Tent thread

pinksleepybear

Also, they've stopped deleting so many comments from their facebook page - even replying to some. I thought I'd let people know in case they wanted some dialogue with Suze. It was a while ago that I posted, but she did claim that her sharing Carmen's personal data with a tv crew (who then broadcast it on national tv) didn't breach the Data Protection Act.

mynameisdave

tbs624 wrote: »

not to bring onto the premises any combustible fluid

Even Whisky?

tbs624

mynameisdave wrote: »

Even Whisky?

Presumably so - and to think, when they said it was a dry house the Ts thought they meant the roof was weathertight............;)

lily_livered

I got sight of a detailed reply from Ofcom about the ITV/GMTV programmes featuring Suzy Butler, the text of which is below.


20 December 2010

Dear xxx

News reports on GMTV, ITV1, 11 August 2010 at 06:41, and 12 August at 06:13 and 07:14

Thank you for your email dated 26 August 2010 about the above broadcasts. Firstly I would like to apologise for the delay in responding to you. I understand from your email that you did not consider Ofcom’s response, dated 23 August 2010, to address the substance of your original complaint. You have therefore asked Ofcom to reconsider our decision not to uphold your complaint.

Your email was passed to me to consider as a person not previously involved in the original decision. In my view your further email of 26 August put forward various points which were not taken account of in Ofcom’s original decision — in particular, your concerns about the accuracy and impartiality of the report and the reporter possibly instigating a criminal offence under the Protection From Eviction Act 1977.

In light of this, Ofcom has decided to consider this case completely afresh. Therefore I have retaken the decision, and the determination set out in this letter will replace the original decision sent to you on 23 August 2010.

Summary

Ofcom noted from your original complaint that, amongst other things, you considered the description of the tenant as a squatter to be “wholly wrong and prejudicial to the tenant” and that the reporter “either instigated or aided an unlawful breach of the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment” as well as a criminal offence under the Protection From Eviction Act 1977, which put the landlord at risk of criminal and civil proceedings.

As part of the new investigation ITV Breakfast Limited (“ITV”) was asked to provide formal comments on how the content of the three broadcasts complied with the Broadcasting Code (“the Code”). I should state at the outset that after careful consideration Ofcom has decided that these broadcasts did not result in a breach of the Code. However I should stress that, as a result of your concerns, we have written to ITV to give it specific guidance about taking great care in applying due accuracy and due impartiality to news reports that cover legal topics affecting the rights of individuals such as the area you were concerned by.

Background

The Communications Act 2003 (“the Act”) requires Ofcom to set standards for programmes on television and radio in areas such as crime (Section Three of the Code) and due impartiality and due accuracy (Section Five of the Code) and fairness and privacy (Sections 7 and 8). As a result of the Act, in 2005 Ofcom published the Code containing the rules that broadcasters must abide by. This Code applies to all broadcasters licensed by Ofcom and the BBC. You can download a copy of our Code from our website at http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/ifi/codes/bcode/.

We considered your concerns in relation to the following rules of the Code:

Rule 3.1 “Material likely to encourage or incite the commission of crime or to lead to disorder must not be included in television or radio services.”

Rule 5.1 “News, in whatever form, must be reported with due accuracy and presented with due impartiality.”

It is important to note that Rule 3.1 looks only at the likelihood of the encouragement or incitement of crime (or disorder).

With regard to the meaning of “due impartiality”, “due” means adequate or appropriate to the subject and nature of the programme. So “due impartiality” does not mean an equal division of time has to be given to every view, or that every argument and every facet of every argument has to be represented. The approach to due impartiality may vary according to the nature of the subject, the type of programme and channel, the likely expectation of the audience as to content, and the extent to which the content and approach is signalled to the audience. Context, as defined in Section Two: Harm and Offence of the Code, is important.

Accuracy entails getting the facts right. Ofcom’s guidance for due accuracy states that “In complying with the requirement to report news with ‘due accuracy’, broadcasters should refer to the clarification of ‘due’ set out in the meaning of ‘due impartiality’” (please see above).

In considering matters of this nature Ofcom must also exercise its duties in a way which is compatible with Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which provides for the right of freedom of expression and the right to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public body.

Response from ITV

Below is a summary of ITV’s comments with regard to Rules 3.1 and 5.1 of the Code.

ITV said that GMTV has a magazine format and due to the demands of the national, local and travel news it has limited time available on any one morning to devote to any one issue. Given this, many issues are dealt with across a number of programmes “quite often extending across a week”.

With regard to Rule 3.1, ITV said that its film crew and the landlord were invited onto the premises by the tenant. It continued that “in these circumstances, it is in our view impossible to see how a breach of section 1 of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 would have been perpetrated”. It added that “we fail to see anything in the items complained of which amounts in any way to a call to action or a suggestion that landlords should act in any way contrary to the Protection from Eviction Act 1977”. ITV also referred to the broadcast of 12 August which included advice from property barrister Philip Rainey QC, who stated that landlords should not harass tenants for not paying rent.

With regard to Rule 5.1, ITV said that “the programme’s coverage of the issue focused on the need to balance the rights of landlords and tenants and did underline by way of illustration the very real impact on people’s lives that the relevant legislation... may have”. ITV said that the human interest element was the focus of the item broadcast on 11 August and the legality the focus of the 12 August broadcasts. ITV said that it did receive expressions of sympathy for both the landlord and the tenant following the broadcast of these items and considered the items a balanced and in whole impartial view to the issue.

With regard to the description of the tenant as a “squatter”, ITV conceded that the tenant was “at times — although far from exclusively — described as a squatter” (i.e. the term “tenant” was also used to describe Carmen Nobre during the reports). It said that the reporter spent considerable time researching the legal issues surrounding this item and discussed this case at length with the British Landlords’ Association (BLA). It also said that the BLA’s view was that the tenant amounted to a “squatter” and that the term “squatter” is commonly used to describe those occupying premises without paying rent, whether or not a possession order has been granted by a court of law.

Decision

Accuracy and impartiality

Ofcom noted that your original complaint dated 22 August 2010 stated that “the description of the tenant as a squatter throughout is wholly wrong and prejudicial to the tenant”. While the Code contains rules to protect people participating in programmes from unfair treatment and breaches of privacy (see Section 7 and 8 of the Code), such complaints can only be brought by ‘the person affected’, i.e. the person or organisation alleged to have been treated unfairly or to have had their privacy infringed. In this case, because the tenant, Carmen Nobre, or someone acting on her behalf, has not made a complaint to Ofcom, we have no grounds to consider your complaint in relation to Sections 7 and/or 8 of the Code.

Ofcom therefore considered this element of your complaint under Rule 5.1 of the Code. We noted that during the broadcast on 11 August the tenant was referred to as a “squatter” on four occasions and a “tenant” on two occasions. The tenant was not referred to as a “squatter” during either of the items broadcast on the 12 August. Ofcom therefore considered whether, by referring to the tenant as a “squatter” during the broadcast of 11 August, ITV had reported this issue with due accuracy.

Ofcom took into account that GMTV is a daily news magazine programme and the item in question was not a report intended for a specialist legal audience but a news report aimed at a wide audience, the majority of whom may not have had previous knowledge of this area.

We noted that the report included professional advice from David Cox of the National Landlords Association, who set out the legal processes involved with this particular case and referred to Mrs Nobre as a “tenant”.

Ofcom also took into account that the dictionary definition of “squatter” includes “a person who occupies otherwise empty property without rights of ownership or payment of rent”(1). Therefore, in Ofcom’s view, while this term may not be considered strictly correct in the legal sense, in the circumstances of this particular case we considered the term sufficiently accurate for a report of this nature on a popular news magazine programme such as GMTV.

(1) Reference: The New Penguin English Dictionary

Given these circumstances Ofcom concluded that the report broadcast on 11 August 2010 was presented with due Accuracy. Furthermore, Ofcom did not consider that the use of the term “squatter” in this particular report of 11 August amounted to a mistake by the broadcaster.

Your email dated 26 August 2010 also stated that “the landlord’s behaviour amounted to an offence under s.1(3) and/or 1(3A) of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977” and “the reporter’s actions in either instigating or assisting the landlord to attend, to gain access and then to fail to prevent the landlord from addressing the tenant in this manner constitute a breach of both the requirement for accuracy and impartiality.”

In light of your concerns, as set out above, and in accordance with Rule 5.1 of the Code, Ofcom considered whether the three broadcasts of 11 and 12 August as a whole were presented with due accuracy and due impartiality. Ofcom noted that the editorial purpose of the report on 11 August was to look at the personal story of landlord Suzy Butler and her frustrations with her tenant who refused to vacate her property. Ofcom noted that this particular report was therefore very much presented from the perspective of Ms Butler and was arguably weighted towards her experiences in this particular case. During this news item the tenant was shown letting the reporter and Ms Butler into the property and Ms Butler was clearly upset. However, Ofcom also noted that, importantly, during the broadcast the tenant was offered an opportunity to respond to the allegations made about her.

The follow-up items broadcast on 12 August were less focused on the personal story of Ms Butler and reported more generally about the rights of tenants and landlords in similar situations. The 7.14am broadcast included an interview with the property barrister Philip Rainey QC, who provided general advice and a balanced view on behalf of both landlords and the tenants. Mr Rainey made it very clear during the item that landlords must not try and force tenants out of their property themselves as this is a serious criminal offence under section 1 of the Protection from Eviction Act”. Mr Rainey also clearly stated that it is illegal to harass a tenant and this could result in six months imprisonment or a £5000 fine. Ofcom noted that Mr Rainey also made a number of points in support of tenants and stated that “tenants do need the protection of court orders because in the past...there have been some very bad landlords and some tenants are treated very badly and the law has to be there to protect them as well as to protect landlords against bad tenants”.

Given the above, it is Ofcom’s view that any actions by the reporter that may have been considered inappropriate or, as you suggest, in breach of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977, were balanced by the clear advice given by property barrister Philip Rainey QC.

After careful consideration, and taking all the relevant circumstances into account, including the differing editorial focus of the three news reports and that GMTV is a popular news magazine programme, it is Ofcom’s view that the reports as a whole were presented with due accuracy and due impartiality. Therefore, on balance, the three items did not breach Rule 5.1.

I would like to reassure you however that given the concerns you raised about these news reports, and that the first report of 11 August 2010 was arguably weighted more towards the experience of the landlord in this particular case, we have written formally to ITV outlining these concerns. As I mentioned above, we have also provided it with specific guidance for future news programmes to ensure that when reporting on legal based topics affecting the rights of individuals, such as this, careful consideration is given to apply due accuracy and due impartiality.

Crime

Ofcom noted that your email dated 26 August also stated that “in failing to make clear that in attending the property unannounced and addressing the tenant in this manner, the landlord was possibly committing a criminal offence, GMTV breached 3.1 of the Code. The report and the studio discussion afterwards not only failed to make clear the possible offence, but by assisting and broadcasting the landlord’s actions, GMTV endorsed her behaviour as appropriate for a landlord who wants their tenant to leave the property, thereby encouraging the commission of similar criminal acts”.

It is important to note again that Rule 3.1 of the Code looks only at the likelihood of the encouragement or incitement of crime (or disorder). Ofcom has already noted above that the report showed the tenant letting the reporter and landlord into the property and that the advice from property barrister Philip Rainey QC made clear that it is a criminal offence to harass a tenant.

Given this, while the first report on 11 August showed the reporter and landlord turn up at the tenant’s house unannounced, in Ofcom’s opinion this behaviour would not, on a reasonable view, encourage or incite the commission of a crime, within the context of this particular news report. Accordingly, Ofcom did not consider that the news item was likely to encourage or incite the commission of crime or lead to disorder. Therefore Ofcom did not consider the programme to be in breach of Rule 3.1.

Conclusion

I would like to thank you for taking the time and trouble to contact Ofcom with your concerns. I hope it is clear that Ofcom takes matters such as this very seriously and your complaint has resulted in us raising this issue with the broadcaster and providing it with guidance for its future programmes. Therefore we are extremely grateful to you for bringing this issue to our attention.

Yours sincerely

xxx

Ofcom’s published procedures for complaints handling are set out in its “Procedures for the handling of broadcasting standards or other licence-related cases”. These procedures can be found at http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/broadcasting/guidance/complaints-sanctions/standards/ or by requesting a hard copy from us directly.

princeofpounds

Hmmm well done for getting back and making them do a proper reply.

A shame they seem to want to give them a let-off on the back of 'well they kind of did it right 20% of the time so we'll let them off the rest'.

But am satisfied that this created some work for GMTV and was a bit of a warning shot at least.

SouthCoast

A gentle bump.

N79

Who or what are the British Landlords Association who provided GMTV the stunningly accurate legal advice that the individual concerned was a squatter?

pinksleepybear

N79 wrote: »

Who or what are the British Landlords Association who provided GMTV the stunningly accurate legal advice that the individual concerned was a squatter?

Can't find anything on google for them. I guess it's possible they meant national landlords association, but still no clue as to why ITV would choose to take legal advice from the NLA.

My mate paul once saw a squatter, presumably his opinion on the definition of the word 'squatter' has as much sway with ITV and ofcom as the NLA's has, or the fictional BLA for that matter.

tbs624

Thanks Lily livered for that post

pinksleepybear wrote: »

Can't find anything on google for them. I guess it's possible they meant national landlords association, but still no clue as to why ITV would choose to take legal advice from the NLA.

They could equally have meant the RLA ( although its the smaller Assoc) but later on they do make reference to David Cox at the NLA. He is their "Policy" man and is a qualified barrister. However, if the programme makers wanted to show balance they should have been having a chat with a law centre lawyer who deals with the T side of LL& T law, or an experienced TRO etc

Ofcom also took into account that the dictionary definition of “squatter” includes “a person who occupies otherwise empty property without rights of ownership or payment of rent”(1). Therefore, in Ofcom’s view, while this term may not be considered strictly correct in the legal sense, in the circumstances of this particular case we considered the term sufficiently accurate for a report of this nature on a popular news magazine programme such as GMTV.

(1) Reference: The New Penguin English Dictionary.

"Popular news magazine programme" = the "news" presented in a dumbed down form because its presenters/watchers are too thick to get a grip on a true legal definition?

It's really not that difficult - all it needed was an informed representative stating quite clearly that the early reports that Ms Nobre was a "squatter" were legally inaccurate and that GMTV apologised for this inaccuracy. The phrase was not "sufficiently accurate": it was wholly inaccurate, because Ms Nobre was quite simply not a squatter.

A T does not stop being a T simply because they haven't paid their rent - how hard is that for OFCOM, GMTV, Suzi B et al to understand?

As I said way back in one of the threads, it's a shame that the NLA didn't use the opportunity to remind its members that the best route is to have a proper tenancy agreement in place from the start and then to use only the proper legal process when/if that legal relationship breaks down. Suzy Butler seems to have done neither of those things.

SouthCoast

Off topic I know. but.............................

Hove MP's 50p milk expenses claim

3:45pm Friday 4th February 2011

http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/quirkies/8834735.Hove_MP_s_50p_milk_expenses_claim/?ref=ec