00957-25 Bucknell Parish Council v oxfordmail.co.uk

Summary of Complaint

1. Bucknell Parish Council complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that oxfordmail.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Puy de Fou: Council tax hike for village to 'fight' plans”, published on 5 March 2025.

2. The article opened by reporting: “A village has hiked its council taxes in order to 'fight' plans for a £600 million theme park on its doorstep. Puy du Fou (PdF), a historical theme park with no rides, is proposing to build a site near to junction 10 of the M40 on land north of Bucknell, near Bicester.”

3. It then reported:

“By raising council taxes, Bucknell Parish Council is hoping to raise funds to ‘make proper representations, either directly or via third parties’ against the proposals. This comes after it was revealed in the draft minutes from a meeting on January 13 that the parish council wanted to raise the precept - the amount of money raised from council tax to fund a parish council's budget - for 2025-26 by 75 per cent.”

4. Toward its close, the article included a statement from the theme park company:

“We are fully aware that at Bucknell Parish Council’s January meeting it was proposed to raise the parish precept for this year’s Council Tax in order to create a small fighting fund to oppose our forthcoming planning application.

"As the meeting was not well attended and therefore not quorate, we understand it was agreed to consult with village residents on this.”

5. On 7 March, the complainant complained directly to the newspaper. It said that the above statement, attributed to the theme park company, was inaccurate – it said its January meeting was quorate, and therefore the decision to raise council tax was made, unanimously, by a quorate group. It asked that the article be corrected.

6. The publication did not respond and, on 14 March, the complainant complained to IPSO that the article breached Clause 1 on the above point. It commented that, in its view, the newspaper had published the statement, which had inaccurately questioned the integrity of the council and its decision, without due diligence. It added that, in its view, the inaccuracy warranted an apology.

7. In support of its position, the complainant supplied IPSO the draft Committee minutes from the relevant meeting – the minutes showed three councillors were present. It went on to state, under the title “Finance”:

“The figure of £13,343.50 was reached (a 75% increase due to funding required to challenge Puy de Fou’s proposals. The information and an explanation of the increase will be circulated to residents, with the assurance that the figure will decrease next year […].

“The payment schedule was approved.”

8. On 20 March, IPSO made the publication aware that the complaint raised a possible breach of the Editors’ Code. The publication did not confirm receipt of the complaint – IPSO again contacted the publication on 25 March, 28 March and 2 April. The publication confirmed receipt of the complaint on 10 April.

9. On 22 April, IPSO began an investigation into the complaint. On 8 May, the publication responded to IPSO’s initial questions.

10. The publication denied a breach of the Editors’ Code. It stated that the reference to the meeting not being quorate was a small detail of its reporting, and was presented as a direct quote; it had not been adopted as fact in its own reporting. It also added that it had reported the statement to provide balance to its article.

11. Further, the publication commented that it believed the sentiment of the reported statement was that there was “not a majority of councillors present during the meeting”, which was confirmed by its pre-publication research: only three councillors, and no members of the public, had attended the meeting. It acknowledged, however, that it was inaccurate to report the meeting was not quorate; as per the council’s regulations, it was.

12. The publication did not accept that any significant inaccuracy arose from the article. However, it proposed to amend the text of the online article to remove the reference under complaint – it also proposed to publish the following correction at the top of the article, beneath the headline and above the first line of text:

“UPDATED: An earlier version of this article included a quote from Puy de Fou which stated the council’s decision was not ‘quorate’. However, as the meeting was attended by the minimum of three councillors we are pleased to set the record straight and confirm this is not the case. We apologise for the confusion caused”.

13. The publication also said it had attempted to contact the complainant when first informed of the complaint by IPSO. When IPSO requested a copy of this correspondence, it failed to respond.

14. In response, the complainant said that the article accused the council of an illegal action – the inaccuracy was, therefore, significant. It reiterated its concern that the publication had not verified the statement given to it, and commented that, in its view, the publication of the article constituted biased reporting against the council.

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

15. The disputed reference had appeared in the form of a statement, attributed to the theme park company. In the Committee’s view, however, it was presented as a statement of fact. It was not presented as the company’s view of the meeting, rather, it was presented as a clear statement of fact about it. The complainant had contended, and the publication had accepted, that the statement was inaccurate – the meeting in question had in fact been quorate.

16. The Committee took into account the fact that the statement had been provided by the theme park company, and it was not disputed that the wording of the statement had been accurately reported. However, it appeared that the statement had not been verified or checked by the publication as part of its pre-editorial process. The publication had contended that it had verified the number of councillors present at the meeting, but had not, seemingly, checked the claim that the council meeting was not quorate – which it had later accepted was inaccurate.

17. The Committee considered that this constituted a lack of care on the part of the publication. There was a breach of Clause 1 (i).

18. The Committee then turned to the significance of the inaccuracy. It acknowledged that the inaccuracy constituted a passing reference within the article. However, it recognised that whether or not the meeting was quorate called into question the legitimacy of the council’s decision to raise council tax, a matter of clear interest to local readers. The Committee also took into account the context of the article. Where there appeared to be a dispute between the complainant and the theme park company, the Committee considered there to be heightened importance in ensuring the accuracy of the statement – given it was provided by one party in the dispute and cast doubt on the legitimacy of decisions made by the other party.

19. For these reasons, the Committee considered that the inaccuracy was significant – it therefore required correction, as per the terms of Clause 1 (ii).

20. On 8 May, the publication had offered a correction. The Committee considered that the wording of the proposed correction was sufficient to correct the record: it identified that the newspaper had inaccurately reported that the meeting was not quorate, and put the correct position on record – this was “not the case”.

21. Where the publication had proposed to both amend the text of the online article, and feature the correction directly beneath the headline, the Committee was also satisfied that the proposed correction was duly prominent. The Committee also noted that the proposed correction included an apology, albeit not an apology directed toward the complainant.

22. However, the Committee noted that the publication had first been notified of the inaccuracy in direct correspondence with the complainant on 7 March, and again when it was passed the complaint by IPSO on 20 March. However, it had not offered a correction until 8 May. Given 62 days had passed between the publication first being notified of the inaccuracy and the correction being offered, this did not constitute a prompt offer of correction, as required by the Clause 1 (ii). There was, therefore, a breach of Clause 1 (ii).

23. The Committee noted, finally, that the complainant had complained that the article constituted biased reporting against the Council. However, newspapers are entitled to be biased and partisan, provided the Code is not otherwise breached. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

24. The Committee were concerned the publication consistently failed to respond to emails from IPSO or adhere to deadlines. This contributed to the delay of the offer of a correction. Furthermore, the publication did not respond to an IPSO request to evidence how they tried to contact the complainant.

Conclusions

25. The complaint was upheld under Clause 1.

Remedial action required

26. Having upheld the complaint, the Committee considered what remedial action should be required. In circumstances where the Committee establishes a breach of the Editors’ Code, it can require the publication of a correction and/or an adjudication; the nature, extent and placement of which is determined by IPSO.

27. The newspaper had inaccurately reported that the council meeting had not been quorate, which cast doubt over the legitimacy of its decision to raise council tax – a matter of clear concern to the public. However, the inaccuracy formed a passing reference within the article, and the publication had offered a correction - albeit it had not been offered promptly.

28. Therefore, on balance, the Committee considered that the publication of a correction was the appropriate remedy. The correction should acknowledge that the article inaccurately reported the meeting was not quorate. It should also put the correct position on record, namely that the meeting had been quorate, and therefore the decision to raise council tax had been properly made.

29. The complainant had also stated that the inaccuracy warranted an apology. The Committee took into account that the inaccuracy was a passing reference in the article, and noted that - while it was indisputably inaccurate to report that the meeting was not quorate – this claim formed part of a statement provided by the theme park company; the newspaper had not inaccurately alleged, of its own accord, that the meeting was not quorate. In the Committee’s view, this mitigated the effect of the inaccuracy, particularly given the claim was made by one party in what appeared to be a contentious local dispute. While the inaccuracy required correction, an apology to the complainant was not warranted in the circumstances.

30. The Committee then considered the placement of this correction. As the inaccuracy appeared within the text of the article, if the publication intends to continue to publish the online article without amendment, the correction on the article should be published beneath the headline. If the article is amended, the correction should be published as a footnote.

31. The wording should be agreed with IPSO in advance and should make clear that it has been published following an upheld ruling by the Independent Press Standards Organisation.

Date complaint received: 24/07/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 24/09/2025