06028-24 Tiddlywinks Nursery School Ramsbottom v theoldhamtimes.co.uk

Summary of Complaint

1. Tiddlywinks Nursery School Ramsbottom complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that theoldhamtimes.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 3 (Harassment) and Clause 4 (Intrusion into grief or shock) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Parents claim refund problems after shock closure of nursery”, published on 31 October 2024.

2. The article reported that “frustrated parents have hit out at 'delays' of refunds from a Chadderton nursery that closed suddenly, claiming an unverified 'gun incident'.” The article then reported that the nursery – the complainant – “closed on October 11, with a letter to parents who were left 'shocked and confused'”. It also said the nursery “claimed in the letter that it had decided to close after staff members were ‘held at gunpoint’”. The article also reported that the local council had “said claims of a firearms incident at the childcare setting were ‘untrue’” and the police “had no record of the incident”.

3. The article went on to report “parents have now claimed that their refunds have been delayed with one woman taking to social media on Monday (October 28) to ask if anyone else had had the same problem.” The article included details of this social media post and reported “comments soon came in with multiple parents claiming the same”. The article then stated: “parents also alleged that they had received incorrect invoices as well as delayed payment, with one stating the amount was wrong on theirs and another claiming they also had an erroneous amount with the wrong bank details included on theirs”. It finished by stating: “The Oldham Times has contacted Tiddlywinks Nursery School for comment but did not receive a response.”

4. Prior to the article’s publication, on 29 October, a reporter working for the publication contacted the nursery by email to invite its comments on claims that parents were experiencing problems receiving refunds.

5. The next day, the reporter working for the publication called the nursery and spoke to a member of staff. The staff member confirmed that the email address used by the publication was the correct one but who said that the nursery had recently been receiving a high volume of emails.

6. After the article’s publication, the complainant contacted IPSO. It said that the article was in breach of Clause 1 because it had inaccurately reported the gun incident had taken place at the nursery school. The nursery said it had never claimed this was the case, and that the gun incident took place in Oldham town, a nearby neighbourhood. The complainant said that, by reporting the incident took place in a different location, together with the statements from the police and the council denying the incident took place, readers would be left with the impression that it had lied to parents. The complainant said the reason the police did not have a record of the incident occurring at the nursery was because the incident had taken place in Oldham, rather than at the nursery, not because the incident had not happened. To support its position, the complainant supplied a crime reference number - although this did not include details of the alleged incident.

7. The complainant also said the article breached Clause 1 because it was inaccurate to report parents were facing refund problems. It said this was the opinion of the person who posted on social media, and was reported as fact rather than distinguished as comment.

8. The complainant said the behaviour of the journalist breached Clause 3. The complainant said it felt pressured by the “relentless” contact from the reporter, which it found distressing, and that the conduct of the reporters constituted bullying and harassment towards the nursery.

9. The complainant also said the article and contact from the reporter breached Clause 4, because of the pressure to provide a comment and an article which they said characterised their employees as “liars”. They said this exacerbated the upset of staff who were already distressed because of the nursery’s closure. The complainant also said the article was published after the nursery’s director had experienced a distressing bereavement, and the timing therefore represented a further breach of Clause 4.

10. The publication did not accept a breach of the Code. Regarding Clause 1, the publication said the information about the gun incident came from an initial report by the local democracy reporter (LDR) for Oldham – though the article under complaint was written by a reporter working at its own publication. The publication explained that the LDR was contracted to another publication – though they acted as a shared resource for all newsrooms who participated in the scheme - and it relied on the LDR to have done the appropriate checks on the published information. It said, after the article was published, it became aware through another publication that police had responded to reports of a firearm incident in the local area in Chadderton, but the police force had released a statement saying no evidence of a firearm was found and the force was not investigating it further.

11. On 24 January – 35 days after it was made aware of the complaint – the publication added the following correction as a footnote to the article:

“A previous version of this article reported that ’Oldham Council said reports of a firearms incident at Tiddlywinks were 'untrue'.’ We would like to make clear that Oldham Council's statement referred to the reported incident while Tiddlywinks staff were arriving at a training session at Oldham town centre, and not at Tiddlywinks nursery.”

12. The publication did not accept it had reported on the issue of refunds in an inaccurate manner. It said the story reported on complaints from parents on social media that they had experienced delays in receiving refunds. It said this was made clear in the article’s opening line, which was: “frustrated parents have hit out at 'delays' of refunds from a Chadderton nursery that closed suddenly, claiming an unverified 'gun incident'”.

13. The publication did not accept a breach of Clause 3. It said the reporter working for the publication had contacted the nursery once via email and then once via phone after not receiving a response. It said this was basic journalistic good practice, and the alternative would be for the reporter to only email once and potentially not provide the organisation with a full right to respond. It also said its reporter’s tone during the phone call with the nursery was respectful.

14. The publication also did not accept it had breached Clause 4. It said it could not avoid covering topics which were upsetting for people and there was a public interest in the reporting of the alleged delays in refunds being made. It said it had approached the nursery staff sensitively while also ensuring they had received the request for comment.

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.

Clause 4 (Intrusion into grief or shock)

In cases involving personal grief or shock, enquiries and approaches must be made with sympathy and discretion and publication handled sensitively. These provisions should not restrict the right to report legal proceedings.

Findings of the Committee

15. The Committee wished to emphasise it was not in a position to make a finding about the events upon which the article was based. Instead, its task was to establish whether the publication had reported on the events in a manner which was in line with its obligations under the Editors’ Code.

16. The article had made clear that the nursery’s had sent a letter in which they had informed parents that staff members had been held at gunpoint and that this had contributed to the decision to close the nursery. The article also reported that it had made enquiries of the council and included the response provided by the council. The article also included the response they had received from the police that they had no record of the incident. The complainant had not suggested that the responses provided by the council and the police were reported inaccurately. The Committee noted that the police had also made a follow-up statement, and had stated it found no evidence of a gun incident having taken place. Given that the article had made the complainant’s position clear that the incident had taken place; that the complainant did not contest the accuracy of the responses of the council and the police; and that the responses were clearly attributed to the council and the police, the Committee did not find that the article was inaccurate or misleading in the manner in which it had reported the events. Nevertheless, the Committee welcomed the clarification which had been published in response to the concerns raised by the complainant. There was no breach of Clause 1.

17. Although no breach was established on this occasion, the Committee did wish to emphasise that simply relying on a reporter contracted to another publication to have checked the information before publication would not generally be considered, in and of itself, taking care not to publish inaccurate information as required by the Code.

18. The Committee next considered whether the article had inaccurately reported that the parents had experienced refund problems. The Code does not prohibit the publication of allegations – this, in and of itself, was not a breach of the Code. The Committee noted the article made clear throughout that the alleged issues with refunds were allegations made by the parents, rather than statements from the publication which it had independently verified. For instance, the headline said “parents claim refund problems”, and the references to these claims throughout the article were in inverted commas: “frustrated parents have hit out at 'delays' of refunds”. Further, the newspaper had attempted to verify the claims by contacting the nursery for its response to the allegations – although it had declined to comment. The references to refund issues were therefore clearly distinguished as allegations and was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

19. The terms of Clause 3 (ii) refer specifically to the harassment of individuals; the Committee did not accept that it was possible for a business to experience the intrusive harm Clause 3 seeks to prevent. As such, the Committee did not accept that the terms of Clause 3 were engaged. Regardless, the Committee noted the extent of the contact with the organisation was limited and there was no allegation that it had continued contacting anyone who worked for the complainant after it had been asked to desist.

20. The terms of Clause 4 are designed to protect individuals from experiencing intrusion related to coverage of a traumatic incident – such as injury or death - they are personally connected to; a business closing would not reach the bar of grief or shock as it is defined in the Code. Additionally, while the Committee was sorry to hear of the recent bereavement experienced by staff member, neither the article nor the approaches made by the publication were related to the loss. In these circumstances, there was no breach of Clause 4.

Conclusions

21. The complaint was not upheld.

Remedial action required

N/A

Date complaint received: 03/11/2024

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 23/06/2025

Independent Complaints Reviewer

The publication complained to the Independent Complaints Reviewer about the process followed by IPSO in handling this complaint. The Independent Complaints Reviewer decided that the process was not flawed and did not uphold the request for review.