00962-25 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 “Millions see state pension shrink in April as triple lock won’t apply - check if you lose”, published on 16 March 2025.

2. The article appeared under the sub-headline: “Millions are looking forward to a 4.1% increase in the state pension next month thanks to the triple lock, but not everybody will get it”. It then opened by reporting: “Many state pensioners will get a much smaller increase. Their income will rise by less than inflation, which means it's shrinking in real terms. That’s down to a quirk in complicated state pension rules, that successive governments have refused to correct.”

3. Further to this, the article reported:

“The single-tier new state pension, paid to those who retire from April 6, 2016, benefits from full triple lock protection. That means it rises each year either with inflation, earnings or 2.5% each year, whichever is highest.

In April, it will line with rise with earnings, which grew 4.1% in the year to September. By contrast, consumer price inflation (CPI) rose just 1.7% that month.”

4. It then reported:

“Some 4.4 million get the new state pension, while around 8.6million older retirees get the basic state pension.

This is where things get tricky.

The basic state pension itself also increases by the triple lock. But there are two catches.

The first is that the full basic state pension is lower at just £8,814 a year right now.

The 4.1% triple lock increase will lift it to £9,175 a year. But that’s still £2,799 below the maximum new state pension.

[…]

This doesn’t mean older pensioners are being completely ripped off.

Many get additional state pension on top, such as the state earnings-related pension scheme (Serps) or state second pension (S2P).

As a result, they get more pension in total, particularly men who built up Serps and S2P while working.”

4. Subsequently, the article reported:

“For some weird reason the triple lock doesn’t apply to Serps and S2P, or lesser-known state pension elements such as Graduated Pension, Increments and Protected Payment.

Instead, they increase by inflation, based on September’s figure.

That wasn’t a problem during the recent inflation spike, but it’s a big issue today as earnings rise fastest of the three triple lock elements.”

5. The article also quoted a director at a financial company as follows: “with inflation forecast to hit 3.7% by the summer, the additional state pension will actually shrink in real terms. ‘Millions of older pensioners will feel worse off, especially if they’ve lost the Winter Fuel Payment too’.”

5. A version of the article also appeared in print, under the headline: “State pension debrief”. This version of the article was not under complaint.

6. The complainant said that the headline of the online article was inaccurate, and unsupported by the text, and therefore breached Clause 1. He said that, for the state pension to “shrink” in real terms, it must lose purchasing power. He noted that the article itself reported that new single-tier state pension was increasing by 4.1%, the state pension received by older pensioners was increasing by the same amount, and other elements would rise with September 2024’s inflation figures, at a rate of 1.7%. Given that all elements of the pension would increase, and the pension payments would rise either with inflation or at a higher triple-lock rate – and so the total percentage value of the increase would be somewhere between 1.7% and 4.1% - he said it was inaccurate for the headline to refer to pensions “shrinking”.

7. The publication did not accept a breach of the Code. It said, firstly, that headlines are not intended to be read in isolation, but should be read with the article. It considered that the article made clear the headline’s reference to a “shrink” in pensions referred to real-term reductions due to inflation. It said that, as reported in the article, the additional state pension elements – Serps and S2P – were due to increase by just 1.7%, whereas inflation was 3% in January 2025 and forecast to hit 3.7% by summer. The publication said that pensioners who rely on these elements of their state pensions would be able to buy less with their income – the purchasing power of the pensions was therefore diminishing, and the headline’s reference to “shrinking” was not an inaccurate summary of the situation.

8. The publication also said that the headline claim was supported by the statement in the article attributed to a financial director: “Millions of older pensioners will feel worse off, especially if they’ve lost the Winter Fuel Payment too."

9. In response, the complainant stated that, even if inflation was 3% in January, the apparent decrease in purchasing power was temporary – he said that, in the long term, the purchasing power of the additional pension elements which increase with inflation will remain exactly the same. The complainant also stated that the publication’s argument only applied to pensioners with more than £8000 in additional pension payments, and so only a small number of pensioners would be affected by the smaller increase.

10. In response, the publication stated that the article established the key point: it reported that Serps and S2P would increase in line with the September CPI figure, which was 1.7%, and that the CPI would hit 3.7% later in the summer. The publication also disputed that, in the long-term, the increase did not matter. It said that there was a basis for reporting that pensioners would feel worse-off, as there would be a real-terms drop in their month-by-month income.

11. Finally, it commented that millions of pensioners received large additional state pensions, particularly men who accrued decades of Serps and S2P during long working careers. Although, it said, there did not appear to be official figures to show the number of pensioners in receipt of either Serps or S2P, a Freedom of Information request submitted to Royal London, a pensions provider, showed that over two million pensioners received a Serps payment in the tax year of 2023/24.

12. In response, the complainant added that, if there are no official figures available for the number of pensioners receiving Serps or SP2, then the publication could not have taken due care to ensure its headline claim was accurate.

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 was clear, firstly, that articles are intended to be read as a whole. Although the text of an article cannot be relied upon to correct an actively misleading impression already given by a headline, a headline is not required to set out every aspect of an article that follows.

14. The complainant had initially complained that the article contradicted the headline – it reported that the new single-tier state pension was increasing by 4.1%. The publication had said that the reference to “shrink” in the headline referred to the additional state pension – Serps and S2P – which were increasing by 1.7%, at a time when inflation was forecast to rise to 3.7%. In its view, pensioners who rely on these elements of their pension would therefore be disadvantaged – the purchasing power of their pensions would diminish, and would “shrink” in real terms.

15. In the Committee’s view, the article made this sufficiently clear. It opened by reporting on the rate of increase for the single-tier new state pension, before making clear that the triple lock does not apply to Serps and S2P - rather, they increase by inflation “based on September’s figure”. It then stated, by way of reference to a statement from the financial director, that inflation was forecast to hit 3.7% by summer, and therefore “the additional state pension will actually shrink in real terms”.

16. The Committee also noted that the headline directly referred to the state pension shrinking “as [the] triple lock won’t apply”. In its view, it was immediately situated to the reader that the shrinking referred to the aspect of the state pension not subject to the triple lock - Serps and S2P – which, as covered above, the text of the article went on to explain.

17. The complainant had contended that, if this were the case, it only applied to a small number of pensioners, and would only be temporary. However, the publication had supplied evidence to suggest at least two million pensioners were in receipt of Serps. The headline reference to “millions” of pensioners who would be affected by the change did not therefore appear to be inaccurate - regardless of the exact proportion of the pension which would shrink in real-terms, there would be a decrease in the purchasing power of a portion of the pension payments to these individuals.

18. The Committee also noted that the article made clear the additional pensions would increase “based on September’s [inflation] figure”, and that this was different from the forecast inflation figures for the summer – it considered the article made clear, therefore, that inflation figures fluctuate, and that, should inflation go down, the real-terms “shrink” would be temporary.

19. On this basis, the Committee was satisfied that the article provided a sufficient basis for the headline claim, and that the headline was not inaccurate, misleading, or distorted. There was no breach of Clause 1.

Conclusions

20. The complaint was not upheld.

Remedial action required

21. N/A

Date complaint received: 16/03/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 17/07/2025