00570-25 Williams-Key v express.co.uk

Summary of Complaint

1. Alan Williams-Key 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 “Octopus Energy customers given £676 after daily charge ditched”, published on 13 February 2025.

2. The article – which appeared online only - reported that "Octopus Energy customers could save up to £676 on their energy bills if a daily charge is ditched on a new tariff". It also reported that, "under Ofgem’s plans, suppliers must offer zero standing charge tariffs to households, alongside other tariffs, by next winter. It means that Octopus Energy customers on a two-year fix would make a saving of £676 if the charges were scrapped today".

3. The article went on to report that “standing charges are a fixed daily amount that is added to energy bills by suppliers - regardless of how much energy you actually use - which cost the average dual fuel household £338 per year on average”. The article said that “some suppliers already offer low or no standing charge tariffs at all, but while these tariffs are at least 10% below the price cap they have a higher unit rate so they are more likely to benefit customers who use less energy.” In addition to this, it reported that “for lower energy users, the new tariffs would see the costs move to unit rates instead. So higher energy users would be unlikely to save anything if they switched, but for those who don't use much electricity or gas, the higher price per unit would be offset by the loss of the standing charge”.

4. The complainant said the article gave the misleading impression that customers had been “given” £676 when this was not the case – actually, the article was reporting on a potential saving should standing charges be scrapped.

5. The complainant also said the headline did not make clear that the £676 saving was across two years and considered that, along with the text of the article, it suggested that Octopus energy customers could change tariffs to one that did not have standing charges and pay £676 less. He said this was not the case, as he did not believe such tariffs existed.

6. The complainant said that the article’s claim that ”Octopus Energy customers could save up to £676 on their energy bills if a daily charge is ditched on a new tariff" was inaccurate for the same reason noted above. He said this claim also assumed that a zero standing charge tariff would charge the same unit prices for energy as current tariffs – which he did not believe was the case – and only if this was the case could customers save £676.

7. During direct correspondence with the complainant, the publication accepted the headline gave the misleading impression that Octopus Energy customers had been given a payment of £676. It amended the headline of the article to instead say: "Octopus Energy customers can save £676 by switching tariffs”. It also published the following correction at the top of the article on 27 February, thirteen days after it was made aware of the complaint:

“A previous headline of this article incorrectly reported that customers of Octopus Energy would be ‘given £676’. In fact, the figure of £676 relates to a possible saving should customers on a two-year fix switch to the ‘zero standing charge’ tariff, where the current standing charges cost around £338 per year for household. We are happy to clarify this and the headline has been amended accordingly.”

8. The publication also published the following standalone correction on the same date, which was linked to on its homepage for 24 hours:

“Octopus Energy customers ‘given £676 – A correction

A previous version of our article published on 13 February was incorrectly headlined ‘Octopus Energy customers given £676 after daily charge ditched’. In fact, the figure of £676 relates to a possible saving should customers on a two-year fix switch to the ‘zero standing charge’ tariff, where the current standing charges cost around £338 per year for household. We are happy to clarify this and the headline has been amended accordingly. The article can be found here.”

9. The complainant did not consider the corrections published were a satisfactory resolution to his complaint. He said that the corrections were based on the assumption that the standing charges would be abolished while the unit prices remained unchanged – which he did not consider to be the case.

10. In light of this, the publication amended the headline of the article to instead say: “Octopus Energy customers can save £676 in standing charges by switching tariffs”. It said it had made this amendment to clarify that the saving related specifically to the “standing charge” element of customer’s bill, which it said was also made clear within the published corrections.

11. The complainant was not satisfied with this amendment. He said that, as an Octopus energy customer, there were no standing charge-free tariffs available to him – so it was not correct to say that “Octopus Energy customers can save £676 in standing charges by switching tariffs”. Further to this, he did not consider that the publication had paid the necessary attention to the following statement from OFGEM, which he said stated that unit prices would in fact increase when standing charges were abolished:

"There are many different ways this tariff cap could be designed, such as through a block tariff cap where rates change once a certain level of usage is reached. Under all options, the unit rate would include the costs that are currently allocated to the standing charge.”

12. During IPSO’s investigation, the publication provided the OFGEM energy price cap per unit table it had relied on prior to publication of the article. This table included the relevant price cap data for the 1 January-31 March 2025 period. To support its position, it also referred to an OFGEM statement which stated that, “the price cap [wa]s based on typical household energy use.” It said it had calculated the £338 figure by adding up the daily standing charges for electricity and gas and had multiplied this by 365 days. It said that given the article referred to a two-year tariff, the amount was doubled to reach the figure of £676.

13. The publication said the claims that “Octopus Energy customers could save up to £676 on their energy bills if a daily charge is ditched on a new tariff"” and "Octopus Energy customers on a two-year fix would make a saving of £676 if the charges were scrapped today" were distinguished as hypothetical scenarios within the article. The publication believed this was clear from the presentation of the claims and the use of the phrase “could save”. It said it was free to editorialise under the terms of Clause 1 (iv), which allows for the publication of conjecture.

14. However, in light of the complainant’s concerns, the publication said it would be happy to further amend the headline and sub-heading of the article to report that “customers could save,” rather than ”can save”. It said that it was satisfied that the body of the article did not require further amendment, as the correction published already referred to the fact that the £676 figure related to a possible saving. The publication believed the article made clear that zero standing charge tariffs were going to be introduced under OFGEM’s plans in any event, and noted it stated that the saving would take place “if the charges were scrapped today". It said it also made clear that the charges were not, in fact, currently being scrapped.

15. In addition to this, the publication said the article made clear that the lack of a standing charge would mean an increase in price per unit, where it reported: “for lower energy users, the new tariffs would see the costs move to unit rates instead. So higher energy users would be unlikely to save anything if they switched, but for those who don't use much electricity or gas, the higher price per unit would be offset by the loss of the standing charge”. It said, in any event, it was entitled to focus specifically on the possible savings should standing charges be scrapped, as this formed part of its entitlement under Clause 1 (iv) of the Code to editorialise.

16. The complainant said that OFGEM had made it clear that unit rates would have to be increased to allow the energy retailers to recoup the revenue lost from standing charges. The complainant referred to the previous statement from OFGEM. He said this showed that the unit rates for zero standing charge tariffs would not be the same as existing tariffs, as they would include the costs that are currently recouped by the standing charge, and that standing charges would not be abolished without increasing unit costs.

17. The complainant considered the publication’s point regarding some suppliers already offering “low or no standing charge tariffs” to be irrelevant to the complaint, given the headline and text of the article related specifically to Octopus Energy customers. The complainant said he could not identify any suppliers with zero standing charges.

18. In light of this material, on 13 May, the publication amended the headline and sub-heading to state the following:

"Octopus Energy customers could save £676 in standing charges by switching tariffs."

“UK households could make more than £600 of savings on certain tariffs under new Ofgem plans."

19. On the same date, the publication amended the existing correction to state the following:

"A previous headline of this article incorrectly reported that customers of Octopus Energy would be ‘given £676’. In fact, the figure of £676 relates to a possible saving should customers on a two-year fix switch to the ‘zero standing charge’ tariff once available, where the current standing charges cost around £338 per year for household. We are happy to clarify this and the headline has been amended accordingly."

20. The complainant was not satisfied with the above amendments as they did not acknowledge that a ‘zero standing rate tariff’ would inevitably have a higher unit charge, which he said was previously confirmed by OFGEM.

21. In response, the publication provided several links to support its position that there were two energy firms that offered "no standing charge" tariffs, one of which offered a "low standing charge" tariff. Neither of these firms were Octopus Energy.

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

22. The Committee first considered whether the original headline breached Clause 1 by reporting that “Octopus energy [had] give[n] £676 to customers after the daily standing charge is ditched”. Both parties accepted the headline was misleading to report that Octopus Energy “g[a]ve” customers £676, as customers had not received this amount of money. Rather, the headline figure instead related to a potential saving – across two years – should standing charges be “ditched”. In such circumstances, and where the publication was aware at the time of the article’s publication that customers would not be receiving such a payment, it had not taken due care to ensure that the headline was not presented in a misleading manner, and there was a breach of Clause 1 (i).

23. The Committee considered that the original headline had the potential to mislead readers about their energy costs and potential savings. Given the importance of accurately reporting on matters relating to the personal finances and consumer choices, the Committee considered the article to be significantly misleading on this point. The Committee was also mindful that the misleading information was the focus of the article as a whole and appeared prominently within the headline. Therefore, a correction was required under Clause 1 (ii).

24. The Committee next considered whether the corrections already published by the newspaper were sufficient to address the terms of Clause 1 (ii) - which requires that significantly misleading information is corrected promptly and with due prominence.

25. The Committee acknowledged the publication’s efforts to resolve the complaint and considered the correction published to be both duly prompt and prominent – the correction had been published thirteen days after the publication had received the complaint and had been published both beneath the headline and as a standalone article.

26. Turning to the wording of both the original and amended correction, the Committee noted that both versions of the correction acknowledged the misleading information and put the correct position on record: namely, that the figure of £676 related to a possible saving available to customers who were on a two-year fix tariff, if they switched to the ‘zero standing charge’ tariff once it became available. In such circumstances, there was no breach of Clause 1 (ii) in relation to this point.

27. The Committee next considered the second and third amended headlines, which the complainant had said were inaccurate. The Committee had regard to the OFGEM statement the complainant provided, which said that “the unit rate would include the costs that are currently allocated to the standing charge.” For this reason the complainant had said the headlines – and the article itself – were inaccurate, as any reduction in standing charges would mean a rise in unit prices.

28. However, the Committee considered that the complainant’s position on this point was speculative – it noted that energy prices could fall, as well as rise, and it was not certain that, as zero standing-charge tariffs became available, that unit prices for energy would rise and offset any possible saving.

29. In addition, while the complainant had said that no zero-standing charge was available to Octopus Energy customers, this was not in something he was in a position to know with certainty – his basis for saying this was that he could find no such tariffs available to him, but this did not mean that they would not be available to other customers.

30. In such circumstances, the Committee considered that the correction, article, and amended headlines provided the necessary context to ensure the updated article was not inaccurate and that the correct position was clear to the reader. As such, there was no breach of Clause 1 in relation to the amended headlines.

31. The complainant had also said that all headlines were inaccurate, as they did not make clear that the £676 amount would be saved across a period of two years. However, the Committee considered the article made clear that the potential saving would apply to “customers on a two-year fix” and had been calculated based on “standing charges […] which cost the average dual fuel household £338 per year on average”. The headline was not required to set out the full content of an article, and where the article made clear that the £676 was based on customers who had a two-year fix, it was not inaccurate, misleading, or distorted – the article supported and clarified the headline on this point. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

32. The Committee next considered whether the article was inaccurate to report: “under Ofgem’s plans, suppliers must offer zero standing charge tariffs to households, alongside other tariffs […] Octopus Energy customers on a two-year fix would make a saving of £676 if the charges were scrapped today". The Committee considered this was presented as a hypothetical scenario and it was clear that the proposed scenario had not occurred; and that the possible saving arose in a scenario “if the charges were scrapped today”, and that this would only be if there was a “zero standing charge” tariff. This was therefore clearly distinguished as conjecture – rather than fact – in line with the terms of Clause 1 (iv). The article also made clear the basis for this conjecture: it reported “for those who don't use much electricity or gas, the higher price per unit would be offset by the loss of the standing charge”. As such, the article was not inaccurate on this point and there was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

Conclusions

33. The complaint was partly upheld under Clause 1 (i).

Remedial action required

34. The published correction put the correct position on record and was offered promptly and with due prominence. No further action was required.

Date complaint received: 13/02/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 21/08/2025