The press watchdog has rapped a regional daily for wrongly reporting as fact that a man was illegally living in a former pub.

The Independent Press Standards Organisation has upheld a complaint against South Essex daily The Echo reported Keith Gannon was living in the building “without the legal right to do so”.

The Echo had relied on a statement from the brewery that owned the pub as the basis for its claim, but IPSO found the newspaper had presented this as fact in the absence of a legal finding.

Complaining under Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 2 (Privacy) and Clause 3 (Harassment) of the Editors’ Code of Practice, Mr Gannon said it was inaccurate to state he did not have the legal right to live in the building and also disputed a number of other statements made within the story.

Denying a breach of Code, The Echo said it had been told by the brewery that the person living in the pub had no legal right to reside there and referred to the legal advice it had received.

The paper said it was reasonable to rely on the brewery as the owner of the building and its legal counsel in the circumstances.

IPSO found The Echo was entitled to report the pub company’s position, provided it was distinguished as such, but it was not entitled to present this as fact in the absence of a legal finding or other conclusive proof of the complainant’s status.

In such circumstances, where there had been no formal court findings to determine the legal status of the complainant occupying the flat at the time of publication, it was the Committee’s view that the story had presented the pub company’s position as fact and inadequately set out Mr Gannon’s position within the dispute.

This represented a failure to take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading and distorted information and for this reason, there was a breach of Clause 1 (i).

IPSO considered a correction to be the appropriate remedy to this breach, making clear it had failed to distinguish this specific claim as comment, and putting the correct position at the time of publication on record.

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