Ruling

03456-24 Tyler v Worcester News

  • Complaint Summary

    Elaine Tyler complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that the Worcester News breached Clause 2 (Privacy) and Clause 14 (Confidential sources) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Tenant's fury over 'unfair' treatment”, published on 22 March 2024.

    • Published date

      31st October 2024

    • Outcome

      No breach - after investigation

    • Code provisions

      14 Confidential sources, 2 Privacy

Summary of Complaint

1. Elaine Tyler complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that the Worcester News breached Clause 2 (Privacy) and Clause 14 (Confidential sources) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Tenant's fury over 'unfair' treatment”, published on 22 March 2024.

2. The article reported on concerns the complainant had regarding the conditions of her rented property and how she had been treated by her landlord. The complainant was named in the article.

3. The article also appeared online in substantively the same format under the headline “Gillam Street resident claims 'unfair' treatment after s21 notice”. The online article also contained an image of the exterior of the complainant’s home.

4. The complainant said that the article had revealed her identity as an anonymous source of information, in breach of Clause 14. She said she had agreed with the newspaper that she would not be named in the article, and this had been established prior to publication during a phone conversation.

5. The complainant also said the article breached Clause 2. She said that, although she had initially agreed for information about her situation to be published, she had revoked her permission before the article’s publication. She also said the reporter had taken a picture of the outside of her property without asking her. The complainant also expressed concerns the article portrayed her in an unfairly negative light.

6. To support her position, the complainant provided the correspondence she had with the newspaper leading up to the article’s publication. On 18 February 2024, she had written to the publication explaining she was having difficulties with her landlord and property and asked the newspaper to contact her about these issues. Her and the reporter then arranged a call. After the call, the complainant emailed the reporter with pictures of the inside of her home, and requested he let her know once he had spoken to her landlord. On 21 March at 10:03, the reporter emailed the complainant with a statement from her landlord. At 10:18 the same day, the complainant emailed the reporter, and said: “Can we leave the story because [the landlord] is saying there is nothing wrong with the property”. At 12:56 the next day, the complainant emailed the reporter again requesting they stop the publication of the article: “Please stop it because it may not help me to get a new property.” There was no response to either email. On 26 March, the complainant emailed the reporter again reiterating that she had not wanted the article to be published, and that it told the landlord’s side of the story rather than hers.

7. The publication did not accept a breach of Clause 14. It denied it had ever made a verbal agreement with the complainant that she would not be named prior to publication. It said the complainant had not requested for her name to be withheld until after publication. It also said the complainant had stated she had wanted to remain anonymous – after publication – as she feared she would be asked to leave the property if she was seen to complain about her landlord, but that it would have had to approach the landlord with details of the property in order for it to get both sides of the story – and the complainant was aware that her landlord would be contacted. It said also said the complainant would also have been identified to some degree from her address.

8. The publication did not accept there had been any breach of Clause 2. It said the reporter did not receive the message from the complainant saying she did not wish for the article to be published until after he had finished work for the day, at which point the article was on its way to the press.

Relevant Clause Provisions

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 14 (Confidential sources)

Journalists have a moral obligation to protect confidential sources of information.

Findings of the Committee

9. As the accounts of the complainant and the publication differed, it was not possible for the Committee to establish what had been agreed between the publication and the complainant over the phone. However, the Committee had sight of all correspondence between the publication and the complainant, both before and after the article was published. At no point in the correspondence before publication was an agreement made that the complainant would not be named in the article, nor did the correspondence reference any earlier agreement or suggest that this was the case. From the correspondence provided it was clear the complainant was aware the newspaper would be approaching her landlord for comments about her situation, and that it would be necessary to identify her as the source of the information to at least one individual. In addition, the complainant accepted there had at one point been an agreement that the newspaper would publish information about her which could indirectly identify her, namely information about her property. Considering these factors, the Committee did not consider there was a basis to find that there was an agreement between the complainant and the publication that she would act as an anonymous source of information. Taking this to account, there was no breach of Clause 14.

10. The Committee then considered the complainant’s concerns under Clause 2. The fact someone who has spoken to the press and later decided that they do not wish for the information they have shared to be published does not - in and of itself - mean the information is private. When considering whether the information was private, the Committee considered the nature of the information itself, as well as the circumstances which led to its publication.

11. The complainant had approached the journalist, unprompted, to share the information, with the intention of publicising the situation and with the understanding that the information she shared about her living conditions would be published. When she revoked her permission, she did not do so on the basis that the information was private; she had not referred to this in correspondence with the newspaper before publication. Considering these factors, the Committee did not consider the publication had intruded into the complainant’s privacy by reporting information about the condition of her property, and there was no breach of Clause 2 on this point.

12. The Committee noted that the appearance of a property’s exterior is not something an individual would have a reasonable expectation of privacy over in and of itself – the exterior of this property did not reveal any private or intrusive information about the complainant, and simply showed the property as it would appear to passersby. In such circumstances, the reporter was not required to seek the complainant’s consent before photographing the property, and there was no breach of Clause 2 on this point.

13. The complainant’s concerns the article portrayed her negatively did not relate to her private or family life. In any event, the Committee noted concerns articles are not balanced do not engage the Code.

Conclusions

14. The complaint was not upheld.

Remedial action required

15. NA


Date complaint received: 07/05/2024

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 16/10/2024