A complaint to press standards agency IPSO by disgraced former councillor Brian Coleman has not been upheld.

Dr Coleman argued a Times Series news report into how Cafe Buzz owner Helen Michael was treated by bailiffs was inaccurate, breached his privacy and caused him unnecessary harassment.

In the story, printed in July 2014, the paper wrote that the bailiffs who visited Ms Michael were paid off by a customer who wanted to thank her for “getting rid of Brian Coleman”.

Dr Coleman was convicted of assaulting Ms Michael in 2012 and was subsequently expelled from Barnet’s Conservative Party, before losing his seat in last year’s local elections.

IPSO rejected his complaint.

The judgement in full

The complainant considered that the article contained inaccuracies relating to the café owner’s debt, and the steps taken to recover the funds, but he did not have direct knowledge of the situation, and his concerns were mostly based on speculation. Neither the council nor the café owner had complained about inaccuracies in the article. Further, the article had included comment from both parties, and the newspaper had published a follow-up letter from the council. The newspaper had detailed both sides of the dispute. The article had not stated that the council or the bailiffs had acted improperly, but had included the view of the café owner that the action taken had been inappropriate. There had been no failure to take care not to publish inaccurate information in breach of Clause 1 (i), and the Committee did not establish the existence of inaccuracies which would require correction under the terms of Clause 1 (ii).

The complainant’s objection to the tone of the article, and what he perceived as the suggestion that the café owner was a “victim”, did not engage the terms of Clause 1. The newspaper was entitled to publish the café owner’s comments on her experiences.

While the complainant objected to the article’s inclusion of his name, the fact of his conviction was in the public domain, and the newspaper was entitled to refer to it. The publication of the customer’s comments did not represent an intrusion into the complainant’s private life. There was no breach of Clause 3.

The terms of Clause 4 relate to the conduct of journalists during the news-gathering process, and do not generally apply to the way in which newspapers choose to cover stories. The inclusion of the complainant’s name in the article did not raise a breach of Clause 4.