A council has hit out at a weekly newspaper claiming it had ‘refused’ to correct inaccuracies in a story until forced to do so by the Press Complaints Commission.
The Croydon Advertiser has now published a correction and apology over a housing story from February, which Croydon Council said was ‘littered with errors’.
The authority has claimed the paper initially refused to publish a correction over the article, about reductions in its housing adaptations budget for disabled residents.
It said as a ‘last resort’ it then contacted the Press Complaints Commission, which negotiated the publication in the Advertiser of the following apology and correction:
“In the article ‘Residents face a long wait for needed improvements’ (February 11) we suggested that Croydon Council planned to cut £500,000 from its adaptations budget for disabled residents living in council accommodation.
“The Advertiser would like to point out that, at the time of going to press, the plan was to reduce the budget by £50,000, not the figure stated in the article.
“The article also suggested that ‘extra money failed to materialise’, but Croydon Council would like to state that extra money was put into the adaptations budget.
“We also featured the case of local resident, Stuart Stone, stating that – despite contacting the council six months ago to arrange an occupational therapy assessment – he was still waiting for council staff to visit his house.
“Croydon Council would like to make clear that the first record they have of Mr Stone contacting them was in February 2011.
“The council would also like to stress that a £1.9m disabled facilities grant is available for tenants in privately rented accommodation. The Advertiser is happy to clarify these points and apologises for any inconvenience caused.”
A spokesman for Croydon Council said: “We attempted to get a proper correction by contacting the Advertiser directly but sadly were unable to.
“Recourse to the Press Complaints Commission was a last resort but one that has thankfully enabled us to get published acknowledgement that the original housing story about a sensitive subject was littered with errors.”
Editor Glenn Ebrey declined to comment.
Sign up for our free daily email bulletin
Follow HTFP on Twitter
Got a story? Email the Editor at
Hasn’t Croydon Council’s press office got better things to do than engage the PCC in petty disputes?
Apparently not.
Report this comment
It’s hardly a ‘petty’ request to correct errors such as figures out by a factor of 10 and dates that simply do not add up.
Report this comment
Christian,
Perhaps if The Advertiser had printed the correct facts, the council woulds not have felt the need to go to the PCC. The very fact that the paper did not print a correction in the first instance is pathetic and is the type of action that gives reporters and newspapers a bad name. If you get it wrong, just cough up and sort it out – don’t bury your head and hope the problem disappears.
As reporters, we’re the first to jump on the public sector when someone makes a mistake. We have to be prepared to take a kicking when the boot is on the other foot.
Massive shock that the editor has declined to comment as well!
Report this comment
It is entirely false to claim that the Advertiser “refused” to correct this mistake.
In fact a clarification was printed in paper the following week, alongside the last in a series of articles about housing issues in Croydon.
Despite this, council felt that it would be an appropriate use of its officer’s time (and therefore public money) to complian to the PCC code.
Secondly, the Stone family continue to insist they contacted the council six months before the date stated by the press office. The authority failed to put them in contact with the relevant officer, so it is unsurprising the records are inaccurate.
Thirdly, the article in question makes explicit reference to a means tested facilities grant.
As the reporter who wrote the story, I’m more than happy to admit that we made a mistake with the figure, which we clarified at the earliest available opportunity (both online and in print).
Yet the council’s press office felt it necessary to take this to the PCC.
Not only was this a waste of time and money but it also fails to deflect from the real issue, which is that it takes them a year-and-a-half to make life changing adaptations to the homes of elderly and/or disabled people.
Report this comment
Maybe if your editor had not declined to comment, that would have been explained.
I really don’t see that it is wrong for a council to spend time and money defending itself when it was the newspaper that ballsed things up in the first place.
Report this comment
Looks like your balls-up. Take your medicine and calm down, dear.
Report this comment
“As reporters, we’re the first to jump on the public sector when someone makes a mistake. We have to be prepared to take a kicking when the boot is on the other foot.”
Could not agree more.
Report this comment
Another shameful example of an editor refusing to comment. See also every recent job cut story. How on earth can we demand other people answer our questions when the likes of Mr Ebrey hide behind ‘no comments?’
Report this comment
Really, as the reporter who wrote the story you should shut up and take your medicine!
Not only are you questioning the verdict of an independent body, you’re throwing the council in there for good measure!
Why don’t you, as the reporter who wrote the story, now take the PCC to the PCC for being unfair to poor old you, the reporter who got it wrong?!
Report this comment
My last comment was moderated. Quite why I don’t know, perhaps it was the working at the Viz reference. Instead I just say this. Boo hoo, you were wrong, they were right. Give up now clearly this is not your game.
Report this comment
Firstly, I’m not questioning the verdict of an independent body. While the council complained to the PCC, it did not reach the stage where it had to make any sort of ruling because it was decided that, for the sake of ending the issue, another apology would be issued. As such, we were not forced to issue an apology by the PCC as the article states.
However, when an apology has been agreed by the council and the paper, and was printed last Friday, is it really necessary for the council to contact Hold the Front Page when the matter was effectively closed and there had been no PCC ruling? I can’t be alone in questioning why they would do that.
Secondly, I’ve not looked for sympathy for the mistake as has been suggested. I hold my hands up to it. I’m sure you’ve all made mistakes. There wasn’t any malicious intent and I’ve learnt from it.
I completely agree that as reporters we are quick to hold others to account but don’t like it when the boot is on the other foot (see phone hacking) hence why the paper, as I’ve already stated, printed a clarification.
Report this comment
Doesn’t HTFP receive regular updates from the PCC on its rulings? The council probably never even contacted HTFP. Get over the fact you are in the wrong.
Report this comment
Does anyone remember that Reeves and Mortimer sketch – ‘he wouldn’t let it lie’?
For some reason it keeps coming into my head when I read this…
Report this comment
Pingback: PM praise for local papers and websites – but no help | Inside Croydon