to take care, or a significant inaccuracy, arose on this point. It was satisfied that the article sufficiently attributed the Council’s statement as its position in response to allegations made by the complainant. There was no breach of Clause 1.

43. The Committee then considered the complainant’s concern that the article misleadingly represented her health concerns, and her concerns regarding her dog’s health. She had also complained that the article failed to capture the full extent of the concerns she had raised regarding the situation.

44. The Committee noted that a number of the quotes the complainant had complained about were directly replicated in the notes the reporter had supplied for his call with the complainant – this included that she had noticed her health “declining”, that she was having to “constantly blow her nose”, and that her dogs had suffered from “dandruff” and “bouts of diarrhoea”. The Committee did not therefore consider the article inaccurate or misleading to report these quotes – it appeared the complainant had provided them to the reporter. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

45. The complainant had also contended that the article falsely attributed quotes to her, such as her dog being “depressed”. The Committee noted that this term did not directly appear in the reporter’s notes – neither did the reported lines that the complainant had suffering from a “blocked nose and sore throat”, and that the building was “upsetting her dog”.

46. The reporter’s notes demonstrated that the complainant had referred to her dog being anxious and his mental health struggling, and that she had been having to “blow her nose” and her throating “hurt[ing]” all the time. The Committee also noted that the term “depressed” in the article was presented in inverted commas – it was not presented as a direct quotation but, rather, a characterisation of the complainant’s words. Similarly, the references to the complainant’s dog being “upset”, and her having a blocked nose and sore throat, were not presented as direct quotations.

47. As such, the Committee considered there a sufficient basis for the article’s reporting on the above points – it did not consider that the article falsely attributed quotes to the complainant, or misrepresented her position that she had relayed to him throughout their correspondence. There was no breach of Clause 1.

48. The complainant had complained that the article omitted to report her full list of disabilities. Newspapers have a right to choose which pieces of information they publish, provided this does not lead to a breach of the Code. Where the article made clear the complainant was disabled the Committee did not consider omitting the full details of her medical disabilities or medical conditions rendered the article inaccurate or misleading. There was no breach of Clause 1.

49. The Committee then turned to the complainant’s concern that the article inaccurately reported that she “admitted her contract didn't allow for a second dog, which Bruno is, without registering him with the council”.

50. However, the complainant accepted she was housing a dog which she had not yet registered, and it did not appear to be in dispute that she was required to register the dog as part of her tenancy agreement. There was no breach of Clause 1.

51. The Committee also did not consider that the use of the term “admitted” was inaccurate – the Committee considered this an accurate characterisation for the publication to have used, given the complainant was, seemingly, housing the dog in breach of the terms of her tenancy agreement. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

52. Next, the Committee considered the complainant’s concern that the article reported she “claimed” construction dust and poor air filtration was causing health problems.

53. The Committee noted that the article concerned an ongoing dispute between the complainant and the Council – while the complainant might have believed she had proven her position, the Committee did not consider it inaccurate or misleading for the publication to present her position as being “claimed”. There was no breach of Clause 1.

54. The complainant had complained the article breached Clause 1 where it reported she “believes she had sick building syndrome”.

55. The Committee noted that the article tallied with the complainant’s position – it reported that she believed she had the illness, which she did. There was no breach of Clause 1.

56. The complainant had complained that the article reported she “felt” forced to quit work owing to her health. She had said she didn’t say the word “felt”, and that she had had to stop due to her health.

57. However, where the complainant’s position was that she had had to stop working, the Committee did not consider that the use of the word “felt” – which was not attributed directly to the complainant - breached Clause 1.

58. The complainant then complained where the article reported that she had had to change her air purifiers “every few weeks instead of every few months”. She had said that she had to change her purifiers every 3-4 weeks owing to pollution.

59. The complainant’s position tallied with the reported statement in the article, and the Committee noted that the article made clear her concerns regarding the ventilation for her building. The article was not inaccurate or misleading on this point, and there was no breach of Clause 1.

60. The complainant had also complained that the article had not included further information she considered relevant. She had similarly complained that it misrepresented her story. Again, the Committee was clear that newspapers have a right to choose which pieces of information they publish, provided this does not lead to a breach of the Code. While it acknowledged the article may not have been presented in the manner the complainant wished – or included all information she believed relevant – the Committee did not consider that it inaccurately or misleadingly portrayed the matter at hand; the article made clear the nature of the complainant’s concerns with the Council. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

61. The complainant has also complained that the article did not include a link to her Instagram account. This was not information which the complainant alleged was inaccurate, misleading, or distorted. There was, therefore, no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

62. Further, the complainant had complained that the publication had restricted her account on their website, preventing her from commenting on the article. She complained that this prevented her from a right to reply to significant inaccuracies.

63. The Committee was clear that how a newspaper decides to moderate its comment section is a matter for its own discretion, and not as concern which falls under the Editors’ Code. Furthermore, the complainant had contacted the publication with her story, and written to the newspaper after the article’s publication. She had therefore been given the opportunity to flag any significant inaccuracies and provide her position, and the publication had offered to correct the only significant inaccuracy the Committee considered the complainant had identified, regarding the misreporting of her monthly rent. As such, there was no breach of the Code on this point.

64. The Committee then turned to Clause 2. The complainant had expressed concerns that the article had misleadingly distorted her position.

65. The Committee noted that this was not a Clause 2 concern, which relates to intrusion into individuals private and family lives. In these circumstances, there was no breach of Clause 2.

66. The Committee then turned to Clause 3. The complainant had said that, owing to the article’s tone and framing, she had experienced public abuse and harassment. Clause 3 relates to the conduct of journalists in the newsgathering process – it does not cover concerns regarding the behaviour of members of the public and third parties. Where the complainant’s concerns related to public harassment, there was no breach of Clause 3.

67. Finally, the Committee was clear that Clause 12 prevents pejorative and prejudicial references to an individual’s characteristics, including physical and mental disabilities. The complainant had not identified any references she considered to be proactive or prejudicial – rather, she had complained that the article did not include further information regarding her disabilities. Accordingly, there was no breach of Clause 12.

Conclusions

68. The complaint was not upheld.

Remedial action required

69. The standalone correction which was offered clearly put the correct position on record, and was offered promptly and with due prominence, and should now be published.

70. Should the article remain online, the correction should also be added as a footnote – if the article is amended to remove the inaccurate information - or beneath the headline if the article remains unamended.

Date complaint received: 12/05/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 13/02/2026