Decision of the Complaints Committee – 00768-21 Hanney v
express.co.uk
Summary of Complaint
1. Jon Hanney complained to the Independent Press Standards
Organisation that express.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’
Code of Practice in an article headlined “Car tax changes could make the cost
of driving more expensive for thousands of drivers”, published on 29 January
2021.
2. The article reported that “[t]he Chancellor [was] said to
be considering a new pay per mile system to replace the current Vehicle Excise
Duty (VED) charges and fuel duty costs.” The article included comments from a
spokesperson for a motoring website, and included a quotation from him which
stated that: “The calculations we [the website has] done, it could be pretty
heavy in terms of cost. If effectively you’re going to be charged let's say £15
per day for a 20-mile round trip. That's £70 per week. If you're going to be
doing it every week it could be around £4,000 per year.” The article proceeded
to say that: “The Treasury is eyeing up the move after informing the Chancellor
of a £40 million budget black hole in public spending through the switch to
electric cars.”
3. The complainant said that the article was inaccurate in
breach of Clause 1. He noted that, should drivers be charged £15 for a “20-mile
round trip”, that would equate to a 75 pence per-mile charge. The complainant
considered that this was both inaccurate and scaremongering, as there was no
indication that the government would levy a 75 pence per-mile charge. He also
noted that 75 pence per-mile charge would raise £246 billion a year – far more
that the “£40 million budget black hole” predicted by the article. He noted
that such a charge was, in his view, extremely unlikely to be levied, where
£246 billion was nearly equal to revenue raised from income tax, VAT, business
rates, council tax and corporation tax combined.
4. The publication said it did not accept that Clause 1 had
been breached. It noted that the article did not state definitively that there
would be a 75 pence per-mile charge – this was conjecture on the part of the
quoted spokesperson. It provided a recording of the interview from which the
quote had been sourced, and noted that the spokesperson had been quoted
accurately. It went on to note that the article was clearly framed as
conjecture, with the headline stating that “[c]ar tax changes could make the
cost of driving more expensive” and the quoted spokesperson stating that the
proposed changed “could be pretty heavy in terms of cost” and making clear that
the 75 per-mile figure was based on “calculations” done by the website. The
publication therefore considered that the article had accurately reported
comments made by the spokesperson in accordance with the terms of Clause 1 (i),
and had correctly distinguished between comment, conjecture, and fact in
accordance with the terms of Clause 1 (iv).
5. The complainant said that, having listened to the
recording of the interview, he believed that the website spokesperson had been
led to state that drivers may be charged “£15 per day for a 20-mile round
trip”, as the reporter had made reference to a potential 75p per-mile charge
earlier in the interview.
Relevant Code 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
6. The Committee was satisfied that the article accurately
reported comments made by the quoted spokesperson; the quote under dispute had
been said by the spokesperson during a recorded interview. Regardless of
whether the quote had been prompted by the publication’s questions, the
spokesperson had adopted the figure and it was clear that his organisation had
made calculations based on the figure. The publication accurately quoted the
spokesperson, and there was no breach of Clause 1 (i).
7. Clause 1 (iv) makes clear that publications must
distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact. The quote from the
spokesperson was clearly presented as conjecture on his part, and made clear
that his view was based on “calculations” on the part of the website he worked
for, and not any official government figures. The Committee also noted that the
entirety of the article was framed as conjecture, with the headline stating
that charges “could” make driving more expensive; there was no implication
therefore that the 75 pence per-mile figure was based on fact. The article
correctly distinguished between comment, conjecture, and fact; there was no
breach of Clause 1 (iv).
8. The complainant had noted that a 75 pence per mile figure
would raise far more than was needed by the government to fill the “£40 million
budget black hole” referred to in the article and was therefore an extremely
unlikely outcome. The Committee noted the complainant’s position on the
accuracy of the scenario forecast by the expert; however, where the article had
accurately reported the comments in question and had clearly presented them as conjecture,
the publication was entitled to publish the opinion of the expert. The
inclusion of his calculations based on the 75 pence per-mile figure did not, therefore, raise a breach of
Clause 1.
Conclusions
9. The complaint not upheld.
Remedial Action Required
10. N/A
Date complaint received: 29/01/2021
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 13/05/2021
Back to ruling listing