BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

A nightmare housemoving experience was related by a woman featured in a programme entitled "My House, My Castle" broadcast on TV2 on 19 July 1999 beginning at 8.00pm. The programme was previewed in the days preceding the broadcast.

Michael Bott, on behalf of Brittons Housemovers (Wellington) Ltd, complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that footage showing a truck belonging to the company was used to illustrate the "housemoving story from hell". In fact, Brittons Housemovers had had no connection with the move, he wrote. The company cited a number of broadcasting standards which it contended were breached by the programme and the promos.

In its response, TVNZ explained that the shots of the housemoving truck were archival shots which had been used to illustrate the story. It maintained that the company could not have been identified from that footage. It did not agree that the pictures gave a false impression about the company’s involvement, because it said insufficient detail was revealed to identify it. It said that the shots of the truck had been chosen with care in order to avoid identification of the company.

Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s response, Brittons Housemovers referred the complaints to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

For the reasons given below, the Authority upholds the complaints.

Decision

The members of the Authority have viewed tapes of the programme and the promo complained about and have read the correspondence which is listed in the Appendix. On this occasion, the Authority determines the complaints without a formal hearing.

Problems said to have been caused by a housemoving company when moving a house from one location to another were recounted in "My House, My Castle" which was broadcast on TV2 on 19 July 1999 beginning at 8.00pm. The programme was previewed in promos screened on the days preceding the broadcast. To illustrate the story, footage was included of a housemoving truck in the process of moving a house.

Michael Bott, on behalf of Brittons Housemovers (Wellington) Ltd, complained to TVNZ about the broadcast. The company objected to the footage of its truck being used to illustrate the story when it had had nothing at all to do with the move. As a result, the company reported, it had received negative comments from previous customers and members of the public about its involvement. It maintained that the company had been easily identified by the distinctive colours, and the company logo which was clearly displayed on the front of the truck. Brittons Housemovers complained that its reputation had suffered as a result of the broadcast, and that there was likely to be a negative impact on its future business. It contended that standards G1, G4, G7 and G19 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice had been breached.

TVNZ assessed the complaints under the standards nominated. Standards G1, G4 and G7 require broadcasters:

G1  To be truthful and accurate on points of fact.

G4  To deal justly and fairly with any person taking part or referred to in any programme.

G7  To avoid the use of any deceptive programme practice in the presentation of programmes which takes advantage of the confidence viewers have in the integrity of broadcasting.

The other standard reads:

G19  Care must be taken in the editing of programme material to ensure the extracts used are a true reflection and not a distortion of the original event or the overall views expressed.

TVNZ began by noting that both the item and the trailer had used identical shots of a tractor-trailer unit hauling a house, with one shot showing the vehicle virtually head-on as it came out of a corner, and the other a rear view of a house on the trailer. Each of these shots was used once in the trailer, and twice in the programme.

TVNZ did not dispute that the programme used archival footage to illustrate the process of housemoving. It explained that it was not unusual for programme makers to use generic footage.

The crux of the complaint, TVNZ suggested, was that the company contended its reputation had been harmed by use of footage which identified it with the unsatisfactory experience of the woman featured on the programme.

TVNZ accepted that in the case of the trailer for the programme, the words "housemoving story from hell" were used in association with a shot of a housemoving truck coming out of a corner. It also accepted that the tractor-trailer unit shown in the programme belonged to Brittons Housemovers. It said it had no independent verification of that, but considered it was likely given that the company itself said so, and because the footage of the truck had been filmed in an area where the company might expect to be operating.

Its next task was to decide whether the company had been identified. It noted that the company had argued that its distinctive colours had identified it. TVNZ contended that as the shot of the trailer unit was almost head on, it was difficult to discern any colour on the bonnet or doors. There was a suggestion of yellow, but nothing which it could identify as being "distinctive", it wrote.

As for the contention that the company logo had been clearly visible, TVNZ noted that the head-on shot of the vehicle had been very brief and that the only feature clearly visible was a sign above the windshield which read "Large Vehicle". TVNZ did not consider that the vehicle would thus have been identifiable as belonging to Brittons Housemovers. When it used the freeze frame, it said it had been able to detect a sign on top of the bonnet, but that it had been unable to read the name. Its conclusion was that the name would not have been visible to viewers watching at normal speed.

TVNZ accepted that the logo and colours of the vehicles were distinctive, but did not consider that those features were sufficiently visible to enable viewers to identify the company in the context of normal television viewing.

To the complaint that members of the public had been able to identify "several of the vehicles", TVNZ responded that only one shot had shown a tractor unit head on, and that had been very brief. The other two shots showed the rear of a loaded trailer going along the road and the rear of a stationary loaded trailer. It said it was not convinced that "several" of the company’s vehicles were identifiable.

Next TVNZ dealt with the question of the identity of the vehicles. It took the view that insufficient detail had been visible to identify the truck as belonging to Brittons Housemovers. It wrote:

No signage was visible, there was not more than a hint of company colouring, and the visual detail of the tractor unit was overwhelmed by the house on the trailer.

TVNZ accepted that had the truck been identifiable, then the line of commentary ("the housemoving story from hell") would have been an issue. In the present situation, it contended, no issue of identification arose.

To the complaint under standard G1, TVNZ responded that the pictures did not give a false impression of the company as insufficient detail had been revealed to identify the vehicle as belonging to the company. As far as standard G4 was concerned, it argued that the issue of fairness did not arise as the truck was not identifiably the property of the company.

In reference to standard G7, TVNZ did not accept that any deceptive practice had been used. Its view was that the shots had been chosen with care to avoid identification and there was nothing deceptive about using archival footage. Finally, it said, it did not believe the programme breached standard G19. The story, it said, had not been distorted, and had not involved Brittons Housemovers in any way. Furthermore, its driver had not been identified. Accordingly, it declined to uphold the complaint.

In its referral to the Authority, Brittons Housemovers reported that following the broadcast it had received over fifty calls from members of the public about its involvement with the house moving job featured in the programme. It wrote:

It was frustrating for us that TVNZ would broadcast a programme focusing on the faults of a housemoving job in the Hamilton area and not only then fail to name the company but then show video clips during the same item featuring a wholly innocent housemover, without offering viewers an explanation as to why those particular clips were being shown.

It expressed its dissatisfaction with TVNZ’s response and in particular objected to TVNZ’s assumption that the company was not identifiable from the shots of the tractor trailer unit featured in the promo and the programme.

The company noted TVNZ’s argument that it was not uncommon for programme makers to use generic footage to illustrate a story. It said it had no problems with that so long as it was made clear that the company so featured was not implicated in the events being recounted.

Brittons Housemovers rejected TVNZ’s claim that insufficient detail was provided to associate it with the story. It repeated that members of the public had associated it with the move and were led to believe it was the company responsible for the problems which ensued. That, it said, was incorrect.

In relation to standard G4, the company argued that despite the very brief footage of its tractor trailer unit, it had been identified as belonging to Brittons Housemovers. Thus, it continued, many people believed it was the company at fault, and by creating that manifestly false impression, it had not been dealt with justly or fairly.

Under standard G7, Brittons Housemovers again argued that by using generic footage, a false impression had been created in the minds of viewers. It acknowledged that it might not have been intended to be deceptive, but that it had had that effect.

In response to TVNZ’s argument under standard G19 that the driver had not been identified, Brittons Housemovers noted that the company was certainly identified, as evidenced by many people contacting it.

In concluding, the company reiterated that the reason it had proceeded with the complaint was because it had been featured in video footage which accompanied dialogue about the faults of another company. As a result, it reiterated, a significant number of viewers had gained the impression that Brittons was the negligent firm. It reported:

Accordingly our office staff and representatives have had to field abusive calls, queries from clients seeking reassurances that we will perform their jobs properly unlike the one we did in Hamilton.

Brittons Housemovers described the responses from TVNZ as "galling". It said it had to work hard to deliver service to its clients and maintain a good reputation. It maintained that this had been tarnished by the actions of TVNZ and the producers of the programme.

When it responded to the Authority, TVNZ held to the view that the tractor trailer unit was not readily identifiable as belonging to the complainant. As far as the viewer was concerned, it argued, it was simply another house on the back of a truck.

Responding to Brittons Housemovers’ argument that the dialogue relating the unsatisfactory performance was directly related to the pictures of its vehicle, TVNZ maintained that there was no such connection. It said that, having listened carefully to the commentary which accompanied the pictures, no such connection occurred.

In its final comment, Brittons Housemovers maintained that even if the commentary had not exactly matched the pictures of its vehicle, an overall impression still remained that it was the company which had been responsible for the problems. It suggested that such a link could easily have been dispelled had a disclaimer been broadcast at the start of the programme pointing out that the moving company seen in the archival footage was not connected to the complaint.

The company again emphasised that its staff had dealt with numerous calls in relation to the programme, which was proof that viewers had linked it to the problem job. It concluded:

It is annoying to Brittons that they have suffered damage to their reputation and have not even received an apology from the broadcaster responsible. While TVNZ may not have intended the consequences we have suffered, it is arguable that their conduct certainly amounts to a breach of a duty of care owed towards Brittons as an innocent party.

The Authority’s Findings

The Authority considers the essence of the complaint is that Brittons was not dealt with fairly either in the promos or in the programme. That unfairness was caused because the appearance – in file footage – of its moving truck raised an inference that it was the company which was the responsible for the "housemoving story from hell".

The first issue for the Authority is whether the company was identified in the shots which were screened. Brittons has advised that it was identified, and that this was evident from the number of phone calls it received after the broadcast from clients and members of the public who recognised its branding on the truck.

TVNZ did not accept that the truck was identifiable. It maintained that because the shots of the vehicle were brief, and the company’s logo was not clearly defined, insufficient detail was revealed to identify the truck with any company.

The Authority accepts that people familiar with the company, including past and present customers and members of the public, were able to recognise the truck as belonging to Brittons. Although the name "Brittons" was barely legible in the footage used, the script style was distinctive and the company colours were apparent, as was the make of the truck. In the Authority’s opinion, these details would have been sufficient for people who had some knowledge of the housemoving industry to identify the truck as being one of Brittons’. Having satisfied itself that the truck was identifiable, the Authority then applies the fairness test.

The story was a cautionary tale about the "trials and tribulations of house relocation". A Hamilton woman described her experience with relocating a house which, when assembled on site, did not receive a code of compliance. She reported that the interior had been badly water damaged, 6 windows had been smashed, and only 4 of 9 anchor piles had been properly secured. She said that she had learned a lesson and that was "not to use a bunch of cowboys" to move a house. The story was illustrated on two different occasions with footage of a Brittons truck and trailer unit which was shown hauling a house.

As the Authority is satisfied that the company was identified, it considers that it is not surprising that viewers reached the conclusion that Brittons had been responsible for the move. That, it finds, was patently unfair. It upholds the complaint that TVNZ breached standard G4 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice in relation both to the promos and the programme.

The complaint also raised issues under standards G1, G7 and G19 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. The Authority has decided to subsume the standard G1 matters under standard G4, on the basis that those points are covered in its consideration of whether the company was dealt with fairly. It declines to uphold the complaint under standard G7 as the standard is inapplicable on the facts. Standard G7 is a standard which the Authority applies to matters such as technical trickery designed to deceive viewers. The standard G19 aspect is also subsumed under standard G4 because it was not the editing itself which distorted the facts. The breach occurred because insufficient regard was given to the effect of the juxtaposition of file footage of an innocent company with the "horror story" being recounted.

For the reasons set forth above, the Authority upholds the complaints that the broadcast of promos and a programme by Television New Zealand Ltd on TV2 on 19 July 1999 breached standard G4 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice.

It declines to uphold any other aspect of the complaints.

Having upheld the complaints, the Authority may make orders under s.13 and s.16 of the Broadcasting Act. It invited the parties to make submissions as to penalty.

The Authority has now considered those submissions. Brittons Housemovers has sought costs to cover legal expenses incurred in the course of making this complaint. The Authority considers the claim was modest in the circumstances and accordingly awards costs in the amount of $850.00. It also makes the following order:

Order

Pursuant to s.13 of the Broadcasting Act 1989, the Authority orders Television New Zealand Ltd to broadcast a statement, to be approved by the Authority, summarising this Decision. That statement shall be broadcast within one month of the date of this decision between 7.45–8.15pm on a date to be approved by the Authority.

Pursuant to s.16(1) of the Act, the Authority orders Television New Zealand Ltd to pay costs to Brittons Housemovers in the sum of $850.00 within one month of the date of this Decision.

That order shall be enforceable in the Porirua District Court.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
11 November 1999

Appendix

The Authority has received and considered the following correspondence when it determined these complaints:

1.    Brittons Housemovers’ Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd – 5 August 1999

2.    TVNZ’s Response to the Formal Complaint – 18 August 1999

3.    Brittons Housemovers’ Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority
       – 6 September 1999

4.    TVNZ’s Referral to the Authority – 14 September 1999

5.    Brittons Housemovers’ Final Comment – 22 September 1999

6.    Brittons Housemovers Submissions on Penalty – 22 October 1999

7.    TVNZ’s Submissions on Penalty – 2 November 1999