The Press Ombudsperson has decided that the Weekend Magazine of the Irish Independent took sufficient remedial action to resolve a complaint from the Irish Professional Private Investigators Association about an article published in April 2026. The complainant stated that it breached Principle 1 (Truth and Accuracy), Principle 2 (Distinguishing Fact and Comment) and Principle 4 (Respect for Rights).
The Article
The article is from an advice column by a regular contributor entitled “Asking for a friend:” in which readers seek answers to their questions about “relationship dilemmas”.
The dilemma and the arising question in this case are presented as follows: “My husband has started getting into shape and my friends think he might be cheating. Should I hire a private investigator?”
After giving some potential alternative interpretations of the reader’s situation, the publication addresses the question posed: “ I’m afraid I have no idea of how they work, their legal status, and what they can provide or charge.” It goes on to suggest checking with a solicitor or advice centre on this option “…as I couldn’t offer any advice on that.”
The article continues: “I would strongly advise caution, however, as there are sadly too many people out there that would take advantage of people in desperate situations. They make promises of closure and proof, which are, of course, attractive, then take your money before never being seen again.” It then goes on to suggest other options the reader might consider.
The Complaint
The complainant asserted that the publication “expressly states that the writer does not know how private investigators work or what their legal status is” but that it goes on to make a “serious and damaging assertion” that there were “too many people out there that would take advantage of people in desperate situations” who would promise to provide proof, take money and disappear.
On Principle 1 the complainant stated that this gave rise to a “misleading and unfair” impression of private investigators as a profession without distinguishing between “licensed, regulated” investigators and “rogue or unlicensed operators”. It said no factual basis was provided for the warning given.
On Principle 2, the complainant said that “an unsupported assertion was presented in a manner likely to be understood by readers as factual”.
On Principle 4, the complainant said the negative statement was published “without proper fact checking” and that it “unfairly damaged the good name of a regulated profession”.
Prior to making a complaint to the Press Ombudsperson, the complainant had written a letter of complaint to the publication requesting that it publish “a clarification or correction making clear that licensed private investigators are part of a regulated profession in Ireland” and that concerns about misconduct should be directed towards unlicensed operators.
The Response
The publication responded to the formal complaint by noting that it had already been in correspondence with the complainant on foot of which it had “made an amendment to the existing online article” and had offered the complainant the opportunity to submit a letter to the editor on the topic.
The publication stated that it had done so as a “gesture of goodwill” notwithstanding the fact that it stood over the original article. It referred the Press Ombudsperson to the earlier correspondence. In this, it noted that the column offered “a personal opinion” which included a “sensible warning” to be cautious. It said that “far from undermining regulated private investigators, it is in fact promoting them ahead of those who are unregulated…”. It said readers were advised to seek legal advice before proceeding.
The publication added a line to the online version of the article, to follow on from the “sensible warning.” This said: “It is worth investigating whether the private investigator is regulated and licensed, for example.”
The complainant was not satisfied with the remedial action taken and proposed. It said the amendment did not acknowledge “the deficiency of the original wording” and said a clarification was still needed to correct the damage it said had already been done.
The Decision
Principle 1: The Press Ombudsperson finds that while the original article drew readers in with a headline that describes a marital crisis involving potential infidelity and the possible use of a private investigator, the publication did not provide an answer that engaged directly with the question posed: “Should I hire a private investigator?” Indeed, it explicitly stated that it could not advise on this.
The Press Ombudsperson notes that the publication went on to advise readers to get advice from sources it obviously regards as trustworthy – a solicitor or citizens advice centre – “to see what this option looks like in reality.”
She finds that it can be assumed that such parties would provide better information in this regard, including reference to the existence of regulation.
Principle 2: The Press Ombudsperson finds that as asserted by the complainant, there is a risk that readers may have considered the warning that followed in the original article as a reference to private investigators as a profession. However, the publication leaves open the possibility that the other professionals whose advice the publication urges readers to seek will provide a positive account of private investigators as a profession.
Furthermore, this is, as noted by the publication, an opinion piece. The publication has been open about its ignorance about the profession in question and it has then proceeded to offer an opinion about it. The Press Ombudsperson takes the view that this is more likely to be seen by readers as an idle preconception than a matter of fact. It is also conceivable that, as asserted by the publication, it might incline readers to seek evidence that a private investigator was regulated.
Principle 4: The Press Ombudsperson notes that the publication is not obliged or expected to offer professional advice in a column about relationship dilemmas. She does not find it likely that expression of an opinion in general terms within a context of admitted ignorance would be capable of damaging the reputation of a profession. As noted above in relation to Principle 2, nor does the publication rule out that other professionals may recommend recourse to a private investigator.
In respect of all of the Principles cited, the Press Ombudsperson notes that the publication responded promptly to the original complaint and made efforts to resolve it. It added a line suggesting that readers check the professional status of a private investigator before considering employing them. It also offered the complainant the opportunity to write a letter to be considered for publication. The Press Ombudsperson finds that these offers constituted sufficient remedial action to resolve the complaint.