— Declare it · step aside · stay independent

Conflict Register

UK Scam writes about people, firms and matters that our researchers, editors, solicitors, members, funders or others connected to us may already have dealings with. This page sets out how we deal with that, and lists the conflicts we have made public.

THE REGISTER

Entries on the public register

entries, read live from the register

Open0
Managed0
Recused0
Closed0

See the register ↓

I.
A conflict of interest does not make a story wrong, and it does not stop us covering a matter. It creates a real, possible or perceived risk to independent judgment.
II.
Material conflicts are identified, weighed and managed through recusal, reassignment, independent review, disclosure or another safeguard that fits the risk.

Public register

Organisational conflicts we have disclosed

Open: 0
Managed: 0
Recused: 0
Closed: 0

There are no entries on the public register at present. That does not necessarily mean no relationship or internal declaration exists. See “What stays off” below.

Status labels describe how we handled a conflict, not anything about a subject.Report an undeclared conflict →

The policy

How we handle conflicts of interest

Twenty rules in four parts. Go straight to any of them from the index below.

Part 1

Recognising a conflict

What we count as a conflict, and whose job it is to raise it.

I.What counts

Could a fair-minded reader doubt our independence?

There is a conflict when someone working on a record, an editorial decision or a legal review has an interest or a relationship that could reasonably call their independence into question. Typical examples:

Money or sharesBusiness dealings, past or presentPaid work for a partyActing as a party's solicitorEmploymentFamily or close personal tiesA serious dispute or claimPolitical or organisational linksGifts or hospitalityA link to a source or subjectA commercial or membership tie with the subjectAny other stake in the outcome

The question is not only whether a person is in fact biased. It is whether the circumstances give real grounds to doubt that their judgment is independent.

II.Duty to declare

Raise it before you take part, wherever you can.

Everyone who does substantive work on a record, whether reporting, research, editing or legal review, must declare a material conflict as soon as they become aware of it.

Nobody may decide privately that their own conflict is too small to matter if it could affect their work or look as though it does.

Declaring it allows us to choose the right safeguard, if a safeguard is needed at all.

III.Weighing it

A connection does not automatically mean stepping aside.

Each declared conflict is assessed against factors including:

the nature of the relationship;
how much it matters financially or personally;
how recent it is;
the person’s role in the work;
whether they can influence publication;
how serious the matter is; and
whether a reasonable reader would regard it as material.

The safeguard chosen is proportionate to the risk.

IV.Financial interests

A stake in the outcome gets close scrutiny.

Anyone taking substantive editorial decisions must declare a material financial interest in a subject, or in a business closely connected to one, that could reasonably affect their judgment.

That includes significant investments, debts owed in either direction, contracts and other financial exposure.

Where the interest is material, recusal or another safeguard is normally considered.

V.Professional ties

Having worked for, or against, a subject can be a conflict.

This covers cases where one of our solicitors, researchers, consultants or other professionals has advised, represented, worked for or acted against the subject or the other side.

Professional obligations such as legal privilege and confidentiality continue to apply whatever this policy says.

Confidential or privileged information learned in an earlier professional role is never treated as investigative material simply because a former client later becomes a subject.

VI.Personal relationships

Close relationships may have to be declared.

A close personal, family or significant professional relationship with a subject, a complainant or an important source may need to be declared. What happens next depends on the facts.

Where it creates a serious risk that independence could reasonably be questioned, recusal is normally considered.

VII.Past disputes

UK Scam is not a place to settle private scores.

A researcher, editor or other decision-maker who has had a serious dispute with a subject must declare it.

We will not knowingly allow our pages to be used to pursue anyone’s personal, commercial or legal quarrel.

Equally, material from a complainant who is in a private dispute is tested on its own merits and never simply adopted as our view.

Part 2

Managing a conflict

The safeguards available, from a second pair of eyes to stepping aside.

VIII.Recusal

If independence cannot be protected, that person does not decide.

A person can be taken off all or part of a matter when a material conflict puts their independent judgment at unacceptable risk. They may be kept away from:

Assessing evidenceHandling sourcesInterviewsWritingGrading evidenceLegal reviewDecisions on correctionsDecisions to publish

The work passes to colleagues the conflict does not touch.

IX.Independent review

A second check that genuinely tests the work.

Where full recusal is unnecessary or impractical, we can require an extra review by someone independent.

For instance, research by a person who once had a link to a subject can be checked again by another researcher, editor or solicitor with no comparable tie.

X.During corrections

The same rules apply once a record is live.

Someone with a material personal or financial interest in leaving a record as it is should not be the only person deciding a serious challenge to it.

Where it helps, correction requests are routed to people who can judge them independently.

The aim is to get the record right, not to defend what we published before.

XI.During legal review

Professional conduct rules take priority.

Solicitors and barristers reviewing material before or after publication must apply their own professional obligations, including conflicts arising from current or former clients.

Our internal procedures never override the conduct rules an individual lawyer is bound by.

If a lawyer cannot properly act, someone else takes the review.

XII.No automatic outcome

A conflict does not decide whether the evidence is true.

Finding a conflict does not mean a record comes down automatically. We ask instead:

is the evidence still reliable?
was the editorial process materially affected?
is an independent review needed? and
do readers need to be told in order to understand the record properly?

If the reporting stands up on its own, disclosure or a procedural safeguard may be the right response rather than removal.

If the conflict seriously damaged the work, a correction or other editorial action may follow.

Part 3

Money, members and gifts

Paying us, in any form, never buys editorial influence.

XIII.Research Membership

Membership gives no say over what we publish.

A person or firm can be a Research Member and also be the subject of, a source for, or an interested party in one of our matters.

Membership shields nobody from scrutiny, and it earns nobody special treatment.

Where membership creates a material conflict in a matter, it is declared internally and managed.

Staff who provide paid member services may not promise or decide a favourable editorial outcome in return for membership.

XIV.Funders and partners

Funding never comes with editorial control.

No donor, investor, sponsor, commercial partner or other funder controls our work because they support us financially. Any single source providing more than 5% of annual revenue is treated as a material relationship.

If we have a material financial relationship with someone who later becomes a subject, it is assessed as a possible conflict. Safeguards can include:

Keeping commercial and editorial staff apartIndependent reviewRecusalPublic disclosure

No funder may make support conditional on a record being withheld or softened.

XV.Offers from subjects

Nothing a subject pays for can become the price of an outcome.

Our people must not ask for or accept money, gifts, job offers, services, hospitality or any other benefit from a subject where it could influence, or appear to influence, how a record is handled.

Legitimate fees for clearly defined services, such as an approved Research Membership, are kept separate from editorial decisions.

XVI.Conflicted sources

A source's motive matters, but it does not settle the truth.

Sources have conflicts too. A source might be a:

CompetitorFormer employeeParty to a claimCreditorInvestorFormer business partnerPolitical opponentRelativeDissatisfied customer

We take those relationships into account when judging reliability. Hostility towards a subject does not make evidence false, and a document is not taken on trust because it supports an allegation.

That is exactly when independent corroboration matters most.

Part 4

The public register

What we list, what we cannot, and how to tell us about a conflict.

XVII.What we list

Material organisational conflicts are not hidden from readers.

Where it is appropriate and lawful, we keep a public list of material organisational conflicts. Each entry can show:

Matter or subjectNature of the conflictDate identifiedSafeguard appliedCurrent status

SPECIMEN · NOT A REAL ENTRYA dossier on a property lettings businessThe business had a commercial arrangement with UK Scam before the inquiry began. Commercial staff were kept away from editorial decisions and the record went through an independent editorial and legal review.Managed

The register never discloses privileged, confidential or unnecessary personal information. Go to the register.

XVIII.What stays off

Openness does not mean listing every internal tie.

We may withhold or limit detail where publishing it would:

break legal privilege;
breach a duty of confidence;
disclose protected personal data;
expose a confidential source;
damage an inquiry;
create an unjustified risk to safety;
breach professional obligations; or
otherwise be unlawful.

Where we can, we describe a conflict in general terms rather than leave it out altogether.

XIX.Status labels

Every public entry shows where it stands.

Open: Identified and still under review.
Managed: Safeguards have been put in place.
Recused: The people involved no longer work on the matter.
Closed: It no longer has any material bearing on the matter.

These labels describe how we handled a conflict. They are not findings about any subject.

XX.Tell us

Anyone can point out a conflict we have not declared.

If you think an undeclared material conflict is affecting our reporting, send it to us for review. It helps to include:

the UK Scam record concerned;
the person or relationship you think creates the conflict;
why you think so; and
any supporting evidence you can reasonably share.

We may come back with questions before deciding whether a conflict exists or needs action.

Report a conflict →

OUR RULE

Declaring a conflict does not make it vanish. It makes it manageable.

We do not expect the people we work with to have no history, interests or opinions.

We do expect material interests to be raised before they can damage a record.

Where independence cannot reasonably be protected, that person does not take the decision.

Legal notice

This page describes our general approach to conflicts of interest. What we can disclose publicly may be limited by law, legal privilege, professional obligations, confidentiality, privacy, the protection of sources, safety and the integrity of inquiries still in progress. The absence of a matter from the public register does not necessarily mean that no relationship or internal declaration exists.