Resolution Statement – 04615-24 Two complainants v Mail Online

Summary of Complaint

1. Two complainants complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that Mail Online breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) and Clause 3 (Harassment) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in the following:

• An article headlined “Senior Birmingham Council official in charge of overseeing city's school taxi drivers worked from same building as cab firm at centre of £11M over-pay probe during three years when it's annual profits rose 1,900% to £1.6M”, published on 17 September 2023.

• An article headlined “Calls for police probe into bankrupt Birmingham Council's £11M payments to tiny taxi firm charging £200 a day to take one pupil to school - as city faces selling major assets from library to museum and airport to cover debts”, published on 19 September 2023.

• An article headlined “The £64,938.27 question for bankrupt Birmingham Council: Why did all 163 school-run taxi contracts over the last three years cost EXACTLY the same? Authority faces new quiz over cab firm at centre of £11M over-payment row”, published on 15 October 2023.

2. The articles reported on the complainants’ roles within Birmingham City Council’s children and young people’s travel service. The articles reported on the extent to which the complainants’ role at the council, and the location in which they were based – the Beeches Road office, had an impact on the profits of another local travel services contractor. The articles reported that the contractor’s profits “rose” and “soared” between 2020 and 2022. All three articles included photographs of one of the complainants and one article included a photograph of the other complainant.

3. The first article reported: “’Had some senior staff within the council been aware that [one of the complainants] was working at the offices of a major contractor, they would have been 'sacked for gross misconduct by maintaining a conflict of interest prejudicial to the council’ sources claimed”. It also said that, “the council [had] implemented a licence badge system for school transport drivers - without which drivers would be banned from the service” and “firms were told to send drivers to the collect the IDs from [one of the complainants] at the Beeches Road address”. The article went on to report that “the council admitted the [children and young people’s travel service] team worked from the Beeches Road office 'on a few occasions in 2020 and 2021' for 'training purposes and issuing licence badges', adding the site had not used the site since early last year. A spokesperson did not provide further information when asked to elaborate on the timings and the provided training. They also said it would 'unfair' to name [one of the complainants] in this article as 'we don't use that office now or in the recent past'”. Further to this, it reported that “'the [children and young people’s travel service] team has not used the site since early 2022 and is now based at a council office in Erdington'”.

4. The first and second articles both reported that one of the complainants “was promoted from compliance officer to manager at the Labour-run council's children and young people's travel service” and referred to the other complainant as that complainant’s “boss”. The articles also reported that “the seven-room building, where [the transport services contractor] still rent[s] a room, […] is believed to be near the home of … [one of the complainants]”.

5. The first and third articles both reported that one of the complainants worked “for two years in the same tiny church community centre as a school transport firm that it was [their] job to regulate”.

6. The complainants said the first article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 as it reported that, “[h]ad some senior staff within the council been aware that [one of the complainants] was working at the offices of a major contractor, they would have been 'sacked for gross misconduct by maintaining a conflict of interest prejudicial to the council', sources claimed”. The complainants believed this was reported without basis – they said they were directed to work from these offices. The complainants said the article was also inaccurate to report that, “as the council implemented a licence badge system for school transport drivers - without which drivers would be banned from the service - firms were told to send drivers to the collect the IDs from [one of the complainants] at the Beeches Road address”, as the team would not ban drivers. Rather, the council would not use the services of firms whose badges had not been approved. This complainant added that they were not the only person that was issuing ID badges on behalf of the council.

7. The complainants said the article also inaccurately reported that “the council admitted the team worked from the Beeches Road office 'on a few occasions in 2020 and 2021' for 'training purposes and issuing licence badges', adding the site had not been used “since early last year”, and that “'the team has not used the site since early 2022 and is now based at a council office in Erdington'” as the team did not use that site at any time in 2020, nor did they work out of the building in 2022.

8. The complainants said the first and second articles were inaccurate, in breach of Clause 1, to refer to one of the complainants as the other’s “boss”. One of the complainants said they were not and never had been the other’s boss. In addition to this, the other complainant said the articles were inaccurate to report that they were “promoted from compliance officer to manager at the Labour-run council's children and young people's travel service”, as they had never held the title of ‘Compliance Officer’ - rather, they were a ‘Compliance and Performance Officer’ - and were never promoted. This complainant also said the articles were inaccurate to report that, “the seven-room building, where [the travel services contractor] still rent[s] a room, […] is believed to be near the[ir] home” as the offices were not near to their home, and were in fact seven miles away.

9. One of the complainants said the first and third articles inaccurately reported that they worked “for two years in the same tiny church community centre as a school transport firm that it was [their] job to regulate”, as they did not work out of the building for two years. This complainant said that the separate room used in this building was only used for ID badge collection by themself and other council employees between August and October 2021.

10. One of the complainants said all three articles breached Clause 3 as they included photographs of them. In addition to this, the complainants considered the Clause had been breached as the publication had passed on one of the complainant’s private email addresses to the reporter who then used it to contact them.

11. The publication said it did not accept that the first article was inaccurate, in breach of Clause 1, to report that “had some senior staff within the council been aware that [one of the complainants] was working at the offices of a major contractor, they would have been 'sacked for gross misconduct by maintaining a conflict of interest prejudicial to the council'”. It said this quote was provided by a source who worked in a senior position within the school transport department, and that the source would have been able to dismiss the complainant for gross misconduct had they known about the location in which they were working. The publication also did not accept that it was inaccurate to report that, “as the council implemented a licence badge system for school transport drivers - without which drivers would be banned from the service - firms were told to send drivers to the collect the IDs from [one of the complainants] at the Beeches Road address”. It provided an email from the other complainant which said that “any drivers/passenger guides who do not collect their badges will not be permitted to operate on BCC routes” – the publication said it considered that stating drivers would not be permitted to operate without this badge was semantically the same as stating that they would be banned from the service if they did not have a licence badge. Where the article had reported that, “the council admitted the team worked from the Beeches Road office 'on a few occasions in 2020 and 2021' for 'training purposes and issuing licence badges', adding the site had not used the site since early last year” and that “'the team has not used the site since early 2022 and is now based at a council office in Erdington'”, the publication did not consider this was inaccurate. The publication said it approached Birmingham City Council’s press office for comment about the complainants’ use of the office – it said the Council confirmed it was used in 2020 and 2021, as well as in early 2022. It said that it was reasonable to report that this was two years as an approximation and that in any event, the office was used within substantial periods of two or three separate calendar years. The publication added further that the council did not provide exact timings.

12. The publication did not consider the first and second articles were inaccurate to refer to one of the complainants as the other’s “boss” – it said that its reporter was advised by a senior council source that one of the complainants was the other’s boss in the Home to School Transport team at times in their employment. The publication supported its position with an email from one of the complainants who had directed drivers to pick up the badges from the other complainant – which it said implied that they had authority over the other complainant. The publication cited another email it had seen, which said that one of the complainants reported to the other. It also did not accept that the articles were inaccurate to report that, “the seven-room building, where GDL still rent a room, […] is believed to be near the home of self-employed council worker [one of the complainants]” – it considered seven miles to be a fairly short commute to work, and noted that it would not have been more than a 20 minute drive at an average speed of 20mph. It also said the articles were not inaccurate where they reported on one of the complainant’s promotions. It said the difference between referring to this complainant’s previous position as ‘compliance officer’ and ‘compliance and performance officer’ was not significant. It did not consider that this complainant’s status as a contractor, as opposed to a direct employee, was relevant. It added that at the time of publishing, this complainant was in a more senior position and concluded that they had been promoted.

13. The publication said it was not inaccurate for the first and third articles to report that one of the complainants worked “for two years in the same tiny church community centre as a school transport firm that it was [their] job to regulate”. It said a BCC spokesperson responded to its email and said that the Children and Young People’s Travel Service’s compliance team had rented a room on a few occasions in 2020 and 2021 at the Old Church Building, of Beeches Road Community Enterprise Centre in West Bromwich, for training purposes and for issuing licence badges. It added that the team had not used the site since early 2022 and was based at a council office in Erdington instead now. The publication said that both of the complainants were in the compliance team during 2020 and 2021 and that two years was a fair approximation.

14. The publication did not accept that any of the articles had breached Clause 3, as suggested by the complainants. It said that there was a clear public interest in allowing the opportunity to provide further clarity and direct responses to the allegations made in the article, by providing one of the complainant’s email addresses. It added that it believed the email approach was concise and polite and did not constitute harassment. In relation to the articles including photographs of the complainant, the publication said that it did not consider this was harassment as per the terms of the Clause, which it said instead related to the activities of journalists in news gathering.

15. The publication offered to amend one of the complainants’ job title within the article. The complainants did not accept this would resolve their complaint and instead requested the articles be removed. Failing this, the complainants requested that their identities and photographs be removed from the articles.

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 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.

Mediated Outcome

16. The complaint was not resolved through direct correspondence between the parties. IPSO therefore began an investigation into the matter.

17. During IPSO’s investigation, the publication: offered to remove the complainants’ identities from the articles and replace them with wording such as “the council worker” and “the official”; offered to remove the complainants’ photographs from the articles and social media posts pertaining to the articles; offered to request Google flushes for the URLs for the articles – meaning that the complainants’ names would be removed from the Google cache; confirmed that the complainants’ identities would not be reinstated to the articles and that their identities would not be used in similar articles; and confirmed that the complainants’ photographs would be removed completely from its archive.

18. The complainants said that this would resolve the matter to their satisfaction.

19. 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: 09/07/2024

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 03/03/2025