Resolution Statement – 22389-23 Grigore v metro.co.uk
-
Complaint Summary
I. Grigore complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that metro.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 2 (Privacy), Clause 3 (Harassment) and Clause 4 (Intrusion into grief or shock) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “ […R]ow over '£75,000 cupboard'”, published on 7 November 2023.
-
-
Published date
3rd October 2024
-
Outcome
Resolved - IPSO mediation
-
Code provisions
1 Accuracy, 2 Privacy, 3 Harassment, 4 Intrusion into grief or shock
-
Published date
Summary of Complaint
1. I. Grigore complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that metro.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 2 (Privacy), Clause 3 (Harassment) and Clause 4 (Intrusion into grief or shock) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “ […R]ow over '£75,000 cupboard'”, published on 7 November 2023.
2. The article reported on a legal dispute between the complainant, her husband and their neighbours. It reported on an ”’unrestrained’ row over a one-metre square washing machine cupboard ‘worth £75,000’”. The article stated: “a judge has ordered [the complainant and her husband] to return the cupboard to [the neighbour], and to pay more than £100,000 in legal costs”; and that the judge “accepted a previous owner of the flat had carried out the ‘land grab’ by bricking up the [neighbours’] cupboard, and the [complainant and her husband] have no rightful claim to keep it.” It went on to report that “the disputed cupboard had been accessed by [the neighbours] via an outside door on a communal courtyard between their house and the neighbouring flat, their barrister […] told the judge.”
3. The complainant said the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 because it incorrectly reported her legal fees. She said that – while the article reported that she had been ordered to “pay more than £100,000 in legal costs” – the total fees were £40,800 at the time of the article’s publication, and this included £18,000 of her neighbours’ costs which she had been ordered to pay. To support her position, the complainant also supplied a General Form of Judgment or Order dated 2 November 2023, which stated that she and her husband “shall pay the sum of £18,000 to the [neighbours] by no later than 4pm on 21 November 2023 on account of the costs”.
4. Later during the investigation, the complainant’s barrister provided a statement to IPSO, which said:
“The journalist then asked me what the costs were. I said that I could not be sure but as both parties used counsel directly instructed I said that thankfully the costs were not that high. I said that I could not be sure what my clients' costs were but I guessed around £20,000. The Defendants' costs were £18,000. So I said I guess under £50,000. The journalist then said so shall we say £100,000. I rather flippantly said if he wanted to say that then sure as, judged by the journalist’s insistence on his proposed costs figure of £100,000, I guessed that £50,000 costs would not be very newsworthy.“
5. The complainant also provided a client care letter from her barrister which stated: “the fixed fee will be £20,000 plus VAT (£24,000 incl. VAT).”
6. The complainant also said the dispute with the neighbours had been described inaccurately. She said it was inaccurate to report that the outside patio was shared with the neighbours they were in a dispute with: it was a communal patio shared with flats in another building, though one of the neighbours party to the dispute could “enter the patio area for the purposes of maintaining her property and installation of dustbins.” She also said the cupboard was not accessible by an outside door; access was only through a bathroom inside her home. The complainant also said it was inaccurate to describe an incident with her neighbour as a “row”, ” given the measured conduct of the complainant and her husband.. The complainant also said the article was one-sided and omitted information about their dispute with their neighbour.
7. The complainant also said the behaviour of the reporter breached Clause 3. The complainant said the reporter did not initially identify himself to her, and when she approached him to ask who he was, “he replied that he was a freelance agent working on a project. I asked him what kind of project, but he didn't tell me anything.” The complainant said she had responded by stating “there was so much heartbreak and sadness that I had witnessed just by sitting and waiting in the hallway outside the courtroom and that I wouldn't understand why someone would want to write about that. That I believe that there is so much more out there in the world that one can write about” but that the reporter had responded “sardonically”: "don't you worry, we are all going to see what you have to say!” She also said she felt watched and hounded by the reporter, who she also alleged was eavesdropping on conversations between her and her barrister at court.
8. The complainant also said the article breached Clause 2 because she had been photographed outside the courtroom, during a distressing time, without her consent. She also said the article contained an image of the cupboard and questioned how this was obtained.
9. The complainant also said that the article breached Clause 4 because it compounded the distress felt by her and her partner due to the court case and the ongoing dispute with her neighbour.
10. The publication did not accept a breach of Clause 1. Regarding the costs of the case, it said the total costs came to just over £100,000. It said the complainant’s own costs amounted to £52,000, and the neighbours’ costs were approximately £50,000. It said the figure of £18,000 taken from the judge’s order was what the couple had been ordered to pay on account – which is an immediate payment towards the winning party's bill ahead of full assessment. The publication said it was standard procedure in court for a considerably lower sum to be ordered by way of payment on account, and this did not mean that the figure reflected the total legal costs payable.
11. The publication did not accept that it was significantly inaccurate to report that: the patio was communal’; the cupboard had been bricked up from the inside by the complainant and her husband;. It said was not in dispute that the parties engaged in protracted litigation regarding the cupboard and spent significant amounts of money to address their disagreement.
12. The publication did not accept a breach of Clause 3. It said that, at the time the complainant had asked the journalist who he worked for, he had been working on a freelance capacity and not on behalf of the publication, therefore he could not confirm that he was acting on their behalf. It also rejected any allegation of improper behaviour on behalf of a journalist who provided it with material.
13. The publication did not accept a breach of Clause 2, as it said the article was simply a court report. The publication did not accept a breach of Clause 4 either: it said that the terms of this Clause did not mean that it was required to report on a legal case in the manner the complainant may prefer or in a way that sympathetic to their position.
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.
Mediated Outcome
14. The complaint was not resolved through direct correspondence between the parties. IPSO therefore began an investigation into the matter.
15. During IPSO’s investigation the publication offered to remove the online article; not to re-publish the article’s content, providing there were no further developments in the case; and to remove the information about the complainant and her family - including her cat – from its internal archives.
16. The complainant said that this would resolve the matter to her satisfaction.
17. 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: 09/11/2023
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 10/05/2024