Ruling

Resolution Statement – 05319-24 Munro v hulldailymail.co.uk

  • Complaint Summary

    Ben Munro complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that hulldailymail.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Five common property laws you might be unknowingly breaking - and they could land you with a fine”, published on 16 August 2024.

    • Published date

      23rd January 2025

    • Outcome

      Resolved - IPSO mediation

    • Code provisions

      1 Accuracy

Summary of Complaint

1. Ben Munro complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that hulldailymail.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Five common property laws you might be unknowingly breaking - and they could land you with a fine”, published on 16 August 2024.

2. The article appeared under the sub-headline: “Failing to keep on top of 'house admin' can have unexpected consequences”. It opened by reporting: “For many, the hustle and bustle of daily life can lead to neglecting mundane household tasks. However, seemingly minor oversights such as a broken bin can snowball into unexpected consequences. From an unkempt garden to not displaying your house number, there are numerous property laws that, if violated, can result in hefty fines”.

3. The article then reported on a number of such property laws. Firstly, it reported: “Under the Local Government Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1976, homeowners are obligated to maintain their gardens in good condition or they face up to a £500 fine. It's also crucial that you manage your bins well, ensuring that they aren't damaged or overflowing. This is a more common law that you could unknowingly be breaking”.

4. Subsequently – under the subheading: “Cracks in your property - £30,000 – the article reported: “Dangerous cracks in your property can pose a serious risk, to both you and people in the surrounding area. If the building were to collapse, it could injure or even kill you, so it's always best to address any damage as soon as possible. The Housing Act 2004 mandates you to repair cracks in your property, or you could risk a fine of up to £30,000. However, this is only in the most severe cases and does depend on your local council”.

5. Finally - under the subheading: “Not displaying your house number clearly - £500” – the article reported: “Under the Street Naming and Numbering Regulation 1999, homeowners are obliged to ensure their house number is clearly visible. Failing to comply with this regulation can result in a fine of up to £500. House numbers are crucial for delivery personnel and public service officials to identify homes correctly. It helps avoid confusion and is vital for emergency workers should they need to locate your property”.

6. The complainant said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 in three separate regards. Firstly, he said that the “Street Naming and Numbering Regulation 1999” did not exist, and believed it was AI-Generated. He said the accompanying section was therefore inaccurate.

7. Furthermore, he said that the article’s application of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 was inaccurate. He said that issues such as untidy gardens fall under different legislation, including the Environmental Protection Act 1990. He also said it does not pertain to overflowing bins and could not be applied in that context.

8. Finally, the complainant also said the reference to the Housing Act 2004, in relation to property cracks, “misapplied” the legislation. He said it should be referenced in “cases involving landlords renting out properties where a Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) assessment is required”.

9. Although the complainant did not submit further complaints, he noted that versions of the article had been republished by a number of other newspapers belonging to the same publisher.

10. On 21 August, IPSO made the newspaper under complaint aware that the complaint raised a possible breach of the Editors’ Code. On 4 September, it contacted the complainant. It accepted that parts of the original article were inaccurate and made a number of amendments.

11. It amended the headline to read: “Four common property laws you might be unknowingly breaking - and they could land you with a fine”. Additionally, it removed the section titled: “Not displaying your house number clearly - £500”, and amended the extracts regarding the Local Government Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1976 to the following:

“Untidy garden - £500

Untidy gardens can be a blight for the neighbouring residents and may draw in unwanted pests such as rats and mice. This can subsequently impact neighbouring properties, causing damage and spreading harmful bacteria. Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, homeowners are obligated to maintain their gardens in good condition or they face up to a £500 fine.

Overflowing or damaged bin - £500

It's also crucial that you manage your bins well, ensuring that they aren't damaged or overflowing. This is a more common law that you could unknowingly be breaking.

This is particularly easy for large families due to the significant amount of waste generated. Like an untidy garden, this is governed by the Local Government Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1976, which can result in a fine of up to £500 depending on your location.”

12. The publication also added the following footnote correction to the article:

“A previous version of this article reported that failure to display your house number clearly could result in a £500 under the Street Naming and Numbering Regulation 1999. In fact, this legislation does not exist. Although it is not clear if there is a legal obligation to display a house number clearly, house numbers are crucial for delivery personnel and public service officials to identify homes correctly and is vital for emergency workers should they need to locate your property. The article also incorrectly reported that an untidy garden falls under the Local Government Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1976. In fact, this falls under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. We are happy to clarify this and the article has been amended accordingly.”

13. In response, the complainant said he considered the amendments insufficient to address his concerns – the correction did not adequately highlight the misleading nature of the original article, and was not sufficiently prominent. He also said it failed to address the broader legislative concerns he had raised.

14. On 25 September, IPSO opened an investigation into the complaint. During IPSO’s investigation, the publication again accepted that parts of the article were inaccurate. It said the information had been found online, and was published in good faith – nevertheless, it had corrected the inaccurate information in line with its obligations under Clause 1(ii). However, where it reported on the Housing Act 2004 and property cracks, it said it “could not see” that the legislation did not apply to private homeowners, or that it only specifically applies to landlords, and therefore this point was not inaccurate.

15. In response, the complainant said the Act specifically applies to properties that are not occupied by the registered owner, and “focuses primarily on houses in multiple occupation (HMO), such as flats or houses divided into separate living quarters”. He said the legislation was clear that privately owned properties occupied by their owners are not subject to local authority inspections. Further, he also said that article’s assertion that the Act mandates repairs with a threat of a fine “up to £30,000” was misleading – he said this applies to the most severe cases, and only where specific conditions exist.

16. In response, the publication said that it was unsure the Act applied “exclusively” to properties not occupied by the registered owner. Nevertheless, it said it would be happy to add a line to the article advising that "this primarily applies to houses in multiple occupation", and amend the wording of the correction accordingly. It also noted that the article made clear the fines are “only in the most severe cases and does depend on your local council”.

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

17. During the course of IPSO’s investigation, on 28 November, the publication noted that the correction already published had failed to address the complainant’s concerns regarding the reported information relating to “overflowing bins”. At this stage, it offered to remove the article in full, and publish the following standalone correction:

“Common property laws - A correction

Our article headlined "Five common property laws you might be unknowingly breaking - and they could land you with a fine" 16 August, incorrectly reported that "failure to display your house number clearly could result in a £500 under the Street Naming and Numbering Regulation 1999." In fact, this legislation does not exist. Although it is not clear if there is a legal obligation to display a house number clearly, house numbers are crucial for delivery personnel and public service officials to identify homes correctly and is vital for emergency workers should they need to locate your property. The article also incorrectly reported that an untidy garden and overflowing bins falls under the Local Government Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1976 and could result in a fine. We would like to clarify that the Local Government Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1976 does not cover such issues, and that an untidy garden falls under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The article since been removed.”

18. In response, the complainant requested the removal of all versions of the article, including those run by different newspapers falling under the same publisher.

19. The publication agreed to the complainant’s request, and on 20 December, the articles in question were removed.

20. 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: 19/08/2024

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 20/12/2024