Colin Stokes against Stuff and The Press

Stuff and The Press published an article on March 16, 2025, headlined Family fears for the future of their inherited Bach after wealthy neighbour buys up a share.

The story reported a situation where one of six family co-owners of a family Bach sold her share to a neighbour who had been trying to buy the property for some years. Other members of the family believed they should have had first option to buy the share.

It detailed subsequent problems after the new part owner warned of the property’s many defects and that it might have to be demolished. He also had the deck demolished although the majority of owners did not believe it was unsafe. Members of the family said a lock was changed without notice, other changes were made and that there had been an exchange of signs left in the Bach.

The article also reported on historical issues, including the felling of a tree and comment from a police spokesman who said “there appeared to be ongoing civil proceedings that relate to the ownership of the property and who has the right to undertake certain activities, such as cutting down trees, altering buildings etc.”  The spokesman added that this was a civil dispute and not a police matter.

Colin Stokes’s main complaint was that Stuff breach Media Council Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance. Reference was also made to Principles (4) Comment and Fact, (10) Conflicts of Interest and (12) Corrections. 

He said the article was inaccurate and unfair as it only reported part of an engineer's statement on the condition of the deck. The police statement was false, and the article also included a false assertion that a property agreement never existed.

Mr Stokes also complained that a related story published in December 2021, headlined Bruising neighbours stoush in quiet peninsula paradise was also inaccurate, unfair and unbalanced. 

In response Stuff said that “as well as being fair, balanced and accurate in our reporting, we also have to take our readers into account and to determine the appropriate length and depth of the stories we publish.”

“It was unable to relitigate all previous related disputes and the intention with this story was to concentrate solely on the one Bach property. Other members of Mr Stokes family group have been in touch to voice their support for the reporting on this difficult situation.

“We must ensure our stories are clear and digestible as part of our journalism and are unable to make unsubstantiated allegations within our reporting. Many of the points you raise are very specific and not material to the overall storytelling that our readers need to understand.”

The Media Council notes this article, and the earlier feature show there has been a history of interwoven disputes going back some years for which there is no straightforward resolution. Clearly this has been the cause of some pain to Mr Stokes and other family members.

The Media Council must first set aside the complaint relating to the article published in December 2021. Even though it was linked to in the March 16 article, a complaint about the 2021 article is now well out of time.

As for the March 16 article, Mr Stokes is clearly unhappy that one aspect of an engineer’s report was not detailed. However, the Media Council is not convinced that putting in more detail from the report would have added significant information required in the interests of accuracy, fairness or balance.

Similarly, the Media Council can see no argument that required Stuff to challenge the Police characterisation of the situation as being a civil rather than police matter. Mr Stokes has every right to complain to the Police about that, but Stuff was entitled to report the police statement.

While the article was not as exhaustive as Mr Stokes may have wished, there was no requirement for it to go over all the related property matters in dispute over the previous years. As stated previously the problems faced by the Little Akaloa Bach owners have a long and complex history.

Stuff and The Press have covered the issues in two lengthy and detailed features, and the Media Council has seen no evidence that the reporting has breached any of the Principles cited in this complaint.

Decision: No grounds to proceed.