06163-24 Phoenix Housing, Jangra, Bethell and Chall v Express & Star (West)

Summary of Complaint

1. Phoenix Housing – acting on its own behalf an on behalf of Sanjeev Jangra, Kimberley Bethell, and Davinder Chall – complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that Express & Star breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) and Clause 2 (Privacy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “HOUSING BOSSES HARASSED TENANT”, published on 2 November 2024.

2. The article – which appeared on the front page - reported on a court case against the complainant, a housing provider, regarding its interactions with a tenant. It said: “Phoenix directors Davinder Chall, […] and Kimberley Bethell, […] based at All Saints Road, Wolverhampton, pleaded guilty to several charges concerning a property and a tenant”. It also reported Mr Chall and Ms Bethell’s respective ages. It then said: “Between January 2023 and February 2023, they caused distress to their tenant, which they were being paid to care for due to their vulnerable nature, by neglecting them and harassing them.”

3. The article reported that a “third director Sanjeev Jangra, […] who is a teacher based in Saudi Arabia, pleaded not guilty and the prosecution offered no evidence as he was out of the country when the crimes were committed.” The article also said that “Phoenix are paid hundreds of thousands of taxpayers cash to provide supported housing in HMOs across Wolverhampton. The company's profit for 2022 was £249,974 and for 2023 was £290, 290”.

4. The article was also published online on 5 November, in substantially the same format, under the headline “Wolverhampton Supported Housing provider guilty of withholding care to vulnerable”.

5. The complainant said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 as it reported the company’s profit in 2022 was £249,974, and £290,209 in 2023. It said these figures were actually the company’s turnover for 2022 and 2023. It said this misrepresented its financial position and could lead to readers misunderstanding the company’s performance. It said that in 2022, after tax, it made a loss of £446, and in 2023, after tax, it made a profit of £15,805.

6. The complainant also said the article inaccurately stated the company operated Houses in Multiple Occupations (HMOs).

7. While the complainant accepted that two of the directors plead guilty to a regulatory breach, it said that the charges did not include the term "harass" or "harassment." It said they were initially charged with "aggressive practices” but were not found guilty of this.

8. The complainant also said the article had breached Clause 2 as one of the directors who had not been found guilty was named on the newspaper’s front page, along with his profession and location. It also said the article breached the other directors’ privacy, as it named them in conjunction with an inaccurate headline, and included their ages.

9. The complainant first complained directly to the publication on 3 November.

10. In response, the publication accepted that some claims in the article were inaccurate. It provided screenshots from Companies House showing the complainant’s public accounts, which it said presented the figures in the article as "gross profit". However, it accepted this was different to net profit. The Companies House figures also included a “profit/loss on ordinary activities before taxation” which showed the company’s profit after all expenses had been deducted.

11. The publication said that the reporter believed the company operated HMOs. It said readers would understand that this term referred to a property where adults lived separately, however acknowledged there was a different legal definition.

12. On 5 November, the publication amended the online version of the article to state: ”PSH is a Community Interest Company (CIC) which is a limited company that is established to benefit the community, rather than private shareholders. Their turnover for 2022 was £244,255 and for 2023 was £215,778” [sic] and amended the article to read: “Between January 2023 and February 2023, they [Davinder Chall and Kimberley Bethell] caused distress to their tenant, which they were being paid to care for due to their vulnerable nature.”. It also removed the reference to the complainant operating HMOs and offered to add a statement from the complainant to the article.

13. On 29 November, the publication offered to publish a standalone article clarifying the financial figures and the complainant’s HMO status. It said that any further articles published about the sentencing would also include this information.

14. On 15 and 16 January it published an additional online article and print article which appeared on page 5. These articles reported on the sentencing of Ms Bethell and Mr Chall, and included the following wording at the end of the article:

“In a previous article it was stated Phoenix Supported Housing reported profits of £249,974 for 2022 and £209,209 in 2023. These figures relate to turnover and not profit. We are also happy to clarify that the firm does not operate houses of multiple occupancy”.

15. Turning to the remainder of the complainant’s concerns, the publication said it was legally bound to accurately report what was said in court. It said it was therefore relevant and in the public interest to report Mr Sanjeev’s circumstances; this explained why he was out of the country and was therefore found innocent of the charges. It added it was normal practice to include ages in court stories, and that such details help identify defendants and distinguish them from other members of the public with the same name.

16. The publication said the term “harassed” was a fair characterisation of the complainant’s conduct. It said the defendants did not just plead guilty to 'regulatory compliance' but to a breach of professional diligence which encompassed a range of deficiencies in terms of the provision of support they were being paid to provide to a vulnerable tenant. The publication provided a quote from the Judge which it said supported this characterisation:

"You took advantage of a vulnerable person, the very person that you and your company that you claimed to assist and support. Having taken taxpayers' money to care for and support vulnerable people you caused stress to one of those people. Instead of caring and supporting her, you withheld the care you were paid to give her. You bullied her, you harassed her, all whilst claiming to be there to support her.”

17. The publication also provided a quote from the Prosecutor, who said:

"They were paid over £25,000 to look after a vulnerable young woman. Instead they effectively harassed her and then unlawfully evicted her. They could not have cared if she had ended up living out of a cardboard box. They told her to leave the property in seven days. This company has earnt fortunes from Wolverhampton taxpayers for doing the exact opposite of how they treated [named individual].”

18. The complainant reiterated that it was unreasonable to use the term “harass” and that, while the online article had been amended, the print version featured prominently on the front page. It said it had caused significant harm to its reputation and stress to its employees.

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.

Findings of the Committee

19. The article reported that the “company's profit for 2022 was £249,974 and for 2023 was £290, 290”. However, these figures – taken from Companies House - were for the complainant’s gross profit; namely, its revenue minus the costs of the services provided. The actual profit after expenses had been deducted was much less, and this was not in dispute by either party.

20. The Committee considered that the newspaper had not taken care not to publish misleading information by not sufficiently making clear that the figures were the company’s “gross profit”. It considered this to be the case given this information was publicly accessible and easily verifiable – and that Companies House figures it had relied upon included figures showing “profit/loss on ordinary activities before taxation”; this was a clear indication that the figures they reported as “profit” were in fact the company’s gross profit, rather than the company’s revenue minus its expenses. As such, there was a breach of Clause 1 (i).

21. The Committee next considered whether the above references represented a significant inaccuracy in need of correction. It noted that the company had made a loss in 2022, and a net profit of £15,805 in 2023. It therefore considered the article significantly misrepresented the company’s net profits. The Committee considered this significant given the large difference between the actual net profit and the reported profit, and because – as the article made clear – the complainant is ”paid hundreds of thousands of taxpayers cash to provide supported housing in HMOs across Wolverhampton”. Given the importance of accurately reporting how public money is spent, and the profit margins of company’s who receive public funds, this inaccuracy was significant and in need of correcting as required by Clause 1 (ii).

22. On 15 and 16 December, respectively, the publication published articles reporting on the sentencing online and in print on page 5 as well as an apology at the bottom of those articles. However, the Committee did not consider that this was a sufficiently prominent location for a correction: it did not appear as a clearly delineated correction on the original online article, or in a dedicated Corrections & Clarifications column in the print newspaper. This meant that readers of the original article would not be made aware of the correct position, or that the original article included inaccurate information, unless they happened to read the separate article.

23. While the publication had offered to publish a standalone correction, it later confirmed on 21 January that it had published corrections in the new articles, rather than as standalone corrections. At any rate, given that the offer to publish a standalone correction was made on 29 November, 26 days after the publication was made aware of the alleged inaccuracies, the Committee did not consider the remedial action offered was prompt enough – particularly in light of the fact that the correct position was available to it prior to the original article’s publication, and it was not required to do any further research or verification of the complainant’s position.

24. However, while the correction was not sufficiently prominent or prompt, the Committee considered the wording published did correct the inaccuracy, both by making clear what the original articles had reported and by setting out the correct position; which was that the reported figures were actually the company’s turnover for 2022 and 2023 – albeit it did not include the company’s actual profit for these years. However, given the corrections were not sufficiently prompt or prominent, there was a breach of Clause 1 (ii).

25. The Committee next turned to the disputed claim that the company operated HMOs. It noted that the reporter had assumed this to be the case based on a misunderstanding of what an HMO was. As such, the Committee was of the view that the publication had not taken care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information where the meaning of this term was easily verifiable. There was a breach of Clause 1(i).

26. The Committee next considered whether this point represented a significant inaccuracy in need of correction. As the article primarily focused on the directors’ convictions, it did not consider claiming that the complainant operated HMOs was significantly inaccurate. There was no breach of Clause 1 (ii) on this point.

27. While the Committee did not find a breach of Clause 1 (ii) on the above point, it considered what the appropriate sanction would be for a breach of Clause 1 (i) absent of a breach of Clause 1 (ii). In this case, where the publication had amended the online article two days after it became aware of the error, and had further published another article making clear the complainant did not operate HMOs, it was satisfied this breach had been remedied by the publication.

28. The Committee next considered whether it was inaccurate to use the terms “harassed” and “harassment” in reference to the two directors’ treatment of one of their tenants. Given the newspaper had provided comments made by the Judge and Prosecutor heard in court which supported this characterisation - including a comment made by the judge which specifically used the word “harass” - the Committee considered the article was not inaccurate on this point. There was no breach of Clause 1.

29. The Committee next considered whether including the names of the directors, in conjunction with their ages, profession and location, breached Clause 2. The Committee noted that these details were made public in open court proceedings, which was not subject to a reporting restriction and therefore this information was in the public domain. In such circumstances, the Committee did not consider that the complainants had a reasonable expectation of privacy in relation to this information, and there was no breach of Clause 2.

Conclusions

30. The complaint was partly upheld under Clause 1.

Remedial action required

31. Having upheld the complaint, the Committee considered what remedial action should be required. In circumstances where the Committee establishes a breach of the Editors’ Code, it can require the publication of a correction and/or an adjudication; the nature, extent and placement of which is determined by IPSO.

32. The article misleadingly reported the company’s profit. The Committee noted that while the reference was significantly misleading due to the large difference between the actual net profit and the reported net profit, the focus of the article was on the court proceedings against the complainant, which had been accurately reported. Therefore, on balance, the Committee considered that a correction was the appropriate remedy. The correction should acknowledge that the original article misleadingly reported the company’s profit for 2022 and 2023, and set out the company’s actual post-tax profits for these years.

33. The Committee then considered the placement of this correction.

34. The correction should be published – in print - as its own standalone correction. The Committee noted that the inaccuracy had appeared on the front page, however given the editorial importance of the front page, and that front page corrections are typically reserved for serious breaches of the Code, it was satisfied with that the correction should appear on page 2. As the publication had already amended the article to remove the inaccurate information, the correction on the online article should be published as a footnote correction where the inaccuracy appeared in the text of the article only - an online standalone correction was not necessary in this case.

35. The wording should be agreed with IPSO in advance and should make clear that it has been published following an upheld ruling by the Independent Press Standards Organisation.

Date complaint received: 15/11/2024

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 26/03/2025