Complaints by a former Lib-Dem general election candidate that a regional daily inaccurately reported that he was being investigated over his role at an essay-writing company have been rejected by the press watchdog.

Dr Vincent McKee said the Coventry Telegraph story, published on March 25 last year under the headline “Shamed would-be Coventry MP to be investigated over role at new company”, breached clause 1 and 4 of the Editors Code of Practice, covering accuracy and harassment.

The story said Coventry North West MP Geoffrey Robinson had “acted on residents’ concerns” and reported Dr McKee to police and trading standards for allegedly acting as a company director for Lagan Writing Services, an essay-writing company, despite a High Court ruling banning him from doing so for 14 years.

The article said Dr McKee, a Lib-Dem candidate in the 2010 general election, had previously been sentenced to two-and-a-half years in prison for fraud offences. Dr McKee said the article was based on information circulated by an aide to Mr Robinson.

He told the Independent Press Standards Organisation that when the newspaper contacted him for comment he made clear that he believed that Mr Robinson’s complaint lacked all merit, was based on a misunderstanding of the facts, and was motivated by a political vendetta.

There were two businesses with the same name, he said. His organisation, Lagan Writing Services, was a partnership between himself and his daughter, not an incorporated commercial organisation, whereas the registered company of the same name was a separate business, run by his fiancee, in which he played no part.

Dr McKee said police were not investigating any complaints, as alleged in the article, and he had not been contacted by any legal authority.

He provided a letter addressed to him from West Midlands Police, dated August 3, 2015, which said “West Midlands Police have not received any allegations of criminal offences in connection with yourself at Lagan Writing Services from victims of crime.”

Dr McKee disputed the article’s claim that his firms had owed creditors and shareholders £156,605, and were judged to have taken £61,197 of unauthorised payments from students, saying the figures accepted in Crown Court, and on which his sentence was based, were far lower.

The article said his organisation charged up to £1,000 for redrafting student essays – but the company’s website made clear that an essay cost approximately £150, while a doctoral thesis of around 100,000 words costs £1,000,.

It also said his fiancee was from Thailand, rather than the Philippines – his connections and charity work in the Philippines were well known, and he believed Thailand had “seedy” connotations.

The newspaper said the article was balanced and included several paragraphs of rebuttal from Dr McKee.

Trading Standards and the police had confirmed that they were looking into Mr Robinson’s complaint, and that the matter was referred to the Insolvency Service, which would not confirm or deny that the investigation was ongoing.

IDr McKee, it said, had provided an e-mail from Trading Standards dated March 19, 2015, which said it had received a complaint that he was acting as a director of Lagan Writing Services, and that the matter was being referred to the Insolvency Service.

The newspaper said the £61,197 figure related to the High Court hearing brought by the Insolvency Service – and the article made clear that it was referring to this hearing, rather than the criminal case. It also provided an Insolvency Service press release saying Dr McKee’s firms had owed creditors and shareholders £156,605.

The newspaper offered to publish a clarification that Dr McKee’s company charged £1,000 to re-write PhD theses.

It said it mistakenly reported that Dr McKee’s fiancee was based in Thailand, and corrected this corrected online as soon as it was made aware of the error.

Ipso’s complaints committee said it was not in dispute that Dr McKee was reported to police and trading standards for allegedly acting as a company director in breach of a High Court ban.

The e-mail from Trading Standards of March 19, 2015, confirmed receipt of such a complaint, and said the matter was being referred to the Insolvency Service for further consideration. The newspaper was entitled to report the allegations despite Dr McKee’s contention that they were groundless.

The newspaper contacted Dr McKee for comment before publishing the article, and published his denial, including his position that Mr Robinson had given the authorities “distorted” information, and quoted from his fiancee’s statement that he had had not acted as a director of the registered company.

On Dr McKee’s concern that the newspaper reported the High Court figures for the sums his companies had owed, rather than the lower figures accepted in the criminal proceedings, the committee said the article clearly referred to the High Court case brought by the Insolvency Service. Dr McKee had not formally contested the sums in court. The newspaper was entitled to report the figures, and did so accurately.

A PhD thesis was an extended piece of writing, and it was therefore not significantly inaccurate to report that Dr McKee’s business charged up to £1,000 to re-write essays. Although a correction was not required under the Code, the Committee welcomed that the newspaper had offered a clarification.

The newspaper had acknowledged that it had mistakenly reported that the complainant’s fiancee lived in Thailand. The Committee welcomed the prompt correction of the online article, but the brief reference in this context did not represent a significant inaccuracy that warranted correction.

Clause 4 generally related to journalists’ conduct during the newsgathering process. There was no suggestion that the newspaper had persisted to question Dr McKee once asked to desist, the committee added.