02050-25 Chandler v The Daily Telegraph

Summary of Complaint

1. Barry Chandler complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Daily Telegraph breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Money Makeover 'I've lost £800k. How can I support my family?'”, published on 26 April 2025.

2. The article was a “Money Makeover” article, a regular feature in which readers share their financial history and receive tips on how to improve their financial situation. It included a quote, attributed to the complainant – whose finances were the focus of the article - in which he described his salary growth in the past: “during a period of hyperinflation [his employer] tripled my salary.” It also reported that the complainant “earned a private pension that pays him £900 each month, part-defined benefit and part-defined contribution”.  

3. The article went on to reference renovation work carried out on the complainant’s home, which resulted in “a total loss of almost £800,000 that he attributes to ‘shoddy builders’”.

4. The article also reported that the complainant: “receives £50 less than the normal state pension amount of £940 a month, as the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) believes he has missed years of National Insurance contributions after 10 years of self-employment. He has tried and failed to appeal this with DWP. Combined with his private pension, this results in an annual pension income of around £20,000, on which he is taxed.”  

5. The article also appeared online, in substantially the same format, under the headline “‘I stand to lose £800k on my house. How can I provide for my grandchildren?’”. This version of the article also quoted the complainant as having said: “’It’s not what I expected at 70, and if Ms Reeves carries on I’ll have nothing left.’”

6. The complainant said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1. He said he had never claimed that “during a period of hyperinflation”, his salary had “tripled”, or: “It’s not what I expected at 70, and if Ms Reeves carries on I’ll have nothing left.” He also disputed that he had described the builders who renovated his home as “shoddy builders”, and that he had told the publication that he had suffered a loss of £800,000. On the latter point, he said the actual loss he had suffered was £440,000.  

7. Turning to the article’s references to his pension, he said his gross pension was less than £20,000 per annum and that the shortfall in his pension was caused by errors in HMRC’s records. He added that the article had been poorly worded on this point.  

8. The publication did not accept it had breached Clause 1. It provided notes from the telephone interview it had conducted with the complainant ahead of the article’s publication - which it noted were contemporaneous and timestamped - to support what was reported in the article. The notes said the complainant had said: “during a period of hyperinflation - my salary went from £4,000 to £7,000 to £12,000 over a period of a couple of years”; and “it’s not what I expected at 70. if Ms Reeves carries on I’ll have nothing left.” It also said the complainant made a reference to “reckless Reeves” when he first contacted the publication via its webform to express his interest in sharing his story with the newspaper. It provided a copy of this webform, which said: “Avoid ‘Reckless Reeves’ who seems hell-bent on [t]axing anything [r]ural, f[]arming, whilst ignoring [c]limate [c]hange.”  

9. Turning to the question of the loss sustained by the complainant when redeveloping his house, the publication said its notes showed the complainant said: “The rebuild cost was £1.8m, including £380,000. End of 2009. Mortgage free for a long time. Current market value of around - red book valuation of £1m.”. It also provided an email sent by the journalist to a financial advisor shortly after the interview, in which the journalist wrote that the complainant “bought his home with a previous partner in 2009 for £380,000 […] he estimates a total spend of £1.4mn on renovating and rebuilding the house. Oddly, he claims the market value is only £1mn – I’ve tried to get to the bottom of what went wrong, it seems like mainly a series of shoddy builders.” The publication said these records proved that the complainant told the journalist he spent a total of £1.8 million on the property, but it was only valued at £1 million. Therefore, the total loss on the property was approximately £800,000.

10. Regarding the complainant’s pension, the publication first noted that the article did not state the complainant received exactly £20,000 in pension payments per year. Rather, it stated he received “about £20,000” annually, which was not materially different from the complainant’s position. It confirmed that its calculations were based on the complainant receiving a private pension of £881.12 a month, and £180.25 per week state pension (which was the value of the new state pension minus the £50 which the complainant had said he didn’t receive due to a DWP error). This calculation showed the complainant would have a gross annual pension income of £19,946.

11. Turning to the complainant’s concern that the article did not report why there was a shortfall in his pension, the publication said the article was not at odds with the complainant’s claim that it was due to an HMRC error.  

12. The complainant did not accept the publication’s position and alleged that the interview notes were fabricated in relation to the “shoddy builders” point. He accepted, however, that he may have described Rachel Reeves as “Reckless” in the webform he submitted. While he largely accepted the pension calculation set out above, he said the figures might vary depending on whether there were 52 or 53 weeks in a year.

Relevant Clause Provisions

Clause 1 (Accuracy)

i) The press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information or images, including headlines not supported by the text.

ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and — where appropriate — an apology published. In cases involving IPSO, due prominence should be as required by the regulator.

iii) A fair opportunity to reply to significant inaccuracies should be given, when reasonably called for.

iv) The press, while free to editorialise and campaign, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.

Findings of the Committee

13. The Committee first considered whether the article had breached the Code by reporting that the complainant had said the following: “during a period of hyperinflation [the complainant’s employer] tripled [his] salary”; and “It’s not what I expected at 70, and if Ms Reeves carries on I’ll have nothing left.”

14. The Committee noted that the interview notes recorded the complainant saying his salary had increased from £4,000 to £12,000 during a period of hyperinflation. The notes also showed the complainant had said: “it’s not what I expected at 70. if Ms Reeves carries on I’ll have nothing left.”  

15. The notes also referenced the cost of the complainant’s property, and the loss the complainant suffered: “The rebuild cost was £1.8m, including £380,000. Current market value of around - red book valuation of £1m.” These notes therefore supported the above quotes attributed to the complaint in the article, and the claim regarding the amount lost on the property.

16. The Committee took into account of the complainant’s concern that the interview notes were fabricated. It, however, noted that the publication was able to provide the timestamped notes, which strongly indicated that they were the contemporaneous records of the interview. The content of such notes also tallied with an email sent by the journalist shortly after the interview. Given the article was, on the above points, in line with the contemporaneous records of the interview, the Committee was satisfied that the publication had demonstrated that the article was an accurate reflection of the conversation it had had with the complainant. There was no breach of Clause 1 on these points.  

17. Although the publication had been able to provide the journalist’s contemporaneous time-stamped notes, the Committee noted that these did not show that the complainant had made any outright reference to “shoddy builders”. However, the reporter’s contemporaneous notes did reference very large rebuilding costs of £1.8 million pounds. The Committee also noted that a follow-up email sent to a financial advisor one day after the interview with the complainant referenced the phrase “shoddy builders”. Therefore, on balance, it appeared to the Committee that the journalist thought the complainant had made reference to “shoddy builders. While this may have been an error, the Committee did not consider it came about due to a lack of care, given the publication had been able to provide evidence both of contemporaneous notes which referenced the building costs, and a follow-up email which indicated the journalist believed the complainant believed the loss had come about due to “shoddy builders”. In light of this, there was no breach of Clause 1 (i) on this point.  

18. The Committee noted that the article did not name any building firms, and the claim was a general one and not directed at any specific individuals or organisations. In addition, the Committee did not think the reasons behind the additional building costs materially affected the article’s accuracy – given the focus of the article was on the complainant’s financial situation, rather than the renovation of his property, and it did not appear to be in dispute that the complainant had made a loss on the property due to extensive rebuilding costs. As such, the Committee did not consider the reference to “shoddy builders” in the article was significantly inaccurate, and there was no breach of Clause 1 (ii).

19. While the complainant claimed that he received less than £20,000 a year in pension payments, he had accepted that he received a private pension of £881.12 per month and a state pension of £180.25 per week, amounting to £19,946 annually. Therefore, the Committee did not consider it was inaccurate for the publication to report that the complainant receives an “annual pension income of around £20,000”. It also noted that, regardless of whether there were 52 or 53 weeks in a year, the pension would – according to the calculations which the complainant did not dispute – be “around” £20,000. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.  

20. The complainant had said that the shortfall in his pension was due to HMRC records. The article did not report otherwise; while it said that the DWP “believe[d]” the complainant had “missed years of National Insurance (NI) contributions”, it did not state that HMRC’s belief was correct. There was no breach of Clause 1.  

Conclusions

21. The complaint was not upheld under Clause 1.

Remedial action

22. N/A  

Date complaint received: 19/05/2025

Date complaint closed: 15/10/2025