A newspaper has fallen foul of the Editors’ Code of Practice for failing to respect the privacy of the man at the centre of the story 'Dad cashes in on Xbox misery'.

The Sunday Mercury article reported how Christopher Bourne had bought 30 Microsoft Xbox 360 games consoles to sell them for profit on eBay.

He complained to the Press Complaints Commission about being labelled "the greediest man in Britain", a "modern-day Scrooge" and a "shameless dad-of-two", saying it was inaccurate and misleading in breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy).

He also claimed the article’s estimation of profit on the consoles was inaccurate.

The article, on December 4, also used a photograph of him - published without consent in breach of Clause 3 (Privacy) of the Code of Practice.

Although he spoke to the paper for the article, the complainant refused to pose for a picture. He said it was taken surreptitiously and printed without permission.

He had agreed to allow his son to be photographed with the consoles. The resulting article was critical of the complainant and the published photograph was of him, not his son.

The Commission found that there was no breach of Clause 1. The complaint was upheld under Clause 3.

In adjudicating, the Commission found that the editor had not denied that the complainant had refused permission for his picture to be taken and published.

The adjudication said: "The complainant was in his own home – a place where he clearly had a reasonable expectation of privacy – when the photograph was taken.

"There would have had to have been a convincing public interest defence for surreptitiously taking and then publishing a picture of someone in their own home.

"While the newspaper clearly had a strong view about the complainant’s behaviour in trying to make some money from reselling the consoles, the Commission believed that its conduct was out of proportion to any conceivable public interest there might have been in publishing the complainant’s image.

"There was no evidence that the complainant had, for example, committed any crime or serious impropriety or sought to mislead any of his potential customers."

The Commission said that the public interest argument for ignoring the complainant’s express wishes regarding the photograph was limited – and upheld the complaint under Clause 3.

With regard to Clause 1, it found that the newspaper’s own description of the complainant was an opinion it was entitled to express.

"Readers generally would have been able to decide for themselves whether the facts merited such a description or not, and would have realised by the manner in which the accusation was presented that this was not the only view to be taken on the matter.

"Indeed, part of the article invited readers to make a judgment as to whether the complainant was either 'cruel' or 'just making an honest buck'."

It also found "no significant inaccuracy" in the newspaper’s calculations.

The newspaper said that the purpose of the report was to expose the complainant as a "greedy opportunist intent on making a substantial profit by exploiting the pre-Christmas retail shortage of Xboxes".

It said he auctioned the consoles to make the highest profit possible and had not set a fixed price for them - an option available to him. He had freely explained to the reporter that he expected to make a profit of about £5,000.

He said there was a real public interest in reporting the complainant’s behaviour and in publishing his picture. As the complainant had invited its photographer into his house in order for his young son to be photographed, the newspaper did not consider that he could complain if, in the event, the photograph used was of him and not his son.