Ruling

Resolution Statement – 06631-24 The Soho Society v metro.co.uk

  • Complaint Summary

    The Soho Society complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that metro.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “American candy stores will take over Soho ‘if council and residents had their way’”, published on 22 November 2024.

    • Published date

      1st May 2025

    • Outcome

      Resolved - IPSO mediation

    • Code provisions

      1 Accuracy

Summary of Complaint

1. The Soho Society complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that metro.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “American candy stores will take over Soho ‘if council and residents had their way’”, published on 22 November 2024.

2. The article reported “Soho business owners have warned it is going to become ‘tacky and s*** like Leicester Square’ as residents object to hundreds of business applications”. It stated, “Resident’s [sic] group The Soho Society has reportedly reviewed 102 planning applications since 2022 – and has objected to all but one, according to the SBA [Soho Business Alliance]”.

3. The article reported “Soho Society rejected the idea they have objected to so many applications” and said the Society said: “one of our concerns is protecting Soho’s heritage, including its narrow streets which were laid out in the 17th century” and “nearly three-quarters of all crime in Westminster is in the West End Ward and St James Ward, and according to the police much of it is related to the night time economy.”

4. Prior to the publication of the article, the publication approached the complainant by email and asked for comment on the claim, “the Soho Society has objected to 101/102 planning and licensing applications since 2022,” which the reporter said came from “business owners”.

5. The complainant replied citing separate figures for planning objections – it said “since Jan 2024 we have reviewed 285 and objected to 54 of them. So our objection rate is 19% YTD [year to date].”

6. The figure did not appear in the article, and the complainant subsequently contacted the newspaper to express concern about this.

7. The complainant said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1. It said the article omitted the alternative figures it had provided, and disputed the accuracy of the claim that it had objected to 101/102 planning and licensing applications since 2022 – it said its objection rate had been 19% since January 2024.

8. Regarding Clause 1, the publication said while it did not have a copy of the raw data the article’s claim was based on, it did not adopt the claim as fact and made clear that it was an allegation and the source of the claim. It said the figure came from an open letter from the Soho Business Alliance, which said “The Soho Society, a local residents’ amenity group, has reviewed 102 planning applications since 2022 and objected to 101 of them.”

9. During IPSO’s investigation, the complainant provided a dataset from its planning schedule which appeared to show the objection rate since 2022 was around 20 per cent.

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.

Mediated Outcome

10. After receiving the dataset from the complainant, the publication offered to add the following correction as a footnote to the article:

An earlier version of this article reported a claim made by the Soho Business Alliance that The Soho Society had reviewed 102 planning applications since 2022 and objected to all but one. In fact, Metro understands that The Soho Society’s rate of objection to planning applications currently averages less than 20%, which we are happy to make clear, and apologise for any suggestion to the contrary.

11. The publication also published a standalone correction on the publication’s homepage which stated:

An article published on November 22 reported a claim made by the Soho Business Alliance that The Soho Society had reviewed 102 planning applications since 2022 and objected to all but one. In fact, Metro understands that The Soho Society’s rate of objection to planning applications currently averages less than 20%, which we are happy to make clear, and apologise for any suggestion to the contrary.

12. The complainant said that this would resolve the matter to its satisfaction.

13. 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: 29/12/2024

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 07/04/2025