Resolution Statement – 06115-24 Able Investigations & Enforcements v bristolpost.co.uk

Summary of Complaint

1. Able Investigations & Enforcements complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that bristolpost.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 2 (Privacy), Clause 3 (Harassment), Clause 4 (Intrusion into grief or shock), Clause 9 (Reporting of crime) and Clause 12 (Discrimination) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Bristol City Council slammed for sending bailiffs to chase 27,000 council tax debts”, published on 11 November 2024.

2. The article reported on Bristol City Council’s usage of bailiff companies to recover council tax debts. Beneath the headline, it included a photograph of three individuals, standing and wearing enforcement officer uniforms, and looking into the camera. The photograph was captioned “Steve and the Able Investigations & Enforcement Services".

3. A similar version of the article also appeared in print. However, it did not include the above photograph.

4. The article was published at 5.30pm - at 6.50pm, the complainant complained directly to the newspaper. Upon receipt of the complaint, the newspaper removed the image from the article.

5. The complainant subsequently complained to IPSO. It said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 where it included a photograph of three employees of the company. It said that the company does not recover council tax – rather, it handles commercial recovery and specialist evictions - and that it was therefore misleading to include their image and name in an article about Bristol Council using bailiff companies to recover council tax debts.

6. The complainant also said that, due to the article, a number of protestors had attended the company’s offices, which had led to criminal damage, harassment and physical violence being directed toward its employees. On these grounds, and due to the use of the photograph of its employees, it complained that the article had breached Clause 2, Clause 3, Clause 4, Clause 9, and Clause 12.

7. The publication did not accept that the article was in breach of the Editors’ Code. It noted that the protest outside the complainant’s office had occurred at midday on 11 November, prior to the publication of its article at 5.30pm. Additionally, it said that, given the protest had occurred outside the complainant’s offices, it was relevant to the story at hand. Notwithstanding this, it noted that the photograph, and reference to the complainant, had been removed from the online article.

8. It also said that the use of the image did not breach Clause 2. It noted that the image had been published in a prior article for the same newspaper. It also stated that information regarding the complainant, and its employees, was available online.

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 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.

Clause 9 (Reporting of Crime)*

i) Relatives or friends of persons convicted or accused of crime should not generally be identified without their consent, unless they are genuinely relevant to the story.

ii) Particular regard should be paid to the potentially vulnerable position of children under the age of 18 who witness, or are victims of, crime. This should not restrict the right to report legal proceedings.

iii) Editors should generally avoid naming children under the age of 18 after arrest for a criminal offence but before they appear in a youth court unless they can show that the individual’s name is already in the public domain, or that the individual (or, if they are under 16, a custodial parent or similarly responsible adult) has given their consent. This does not restrict the right to name juveniles who appear in a crown court, or whose anonymity is lifted.

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.

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, on 27 January, the publication acknowledged that – while the complainant does handle enforcement – it does not recover council tax debt. It published the following correction at the top of the article, under the headline:

A previous version of this article included photographs of bailiff offers and was captioned "Steve and the Able Investigations & Enforcement Services". In fact, Able Investigations do not enforce council tax debt or council tax recovery. The photographs were used to illustrate bailiffs generally, and we would like to make clear that Able Investigations and the individuals previously pictured did not have any involvement in this story. We are happy to clarify this and apologise for any confusion.

11. In response, the complainant requested that the correction be amended to read as follows:

A previous version of this article included photographs of Enforcement Officers. This was captioned "Steve and the Able Investigations & Enforcement Services". In fact, Able Investigations & Enforcements have never enforced council tax liable Orders or collected any type of council tax debt, nor do they carry out Residential Debt Recovery. The photographs were used to illustrate Enforcement Officers generally, and we would like to make clear that Able Investigations and the staff shown in the picture, did not have any involvement in this story. We would like to apologise for any inconvenience that the use of the picture caused to Able Enforcements & its staff.

12. The publication accepted the complainant’s requested wording, and on 7 February, it amended the correction to the above, and confirmed that this would appear beneath the headline of the article indefinitely.

13. The complainant said that this resolved the matter to its satisfaction.

14. 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: 11/11/2024

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 13/02/2025