BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

Customer dissatisfaction with the service provided by Kitchen Studio North Shore

was dealt with in an item on Fair Go, broadcast on TV One at 7.30pm, on 9 July

1997. The item included the Fair Go comment that it was not impressed with the way

the owner, Mr Wayne Barden, treated his customers. In a follow-up broadcast on 16

July, Fair Go reported that it had received further complaints.

Ms Barden complained to the broadcaster, Television New Zealand Ltd, that the item

was unfair, inaccurate and had been edited to convey a picture of the business which

was unfair to its owner.

In view of the high number of complaints it had received about the business, TVNZ

maintained that the item was fair and had not breached any of the nominated

standards.

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's decision, Ms Barden referred her complaint to the

Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

For the reasons below, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint.

Decision

The members of the Authority have viewed the item complained about and have read

the correspondence (summarised in the Appendix). In this instance, the Authority

determines the complaint without a formal hearing.

Two customer complaints about the Kitchen Studio North Shore in Glenfield were

investigated on Fair Go, broadcast on 9 July 1997. It was stated that an earlier

complaint had been satisfactorily resolved. The following week's programme

reported that Fair Go had received more complaints about the same business.

Footage of the owner of the business, Wayne Barden, showing him entering the

business's premises, was included in the first item.

Monique Barden, daughter of Wayne Barden, complained to TVNZ that the items

were neither fair nor accurate, and through editing, they had created an image of an

owner who did not care about customers. She also maintained that the items had

caused unnecessary alarm among existing and potential customers. Acknowledging

that any business had some complaints, but that Kitchen Studio North Shore had only

a few, Ms Barden said that the specific complaints dealt with during the item had been

resolved before the broadcast. She argued that the item had involved character

assassination by TVNZ.

TVNZ assessed the complaints under standards G1, G4, G14, G16 and G19 of the

Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. The first two 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.

The other three read:

G14  News must be presented accurately, objectively and impartially.

G16  News, current affairs and documentaries should not be presented in such a

way as to cause unnecessary panic, alarm or distress.

G19  Care must be taken in the editing of programme material to ensure that the

extracts used are a true reflection and not a distortion of the original event

or the overall views expressed.

Explaining that Fair Go was a well-established and well-known consumer rights

programme, TVNZ said that the number of complaints it had received about Kitchen

Studio North Shore was, in its experience, unusually high. It considered each of the

specific matters raised by Ms Barden and maintained that none of the nominated

standards had been breached.

On referring her complaint to the Authority, in addition to reiterating her earlier

concerns, Ms Barden raised questions about Fair Go's method of approaching Mr

Barden. Despite Mr Barden's advice that he would respond in writing, she wrote,

Fair Go had filmed the exterior of the premises and harassed an employee leaving in

a truck. She did not consider that TVNZ, in expecting a response within 24 hours,

had given Mr Barden an adequate opportunity to respond to the complaints.

Pointing out that the issues raised in the referral in effect amounted to a new

complaint, TVNZ explained that when the filming took place, Fair Go had not gone

onto Mr Barden's property in view of his instructions. TVNZ summarised its

position:

TVNZ stands by Fair Go's description of Mr Barden as not providing a good

service. We do not dispute that The Kitchen Studio North Shore may have

many happy and satisfied customers, but it is also a business which appears to

have a disproportionately high level of dissatisfied customers. The level of

complaints about this particular business was the highest received for any Fair

Go story in 1997.

In her final comment, Ms Barden persisted in her opinion that Fair Go had not in fact

given Mr Barden a fair go. She concluded:

It is not financially viable for a small business to legally oppose and attempt to

prevent Fair Go from publishing a story on them. [TVNZ] said that it is

expected of Fair Go to make judgements. I don't believe this expectation

comes from the code of broadcasting standards where presenters are required to

deal justly and fairly and that news must be presented accurately, objectively

and impartially.

Having viewed the item, the Authority is of the view that all the issues raised by Ms

Barden should be subsumed under standard G4. It encapsulates the issues which are

of concern to her. Indeed, it is the standard to which complainants about items on

Fair Go most frequently refer. It requires broadcasters:

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

programme.

The Authority does not regard the period of 24 hours in which to respond as unfair,

given that Mr Barden, as the customers explained, would have been fully aware of

their dissatisfactions. The Authority also accepts that Mr Barden's response to the

complaints was adequately included in the item. Because the filming of the business

premises, and of Mr Barden, was done from a public place, the Authority does not

consider that a breach of privacy was involved.

Fair Go is a consumer advocacy programme, the Authority accepts, and its approach

is well-known. Nevertheless, it is also required to give the organisation or person

investigated an opportunity to respond. As the Authority has explained in earlier

decisions, if a response is received, Fair Go is required to broadcast it in a way which

is fair to the person or organisation which provides the response. The Authority

concludes that this procedure was followed for this broadcast.

While the Authority acknowledges the distress the programme has caused to the

complainant, on this occasion it believes that the investigation, and Fair Go's strongly

worded conclusion, did not contravene standard G4.

For the reasons above, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
15 December 1997

Appendix

Ms Barden's Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd - 9 August 1997

Monique Barden of Auckland complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, through

the Broadcasting Standards Authority, about items on Fair Go, broadcast on 9 and 16

July 1997 between 7.30 - 8.00pm. Both programmes included items dealing with

complaints about the Kitchen Studio North Shore in Glenfield. Ms Barden said the

items caused considerable financial and personal damage to the owner of the business,

Wayne Barden.

Because critical comments about Mr Barden in the item were neither fair nor accurate,

Ms Barden alleged that standard G4 was contravened. The customers' complaints to

which the items referred, she added, were resolved before the broadcast. Moreover,

in a business which sold approximately 1400 kitchens a year, some complaints were

inevitable but they were at a minor level.

Ms Barden referred to the attempt made by Mr Barden to stop the broadcast with an

injunction, claiming that the item had no real public interest, and would have a

crippling effect on his business.

Ms Barden also complained that standard G19 was breached, as the image created

through editing was one of an owner who did not care. However, she wrote, Mr

Barden had provided extensive documentation of the reasons for the delays but they

were covered inadequately by Fair Go. Further, it was false, and in breach of

standard G14, to suggest that Mr Barden ignored complaints.

Standard G16 was also contravened when the broadcast caused unnecessary alarm to

existing and potential clients. She wrote:

The programmes have had a very stressful impact on Wayne Barden and his

family with the stability and future of their lives made vulnerable at the hands of

"Fair Go" producers. Where we are unable to defend or control what is to be

broadcasted on National Television, and thus made victim to TVNZ's ability to

use the airwaves to destroy someone's business and ultimately their life.

The item had also included a factual error, she wrote, when referring to an alleged

winding up notice against the company, as that notice referred to North Shore

Kitchens, which was a separate company. She added:

Before "Fair Go" published their information on "Kitchen Studio North Shore",

the business had a pending sale valued at $200,000. The business has been sold

for $100,000, and Wayne and Sandra Barden have been forced to sell their

home to make up for the financial loss.

Accusing TVNZ of callous behaviour and noting that she was one of the couple's six

children, Ms Barden was concerned at what she called the character assassination of

Wayne Barden included in the item. She felt it showed a lack of integrity on TVNZ's

part.

In a second letter of complaint (dated 31 August 1997) Ms Barden said that the

reference to a "lot of unhappy customers" in the 16 July programme was unfair,

especially in view of Wayne Barden's efforts to satisfy his customers' concerns. The

comment also breached standard G19.

She complained that the reference to the incorrect company in regard to the winding-

up notice was a breach of standard G1, and, again she questioned TVNZ's integrity,

citing damage caused by the programme.

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint - 10 September 1997

Assessing the complaint under standards G1, G4, G14, G16 and G19 of the Television

Code of Broadcasting Practice, TVNZ said the item dealt with some dissatisfactions

expressed by customers of the Wayne Barden's companies: Kitchens North Shore

Ltd, Kitchenpak North Shore, and Kitchen Studio North Shore. TVNZ's Programme

Standards Manager began:

At the outset I must tell you that TVNZ recognises and respects your feelings

for your father in this matter and sincerely regrets the hurt the Fair Go items

may have caused you. I am conscious as I write this letter that some of the

information I have to pass on may add to that hurt and I apologise for that in

advance.

TVNZ explained that Fair Go was a consumer rights programme, and that some of

the complaints investigated revealed a real problem between the provider and the

customer. Such was the case with Kitchen Studio North Shore, where the number of

complaints was extremely large.

Dealing with the specific matters, TVNZ said that the winding up notice referred to

the companies operated by Mr Barden. The standard G1 aspect was not upheld.

As for standard G4, TVNZ quoted extracts from the letters it had received which

referred to Mr Barden's rude and aggressive manner, and maintained that the

presenters' comments in the item were justified. Further, it said, some of his

comments on one of the specific cases explored in the item were included in the

broadcast. TVNZ noted:

Although it is not relevant to the complaint in our view, we dispute your

assertion in the first letter that Kitchen Studio North Shore sells fourteen

hundred kitchens a year. During the investigation we have spoken to the

person who was negotiating to buy Kitchen Studio North Shore (Mr Rod

McNeil) and he says the firm was selling 140 kitchens a year.

TVNZ also maintained that the item was in the public interest. Standard G4, it wrote,

was not breached.

As for standard G14, TVNZ pointed out that it applied to news but nevertheless,

maintained that this item was accurate, objective and impartial. It questioned the

relevance of standard G16, and considered that the item correctly reflected the views

of complainants and, thus, did not breach standard G19.

TVNZ declined to uphold the complaints.

Ms Barden's Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 5 October 1997

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's decision, Ms Barden referred her complaint to the

Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

Ms Barden referred first to Fair Go's approach to Wayne Barden, proprietor of

Kitchen Studio North Shore. He was telephoned about two complaints and asked for

an interview, she wrote. Further, he was told that the exterior of the premises would

be filmed in the next day or so. A camera crew had arrived next day and, at one stage,

filmed an employee leaving in a truck. Although Mr Barden sent a fax stating he

would reply in writing, he was filmed entering the premises. As Mr Barden was

given less that 24 hours notice, she wrote:

I consider the approach in which [the reporter] took to film Mr Wayne Barden

and to inform him of the customer complaints Fair Go had investigated, to be

a breach of section G4 of the Broadcasting Standards Code of Practice, where

a broadcaster should deal justly and fairly with any person taking part or

referred to in any programme.

Moreover, Fair Go breached the same standard, she said, in not giving Mr Barden a

reasonable amount of time to reply. Referring again to the item's comments that Fair

Go was not impressed with the way Mr Barden treated customers, Ms Barden

disputed TVNZ's statement that the item fully reported Mr Barden's comment about

one specific complaint.

Ms Barden also maintained that the item's suggestion that Mr Barden and his

company did not provide good service was a breach of standard G19. After the

broadcaster, she stated, the company received many calls and faxes offering

condolences and support.

As the programme reflected a distorted image of Mr Barden, she wrote, and

denigrated his credibility, it had caused irreparable damage.

TVNZ's Report to the Authority - 15 October 1997

TVNZ replied that much of the referral amounted in fact to a new complaint.

Nevertheless, it dealt with the matters raised in the referral letter.

TVNZ pointed out that a Fair Go reporter had telephoned Mr Barden to discuss two

complaints where the customers complained about delays in completing work. Mr

Barden rejected the opportunity for a filmed interview, and said future communication

was to be in writing. Mr Barden was advised that his property would be filmed from

a public place the following day. That filming took place, and Fair Go did not go on

to Mr Barden's property, in view of his instructions given the previous day. The only

film used in the item was of the building and Mr Barden and, TVNZ added, Mr

Barden had not asked the crew not to film.

In reference to the aspect of the complaint about Mr Barden's lack of opportunity to

respond, TVNZ wrote:

We believe that despite Ms Barden's protestations, Mr Wayne Barden was

given ample and generous opportunity to answer the complaints made to Fair

Go. In fact, the first item on The Kitchen Studio (9 July) did not go to air until

five weeks after the first contact with Mr Barden.

Further:

We stress again that all filming, including the brief shot of Mr Barden, was

undertaken from a public place. In considering G4 we note the Authority's

view in the past that the standard substantially overlaps with the privacy

principles developed under Section 4(1)(c) of the Act. Principle (iii) states

specifically that "an individual to complain about being observed or followed

or photographed in a public place". We believe this principle to be

fundamental.

In conclusion, TVNZ wrote:

TVNZ stands by Fair Go's description of Mr Barden as not providing a good

service. We do not dispute that The Kitchen Studio North Shore may have

many happy and satisfied customers, but it is also a business which appears to

have a disproportionately high level of dissatisfied customers. The level of

complaints about this particular business was the highest received for any Fair

Go story in 1997.

Ms Barden's Final Comment - 21 November 1997

Starting by referring to the way that TVNZ approached Wayne Barden, Ms Barden

considered that it reflected the unfair and unreasonable manner of the entire item.

Fair Go, she said, had waited outside the premises for an hour - which was a very

long time just to get some film of the building.

Further, she disputed TVNZ's claim that Mr Barden had ample opportunities to

answer the complaints. He was given just 24 hours. She also disagreed that TVNZ

was entitled to make judgments. In her opinion, that did not match its obligation

under the standards to deal justly and fairly with people referred to, and to be

accurate, objective and impartial.