The press watchdog is to consider further action against a regional daily over the newspaper’s “unacceptable conduct” following a complaint against it.

The Independent Press Standards Organisation has criticised the Belfast Telegraph for its failure to contact a man who had complained about its reporting of allegations made against him by his ex-partner.

It followed a piece in the paper about a named woman who claimed she was being stalked by “an obsessed former boyfriend.”

The complainant said that although not named in the piece he had been identified in it through his previous association with the woman, and that the Bel Tel had no evidence for her accusations other than her own testimony.

The man’s complaint was upheld by IPSO, which also said it had “serious concerns” over several delays on the part of the Bel Tel to provide a response to the complainant during a 28-day referral period.

The referral period in question, between the complaint being made and the matter being investigated, allows both the complainant and publication time to resolve the issue prior to IPSO’s intervention.

The man had complained under Clause 1 (Accuracy) and Clause 2 (Privacy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice over the article, headlined: “I felt sorry for my ex when we split. Now I live in constant fear and carry alarms because he stalked me in revenge.”

In the piece, the woman described the complainant as “an obsessed former boyfriend” and cloaimed he had threatened to shoot her in 2012, followed her to work, chased her while she had been in her car, and stalked her and her friends.

In addition to detailing these allegations, the article said that in March, she had succeeded in obtaining a court order to prevent her ex-partner from approaching her” and had “secured a full order against him.”

In his complaint, the man said that she had not obtained a court order against him, but he had instead signed an undertaking which was not an acceptance of guilt of the allegations which she had made against him.

Denying a breach of Code, the Bel Tel said the article was based on the testimony of a woman who had a right to tell her story, which was on a subject which was a matter of public interest because of her campaign for legislative change in Northern Ireland.

The paper declined to give IPSO the reporter’s notes from the interview, but provided a number of documents which it said supported the woman’s testimony, and added that it had not contacted the complainant prior to publication because it was concerned that any contact with him may have jeopardised the woman’s safety and welfare.

However IPSO found the complainant had not been given the opportunity to deny the allegations which had been made against him, or have his denial recorded in the article, and that no attempt had been made to contact him for comment or seek corroborating evidence to support the woman’s claims.

The Committee added the allegations which had been made were so exceptionally serious, and related to the conduct of an individual who was identifiable, that the failure to put the claims to the complainant created the significantly misleading impression that they were undisputed fact.

IPSO further found the article’s presentation of the document as a “court order” in a way which suggested a judicial finding had been made, particularly where its terms had been explained to the newspaper at interview and was available to them upon request, also represented a failure to take care over the accuracy of the article.

The Committee did not consider that the article disclosed information about which the complainant had a reasonable expectation of privacy, particularly given that he had not been named.

Iit added in its findings: “The Committee expressed significant concern that the newspaper had not responded to the complainant during the referral period and had not provided sufficient justification for its failure to do so.

“The Committee also noted that there had been several delays, on the part of the newspaper, to provide a response to the complaint during IPSO’s investigation.

“Given the newspaper’s failure to correspond directly with the complainant and the delays to the process, the newspaper’s conduct during IPSO’s investigation was unacceptable. IPSO will consider separately what further action is appropriate to address what appear to be serious concerns.”

The complaint was upheld, and the full adjudication can be read here.