Ruling

01032-17 Ward v The Mail on Sunday

    • Date complaint received

      18th September 2017

    • Outcome

      Breach - sanction: publication of adjudication

    • Code provisions

      1 Accuracy

Decision of the Complaints Committee 01032-17 Ward v The Mail on Sunday

Summary of Complaint

1. Bob Ward complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Mail on Sunday breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “EXPOSED How world leaders were duped over global warming”, published on 5 February 2017.The article, which also published online under the headline “Exposed: How world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data”.

2. The article reported on claims made by Dr John Bates, a climate scientist formerly employed at the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), in an online blog and in an interview to the newspaper. In the blog, Dr Bates detailed at length his concerns surrounding the archiving and documentation of two sets of temperature data, which had formed the basis of a climate study published in the journal Science on 4 June 2015. Dr Bates had claimed that the authors of the study had failed to follow internal NOAA procedures in relation to the archiving of the data, which affected other researchers’ ability to scrutinise the work. This process, which Dr Bates had devised during his employment at NOAA, was the organisation’s official archiving procedure for all “operational” datasets. The study, widely referred to as the “Pausebuster” paper, suggested that there had been no “pause” in global warming in the 2000s as other research had appeared to show.

3. In addition to criticising the archiving process, the blog also criticised the paper itself, suggesting that its authors had “push[ed] choices to emphasize warming” and that the principal author had his “thumb on the scale  in the documentation, scientific choices and release of datasets  in an attempt to discredit the notion of a global warming hiatus”, demonstrating “flagrant manipulation of scientific integrity guidelines”. Dr Bates suggested that the publication of the paper had been “rushed” with the aim of influencing the 2015 UN climate conference in Paris. Dr Bates said that he had pressed the co-authors to justify their decision not to archive the data through his devised method, but that they had not defended their decision.

4. The article said that the newspaper had been shown “irrefutable evidence” that the paper had been based upon “misleading, unverified data”, and said that NOAA had “breached its own rules on scientific integrity” when it had published the “sensational but flawed report”, because the failure to archive the data had meant that “the Pausebuster paper can never be replicated or verified by other scientists”.

5. The article explained that the Pausebuster paper had been based on two new datasets, one relating to measurements of land surface temperatures, and the other, ocean surface temperatures.

6. The article reported on the concerns which Dr Bates had detailed at length in his blog, about the archiving of these two sets of data. It said that the data “was never subjected to NOAA’s rigorous internal evaluation process – which Dr Bates devised”. It said that both of these data sets had been “flawed” but that Dr Bates’ “vehement objections” to the publication of the “faulty data”, which he had made known to the co-authors of the paper, had been “overridden by his NOAA superiors”. In an interview with the newspaper, Dr Bates had “accused the lead author of the paper of ‘insisting on decisions and scientific choices that maximised warming and minimised documentation… in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming pause, rushed so that he could time publication to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy’.”

7. The article explained that the data set which had been used to measure sea surface temperatures, known as ERSST.v4, had replaced an earlier version of the data set, ERSST.v3. It said that ERSST.v4 had “tripled” the apparent warming trend over the sea between 2000 and 2014, compared with ERSST.v3, leading to the apparent disappearance of the “pause” in climate change over the period. Dr Bates had told the newspaper that this increase in temperature had been achieved by “dubious means” because the data’s “key error was an upwards ‘adjustment’ of readings from fixed and floating buoys, which are generally reliable, to bring them into line with readings from a much more doubtful source – water taken in by ships”. Dr Bates said that the authors of the paper “had good data from buoys” but said that “they threw it out and ’corrected‘ it by using the bad data from ships… you never change good data to agree with bad, but that’s what they did – so as to make it look as if the sea was warmer.” Dr Bates also said that the ERSSTv4 had also ignored “reliable” data from satellites, which measure the temperature of the lower atmosphere.

8. The article stated that the NOAA had subsequently decided that ERSST.v4 will have to be “replaced and substantially revised just 18 months after it was issued, because it used unreliable methods which overstated the speed of warming”. It claimed that the new version “will show both lower temperatures and a slower rate in the recent warming trend”, when compared to the dataset used in the Pausebuster paper, and “will reverse the flaws in version 4”.

9. The article was illustrated with a graph, entitled “The misleading ‘Pausebuster’ chart”. It plotted a red line which represented the data from ERSST.v4, described as “the ‘adjusted’ and unreliable sea data cited in the flawed ‘Pausebuster’ paper”, and a blue line, described as “the UK Met Office’s independently texted and verified ‘HadCRUT4’ record”, which it said “showed lower monthly readings and a shallower recent warming trend”. A note at the base of the graph stated that “0 represents 14°C”.

10. The article reported Dr Bates’ criticism of the land surface data, claiming that it had been “processed through a … method which had significant errors, meaning that the study would have used data with experimental processing, which had known flaws”; he had said that data set was “questionable” because it “was afflicted by devastating bugs in its software that rendered its findings ‘unstable’”.

11. The article said that the “final bombshell” came when Dr Bates learned that the computer used to process the land surface data had suffered a “complete failure”; it said that “because of the NOAA’s failure to archive data used in the paper, its results can never be verified” or replicated by other scientists.

12. The article claimed that the “failure to archive and make available fully documented data not only violated NOAA rules, but also those set down by Science”.

13. The article reported Dr Bates’ concerns regarding the influence which the paper had made on these policy decisions, and said that it had been shown “astonishing evidence” that NOAA had “rushed” to make the “maximum possible impact” on world leaders at the 2014 UN climate conference in Paris. It further claimed that delegations from America, Britain and the EU had been “strongly influenced” by the “flawed” and “manipulated” data as they negotiated the agreement, which had “convinced the Paris summit to invest billions in climate change”; this was the basis for the headline’s claim that “world leaders were duped over global warming”.

14. The article explained that after the paper was published, the US House of Representatives Science Committee launched an inquiry into the paper, and said that the chairman of the Committee had thanked Dr Bates for “for courageously stepping forward to tell the truth about NOAA’s senior officials playing fast and loose with the data in order to meet a politically predetermined conclusion”.

15. The article suggested that the incident had “disturbing echoes” of the “Climategate” affair, another instance in which the newspaper had revealed what it described as “dodgy climate data” based on leaked internal emails sent by climate scientists. The article characterised the new allegations as “Climategate 2.”

16. The complainant said that article had made a number of extraordinary claims, which were misleading and inaccurate, including a “fake graph”. The significance of Dr Bates’ concerns about the archiving procedures had been misrepresented in the article, and the newspaper had taken no steps to establish the veracity of Dr Bates’ claims. World leaders had not been duped”, and there was no “irrefutable evidence” that the paper was based on “misleading, unverified data”, as the article had claimed. The findings of the Pausebuster paper had been verified by independent referees for Science in accordance with its standard peer review procedure, who had been able to access the data in order to carry out an independent evaluation of the paper, which had provided independent confirmation of the findings. The relevant data had been pushed on the NOAA’s File Transfer Protocol (FTP) site in early June 2015, when the paper was published. The complainant said that in those circumstances, it was inaccurate to report that the publication of the paper had violated the rules of Science.

17. The complainant disputed the accuracy of Dr Bates’ claims, particularly his description of the two data sets as “dodgy” or “faulty”; he did not accept that the paper had “exaggerated global warming”, or that it was a “sensational but flawed report”. The complainant also denied that Dr Bates had expressed “vehement objections” to the publication of the data or that the paper had been rushed. He noted that after the publication of the article, Dr Bates had issued a statement clarifying that there was “no data tampering, no data changing, nothing malicious” in the preparation of the paper.

18. The complainant said that there was no evidence that ERSST.v4 used “unreliable” methods which “exaggerated” the speed of warming, given that the paper had been independently examined and verified. While the complainant accepted that the authors of the paper had noted that buoy data have been proven to be more accurate and reliable than ship data, he said that this had been explicitly acknowledged in the paper. In any case, this adjustment made only a small contribution to the differences between ERSST.v4, and ERSST.v3; the largest change had resulted from a different adjustment. He further said that satellite measurements of the lower atmosphere are not “considered reliable” because they do not provide information about sea surface temperatures. The sea surface temperatures were not “measured using methods known to be “dubious” of “unreliable”, given that ERSST.v4’s methodology had been fully documented in an earlier paper, which described a series of 11 procedures that were applied to correct for potential errors in the data. The complainant noted that an independent reviewer of the paper had said that the land data set used in the study was largely similar to a previous version, and was responsible for relatively little of the increase in warming it had showed. In those circumstances, the complainant said that, while he could not confirm whether there were “bugs” in the software of the land temperature dataset, any bugs which may have been there, would not have been “devastating”.

19. While the complainant accepted that ERSST.v5 would soon be released, he denied that it would show lower temperatures and a slower rate in the warming trend, nor would it “reverse flaws in version 4”: ERRSTv5 had been compiled, largely due to the analysis of new data not available for ERSSTv4. He said that he had seen the draft paper methodology of the new data set, and the paper did not make it clear how its results would compare to the previous data set.

20. The complainant said that the graph which illustrated the article was fake. First, the red line did not represent the data from the paper, because it did not incorporate the land surface data. Second, it misrepresented the differences between the two data sets: the two lines which allegedly showed the difference between the two data sets for sea surface temperature measurements were misleading, because the data sets used different baselines. It was wrong to say that “0 represents 14°C”; for the NOAA data, the baseline was 13.9.

21. The complainant raised a number of concerns in relation to the article’s presentation of the paper’s impact on the Paris Climate Conference in 2014. In particular, he said that there was no evidence that world leaders had been aware of the existence of the paper at the time of the Paris Conference: they had not referenced the paper in their speeches on the opening day of the summit, and there was no reference to the paper or the “pause” in any version of the Agreement. It was wrong to say that the US, UK and EU delegations had been “strongly influenced” by the paper.

22. The complainant denied that the paper had been “rushed”; it had been submitted to the journal almost a year before the conference; accepted for publication in May 2015; and published online on 4 June 2015. The journal determined the timescale for publication, and its editor had said that “the paper was not rushed in any way”.

23. The complainant raised a number of other concerns about the newspaper’s claims about the significance and context of the allegations. Calls for urgent action on climate change did not “look threadbare” as a result of the claims; the case for action on climate change is based on the evidence documented in many thousands of rigorous academic studies, not on a single paper.

24. The complainant denied that the so-called ‘pause’ in global warming had been “revealed” by UN scientists in 2013. He said that the 2013 report to which this referred had summarised earlier academic studies, which had already suggested a possible slowdown in the rate of rise in global mean surface temperature after 1998. He also said it was inaccurate and misleading to liken the seriousness of the allegations contained in the blog to that of the 2009 “Climategate” affair, and in any case disputed the representation of that controversy. He further said that the statements attributed to the head of the US House of Representatives Science Committee, were inaccurate and misleading, given Dr Bates’ subsequent statement that there was “no data tampering, no dating changing, nothing malicious” in the preparation of the paper.

25. The newspaper defended the accuracy of its coverage, with the single exception of the issue of the graphic (see below). It said it was entitled to highlight the concerns of an award-winning former senior scientist at NOAA, who had reported that NOAA had broken its own rules on the use of scientific data in a crucial paper, and to comment on the implications of these claims.

26. The newspaper said that Dr Bates had checked the accuracy of the article before publication. It denied that Dr Bates’ statement saying that he did not allege data tampering, data changing or “anything malicious” was effectively a withdrawal of his claims: it was an explanation that figures, once entered, had not been altered. It was not inaccurate for the article to report that Dr Bates had shown the newspaper “irrefutable evidence” that the paper had been based on “misleading” and “unverified” data. The independent reviewers of the paper were free to express their views on the paper, but others had disagreed with them.

27. It said that Dr Bates had presented evidence that the land data set was experimental, subject to bugs and unverified, while the ERSSTv4 sea dataset, which inflated the speed of warming, was about to be replaced. The newspaper maintained that the land surface data set had not been properly archived.

28. In response to a request by IPSO to clarify the “irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data” it said that Dr Bates had shown it examples of both fully archived climate data using the programme that he had devised, and the less detailed FTP site upload that was issued along with the paper. It said that Dr Bates had made it clear to the newspaper, and in his original blog post, that putting raw data on a website is not the same thing as full data archiving. The newspaper further noted that the author of the paper had admitted that the data had not been archived when the paper was published and the final ”operational” edition of the land data would be ‘different’ from that used in the paper. It said that in circumstances, the evidence that the paper’s data was unverified and misleading was irrefutable, contrary to the complainant’s position.

29. It said that the journalist had seen the draft paper which described the method used to produce ERSST.v5. It said that this showed that it “reverses the errors” made by version 4 in its method of correcting sea temperatures, and therefore showed both a lower rate of warming since 2000 and lower absolute temperature values. It provided a quote from the paper which said, “the short-term (2000-2015) trend is slightly lower in ERSSTv5 than in ERSSTv4”. The newspaper maintained that satellite measurements of the lower atmosphere are relevant to sea surface temperatures.

30. It also maintained that the land data set was “afflicted by devastating bugs”. It said that the reviewers for Science had no access to the land data set and the software and algorithms, because it was not archived. It said that if independent reviewers had replicated the results, those results would not have been achieved by the same methods as the ones used in the paper, because they were not available.

31. The newspaper did accept that the graph’s caption was inaccurate but said that it was corrected swiftly, on the day of publication, making clear the inadvertent use of different baselines. It noted, however, that there are substantial differences between the Met Office data and the NOAA warming rate. It amended the graph’s caption to:

“The red line shows the current NOAA world temperature graph- elevated in recent years due to the ‘adjusted’ sea data. The blue line is the Met Office’s independent HadCRUT4 record. Although they are offset in temperature by 0.12°C due to different analysis techniques, they reveal that NOAA has been adjusted and so shows a steeper recent warming trend”.

32. The newspaper said that it had subsequently taken the decision to remove the graph from the online article, and said that it had also included an acknowledgment of the error in a follow up article, published 12 February: “It is important to acknowledge the MoS did make one error: the caption on a graph, showing the difference between NOAA’s sea data records and the UK Met Office’s, did not make clear that they used different baselines. We corrected this immediately on our website.”

33. The newspaper did not accept that the article was misleading in its reporting of the circumstances surrounding the publication of the paper; the “rush” had been on the part of NOAA, not Science. The authors of the paper knew that they had to submit it well in advance to ensure it was published in time to make an impact on the conference. It noted that Science’s editorial policy for contributions states that data should be “archived in the NOAA climate repository or other public databases”, and interpreted this to mean fully archived in accordance with the programme which Dr Bates had devised. It said that it was therefore not inaccurate to report that the paper had also breached the rules set by Science.

34. When the paper was released, it was accompanied by a high-profile NOAA press release and worldwide media coverage. The newspaper noted that in an October 2015 submission to all delegates attending Paris shortly before the conference, the Global Science Observing System cited both the Karl paper and the new experimental data set prominently.  In those circumstances, and given that the point of any report is to influence opinion, there were clear efforts to ensure that world leaders would be influenced by the paper. It was irrelevant that the Paris Agreement made no reference to the paper. It further noted that it had been entitled to report the concerns of the chairman of the US House of Representative Science Committee, which he had been free to express.

35. It said that the “pause” in global warming was comprehensively discussed in the 2013 UN IPCC report, and it made no difference to the article whether others may have reported on the “pause”, previously. The newspaper said that Climategate was relevant because it involved allegations that scientists used a “trick” to hide the decline in a climate proxy data set and colluded to prevent access to data by sceptics.

36. The complainant did not accept the newspaper’s position that Dr Bates’ concerns about the archiving of the data constituted “irrefutable evidence” that the paper was based on “misleading” and “unverified” data. He reiterated that the paper’s findings had been independently validated, and had agreed with separate global temperature records created by other groups. The complainant noted that the newspaper had amended the first graph’s caption but said that the graph had still inaccurately reported that both data sets were plotted relative to 14.0°C. He said that the newspaper had relied upon a sentence in the draft methodology of ERSSTv5, which, when put in its proper context, supported the conclusions of the Pausebuster paper.

Relevant Code Provisions

37. 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.

iv) The Press, while free to editorialise and campaign, must distinguish clearly between comment conjecture and fact.

Findings of the Committee

38. The newspaper was entitled to report on the views of Dr Bates, a leading former climate scientist at the NOAA, about the Pausebuster paper and the circumstances surrounding its publication. While acknowledging the newspaper’s position that Dr Bates had reviewed the article before publication, the primary question for the Committee was whether Dr Bates’ concerns had been presented in a significantly inaccurate or misleading way.

39. The article had characterised Dr Bates’ testimony as providing “irrefutable evidence” that the paper had been based on “misleading, ‘unverified’ data”, leading – as the headline claimed – to world leaders being “duped” over global warming, and “convinced” to invest billions in climate change. These claims by the newspaper went much further than the concerns which Dr Bates had detailed in his blog or in the interview; they did not represent criticisms of the data collection process, but rather, were assertions of fact that the data had been demonstrated conclusively to be wrong and had a significant impact on the decision making of world leaders, with an additional implication this had been part of a wilful attempt to deceive. Dr Bates had challenged the findings, as he was entitled to do; however he had not proven them to be false, nor had he suggested that the authors of the study had acted dishonestly. Having considered Dr Bates’ claims in detail, the Committee concluded that they did not constitute or identify “irrefutable evidence” that the data was “misleading” or that leaders had been “duped”. The newspaper had failed to take care over the accuracy of the article.

40. The article claimed that because of the NOAA’s “failure to ’archive’” the data, “its results can never be verified”. Central to Dr Bates’ detailed criticisms was the decision of the paper’s authors to upload the data on NOAA’s FTP site, instead of archiving it through NOAA’s standard archiving procedure for operational data. While it appeared to be accepted that the paper had not undergone the full archiving process, the Committee did not consider that the article had made sufficiently clear that the failure to archive, had been a failure to archive the data through the NOAA’s archiving procedure for operational data only; the data had been made publicly available on the FTP site. Further, the newspaper did not dispute that the results had been independently validated as part of the Science peer review process, after publication of the paper. In characterising Dr Bates’ claims in this way, where he had expressed the precise nature of his concerns clearly in this blog and during the interview, the newspaper had failed to take care over the accuracy of the article, in breach of Clause 1 (i) and had then failed to correct these significantly misleading statements, in breach of Clause 1 (ii).

41. The graph which accompanied the article had provided a visual illustration of the newspaper’s contention regarding the difference between the “flawed” NOAA data and other, “verified”, data. The newspaper’s failure to plot the lines correctly represented a breach of Clause 1 (i); the result was significantly misleading and required correction under Clause 1 (ii). While the Committee noted that the newspaper had amended the graph’s caption to make clear that the two data sets were plotted using different baselines, and had referenced this inaccuracy in a later article, this did not constitute a correction under the terms of Clause 1 (ii). It did not clearly identify the inaccuracy or set out the correct position, and was not sufficiently prominent as a single sentence in a longer article, which was not distinguished as a correction. There was a further breach of Clause 1 on this point.

42. Dr Bates had made clear in his blog and during the interview with the newspaper that he considered that the paper had been rushed, and deliberately timed to influence the Paris Climate Conference in order to make the maximum possible impact on world leaders. He had said that the NOAA had breached its own rules on scientific integrity, the paper had been sensational but flawed and that it had exaggerated global warming. He criticised the land and sea data sets, setting out the specific grounds for the concerns, and said that objections he had raised prior to the paper’s publication had been ignored.

43. These claims had been attributed to Dr Bates, based on his experience as a senior leader at the NOAA, and had been attributed in the article as such. The complainant disputed them. However, the newspaper was entitled to publish Dr Bates’ opinion regarding these issues, and it was not for the Committee to reconcile these conflicting positions. The Committee considered that the newspaper had reported Dr Bates’ testimony accurately in these respects; there had been no breach of the Code on these points.

44. It was a matter of scientific debate as to whether data from satellites of the lower atmosphere were relevant in the measurement of sea surface temperatures; whether sea surface temperature data taken from ships was reliable; or whether the differences between ERSSTv5 and ERSSTv4, highlighted in the draft methodology of ERSSTv5, would undermine the results of the Pausebuster paper. It was not for the Committee to reconcile these conflicting positions.

45. The newspaper was further entitled to comment on the context and potential implications of Dr Bates’ allegations: to draw comparisons with previous “scandals” within the scientific community; to comment on the wider implications for other scientists and climate policy; and to report on political reaction to the claims. There had been no breach of the Code on these points.

Conclusions

46. The complaint was upheld.

Remedial Action required

47. Having upheld the complaint under Clause 1, the Committee considered what remedial action should be required.

48. The breach of the Code established by the Committee was sufficiently serious that the appropriate remedial action was the publication of an adverse adjudication, as opposed to a correction.

49. As the inaccurate information had appeared on page 10, 11 and 12 of the print edition, the Committee required the newspaper to publish the adjudication on page 10 or further forward.

50. The wording of the headline to the adjudication should be agreed with IPSO in advance, or in the absence of agreement, as determined by the Complaints Committee. It should refer to IPSO, include the title of the newspaper, make clear that the complaint was upheld, and refer to the subject matter. The placement on the page, and the prominence, including font size, of the adjudication must also be agreed with IPSO in advance.

51. The adjudication should also be published on the newspaper’s website, with a link to the full adjudication appearing on the top half of the homepage for 24 hours; it should then be archived in the usual way.

52. The terms of the adjudication to be published are as follows:

Following an article published on 5 February 2017 in the Mail on Sunday, headlined “EXPOSED How world leaders were duped over global warming”, Bob Ward complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that the newspaper had breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice. IPSO upheld the complaint and has required the Mail on Sunday to publish this decision as a remedy to the breach.

The article reported on claims made by Dr John Bates, a climate scientist formerly employed at the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), about a paper published in the journal Science that suggested that there had been no “pause” in global warming in the 2000s. Dr Bates had published a blog criticising the way the data used for the paper had been analysed and archived. The article detailed at length Dr Bates’ concerns with the data; it then characterised them as demonstrating “irrefutable evidence” that the paper had been based upon “misleading, unverified data”.

The article was illustrated with a graph. It plotted a red line, described as “the ‘adjusted’ and unreliable sea data cited in the flawed ‘Pausebuster’ paper”, and a blue line, described as “the UK Met Office’s independently verified record”, which it said “showed lower monthly readings and a shallower recent warming trend”. A note at the base of the graph stated that “0 represents 14°C”.

The complainant said that the significance of Dr Bates’ concerns about the archiving procedures had been misrepresented in the article, and the newspaper had taken no steps to establish the veracity of Dr Bates’ claims. World leaders had not been “duped”, as the headline said, and there was no “irrefutable evidence” that the paper was based on “misleading, unverified data”, as the article had claimed.

The newspaper said that Dr Bates had shown it examples of both fully archived climate data and the less detailed version used for the paper; putting raw data on a website is not the same thing as full data archiving; therefore the evidence that the paper’s data was unverified and misleading, was “irrefutable”.

The Committee emphasised that its central concern was whether the article had accurately reported Dr Bates’ concerns. It decided that the newspaper’s claims that Dr Bates’ testimony had provided “irrefutable evidence” that the paper had been based on “misleading, ‘unverified’ data”, leading – as the headline claimed – to world leaders being “duped” over global warming, and “convinced” to invest billions in climate change, went much further than the concerns which Dr Bates had detailed in his blog or in the interview; they did not represent criticisms of the data collection process, but rather, were assertions of fact that the data had been demonstrated conclusively to be wrong and had a significant impact on the decision making of world leaders, with an additional implication this had been part of a wilful attempt to deceive.

The article claimed that because of the NOAA’s “failure to ’archive’” the data, “its results can never be verified”. The Committee did not consider that the article had made sufficiently clear that the failure to archive, had been a failure to archive the data through a particular method, and that the data had been made publicly available. In characterising Dr Bates’ claims in this way the newspaper had failed to take care over the accuracy of the article, in breach of Clause 1 (i) and had then failed to correct these significantly misleading statements, in breach of Clause 1 (ii).

The graph which accompanied the article had provided a visual illustration of the newspaper’s contention regarding the difference between the “flawed” NOAA data and other, “verified”, data. The newspaper’s failure to plot the lines correctly represented a breach of Clause 1 (i), and there had been a further failure to correct the significantly misleading impression created as a result. There was a further breach of Clause 1 on this point.

Date complaint received: 07/02/2017
Date decision issued: 07/07/2017