Understanding third-party complaints: how IPSO handles public concerns under the Editors’ Code

IPSO regularly receives complaints from members of the public about an article or post about something generally in the news, not about them personally, that they think breaches the Editors’ Code of Practice – the framework IPSO uses to hold publishers to account. We refer to these complaints as “third party” because the complainant is not directly referenced in or connected to the content. 

There are different rules regarding whether we can take third-party complaints forward, and these are set out in our Regulations. 

“The Regulator may, but is not obliged to, consider complaints: (a) from any person who has been personally and directly affected by the alleged breach of the Editors’ Code; or (b) where an alleged breach of the Editors’ Code is significant and there is substantial public interest in the Regulator considering the complaint, from a representative group affected by the alleged breach; or (c) from a third party seeking to correct a significant inaccuracy of published information. In the case of third-party complaints the position of the party most closely involved should be taken into account.” 

This explains that we can take forward third-party complaints about accuracy, which is covered by Clause 1 of the Editors’ Code of Practice. This is something we do regularly. We have investigated complaints about a huge  range of subjects, such as climate change, mental health and benefit payments, and even whether jackals are coming to the UK. However, this regulation makes clear that we always need to think about whether there is a first party involved. 

Not all complaints about accuracy have a “first party” – for example, a complaint about statistics. However, where the alleged inaccuracy relates to someone’s views, something they have said or done, or their personal or sensitive information, and they are not the person who complained, then we have to consider whether the complaint can be taken forward. 

There are several factors we consider, but the most important are: 

• Can we practically investigate without the person involved? 

For example, would we be able to get the information we need to work out the correct position if we do not contact the first party? 

This could be not knowing someone’s motivations or meaning behind what they said, or documentation related to a criminal investigation. 

• Would it be appropriate to discuss these issues with a third party, the publication, and the Complaints Committee, and then publish findings on our website and potentially require remedial action, without the directly affected person’s knowledge or consent? 

For example, does the alleged inaccuracy relate to this person’s identity (such as their gender, sexual orientation, or religion)? 

Or is the alleged inaccuracy about a sensitive incident this person experienced (like a bereavement or traumatic experience)? 

If we think there are reasons why we could not take a third-party complaint about accuracy forward, we always write to the complainant to explain why. 

Complaints about matters other than accuracy 

We also get complaints from third parties related to Clauses 2-16. These clauses are about issues like privacy, intrusion into grief or shock, harassment, and discrimination.  

We do not take forward complaints in relation to these issues without the consent of the person involved. This is because these complaints often relate to stories about sensitive or personal issues, such as a bereavement, or an individual’s health, private relationships, or personal identity: these clauses are about the impact on someone involved in the coverage.   

If the person complaining does not know the subject of the story, they cannot speak for how that person feels about the article or what the impact has been on them. It is for that person to decide how they wish to handle any concerns they may have. In addition, publications will often offer remedies like corrections or private apologies to complainants as a means of resolving their complaint, and many complaints are resolved directly between the parties. Only the person directly affected would be able to say if the action taken by the publication resolved their concerns. 

We also acknowledge that sometimes the person directly affected by a story does not feel able to complain themselves and so, in these cases, they can appoint a representative to act on their behalf. As long as we have their consent, we can consider a complaint via a representative.  

We will always let you know if we are not considering your complaint because you are a third party. 

Complaints from representative groups 

However, there is a mechanism that allows matters of significant public interest to be considered when we receive a complaint from an organisation that represents a particular group. This is what happened regarding a Clause 12 (Discrimination) complaint about a comment piece within The Sun that related to the Duchess of Sussex. We did not receive a complaint from the Duchess of Sussex or her representative, but we received complaints from the Fawcett Society and the WILDE Foundation, organisations that campaign for and aim to help women and girls. We took their complaint forward on the basis they were representative groups for women. The full ruling can be found here, and more information about the representative groups process can be found here. 

Finally, it is important to note that you are always welcome to  submit a complaint when you see something that has caused you concern and you think it may have breached the Editors’ Code of Practice, whether  you are a first party or not.. We review every complaint we are sent to identify issues of concern  so that we can tailor training and guidance to improve press standards. The role of the public in IPSO’s work is essential for this reason.