01382-24 TCG Medical Services & Gordon v liverpoolecho.co.uk

Summary of Complaint

1. TCG Medical Services and Derek Gordon complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that liverpoolecho.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Nurses suffering 'sleepless nights' want to know where their money is”, published on 12 March 2024.

2. The article – which appeared online only - appeared under the sub-headline: “Nurses had money deducted from their payslips but say nothing has been paid into their pension accounts”. It opened by reporting: “Two nurses say they were shocked to discover thousands of pounds had not been paid by their employer to their pensions provider. [Nurse A] and [Nurse B] both worked for TCG Medical Services - a private company contracted to manage the day-to-day operations of a GP Practice in Sefton. Each month, hundreds of pounds were deducted from their salaries for pension contributions. They claim to have asked for these contributions to be paid into National Employment Savings Trust (NEST) accounts, but after they left TCG they found out the money had not been transferred”.

3. Further, the article reported: “In December last year NEST informed [Nurse A], who worked at TCG’s North Park practice in Bootle, they had reported the lack of payments into her account to The Pensions Regulator (TPR). The regulator does not comment on individual cases so it is not known what happened as a result of the referral. A representative of TCG said in a statement that [Nurse B’s] situation had been 'resolved'. [Nurse B], who said she was made redundant in October 2023, says her claim is far from 'resolved'. The TCG representative also stated: "I confirm that [Nurse A’s] pension contributions were all correctly returned and paid to the NEST account associated with North Park Health Centre.”

4. Subsequently, the article reported: “[Nurse A] and [Nurse B] understood TCG Medical were obligated to pay an employer contribution as well as any deduction made from their individual salary into their NEST accounts, but claim this did not happen”. Following this, it reported a number of quotes from the nurses:

“[Nurse B] said: "I only realised what had happened when I received an email from NEST pensions asking me to log in and confirm who to leave money to when I die. I logged in to find no payments into my account since 2019." Like [Nurse A], [Nurse B] has worked for the NHS for most of her working life and feels 'honoured' and 'proud' to dedicate her life to a profession she loves. She said: “The stress and sleepless nights I have had has been horrendous "When I contacted NEST, they said they had no contact from TCG and could not tell me where my money is.".  

In a letter sent in December 2023 and seen by the ECHO, NEST detailed their response after no payments were received into [Nurse A’s] pensions account for a number of months. The letter states: "This is to let you know that we've reported your employer to The Pensions Regulator (TPR). “We've done this because TCG Group either haven't paid contributions to Nest on time or failed to notify us that contributions weren't due to be paid. This breached their legal duty as an employer.”

5. Further to this, the article reported:

In a statement, the TCG representative said: "North Park's NEST account was locked out by the incoming healthcare provider and we have tried to re-establish access to the account to enable us to close off former employees’ statements but we have not received any response.  

“There were then two options to resolve this matter. The first was to create a new NEST account.  

"The second was to pay an amount equivalent to the total of employee's and employer's contributions to [Nurse A’s] to enable her to pay it into a private pension fund of her own choice, or she could request that I do that for her. She was offered each of the options but has not responded to confirm which is her preferred option.”

6. Finally, it added: “[Nurse A] claims she did respond to make clear she wanted the money to be paid into her NEST account”.

7. Prior to the publication of the article, the publication contacted TCG Medical Services and Mr Gordon, requesting comment on the story. Extracts of their email read as follows:

“They claim pension deductions were taken from their salary but no payment was ever made to their pension provider.

[…]

Did TCH Medical Services [sic] deduct pension contributions from [Nurse A’s] salary without sending that contribution to Nest?

If so, why did TCG Medical Services never make a payment into [Nurse A’s] Nest pension?

If no payments were made to Nest, where did the money go from the deducted salary?

What is your response to being referred to the pension regulator?

Have you made or attempted to make direct cash payments into this person's bank account to make up for any owed pension contributions not paid to Nest.”

8. On February 28, prior to the article’s publication, the publication initially received a response from the St Marks Medical Centre, extracts of which reads as follows:

Mr. Gordon is currently unavailable […], but he has said he will respond to your email in detail next week and provide you with all the details relevant to NEST query.

[A named individual from TCG Medical Services] is currently out of the country and his correct email is [email address].

However I am able to respond to your queries having spoken to Mr. Gordon on the phone. [Nurse A’s] pensions have all been paid into the NEST account associated with North Park. The total amount paid for employers and employees contributions is less than £950.

The incoming provider has locked the account, so Mr. Gordon has been unable to close off the pension accounts which would have brought her statement up to date.

He has created a new account and is waiting for it to be reconciled with the old account by NEST so he can complete her statement. The money is still with NEST.

As an alternative [Nurse A] has been offered to be paid back any amounts deducted along with employers contribution so she can put it in her pension account of her choice by Mr. Gordon, if she is in a rush to get this sorted, who is looking after any funds left over from the old TCG. This is because the NEST reconciliation is taking longer than expected and the new providers are quite hard to reach.

Mr. Gordon has confirmed the same with pensions regulator and they have closed the enquiry.

There is no formal complaint from [Nurse A], and she has to wait until this matter is resolved, which Mr. Gordon will be happy to do.

I believe you have also queried about [Nurse B] and I have been informed by Mr Gordon that matter was duly resolved and Mr. Gordon will further respond to you on this as well when he is back next week”.

9. On 28 February, and on 4 March, again prior to the article’s publication, Mr Gordon responded to the publication. His email on 28 February stated:

“Your email has been forwarded to me by [a named individual from TCG Medical Services] as I dealt with pensions for North Park Health Centre”.

[…]

I can conform [sic] [Nurse A’s] pensions was correctly deducted and paid into NEST, but the account has been locked by the incoming providers, thereby leaving no access to close of pension accounts. I have created a new NEST account, and am waiting for the old one to be reconciled. As an alternative [Nurse A] (if she has been in a rush) has been offered to be paid any deducted amounts, along with employers contributions (the total is less than £950) so she can put it in her pensions account […] I have spoken to pension regulator and they have closed the enquiry based on the above information”.  

10. Also, on 4 March, he added:

“I confirm that [Nurse A’s] pension contributions were all correctly returned and paid to the NEST account associated with North Park Health Centre. NEST is a private pension provider whereas NHS employees' pensions are usually managed by NHS Pensions. This makes management of this situation slightly more complicated.  

North Park's NEST account was locked out by the incoming healthcare provider and we have tried to re-establish access to the account to enable us to close off former employees statements but we have not received any response. There were then two options to resolve this matter. The first was to create a new NEST account. The second was to pay an amount equivalent to the total of employee's and employer's contributions to [Nurse A] to enable her to pay it into a private pension fund of her own choice, or she could request that I do that for her. She was offered each of the options but has not responded to confirm which is her preferred option.  

[…]  

I confirm that the employee raised a payroll query in accordance with 1 above and that no further escalation took place. Therefore it appears that she is still looking to resolve the matter and it is therefore currently being dealt with.  

You also raised a query about [Nurse B], who is still an active employee. Her query has been resolved.”

11. In response, on 4 March, the publication stated:

“can you pls clarify between paragraph 1 and 2  

Paragraph 1 seems like your saying all [Nurse A’s] pension contributions were paid ito NEST - do you mean her Nest account or some other account associated with the practice.  

In terms of paragraph 2 - if payments had been paid to [Nurse A’s] Nest account (paragraph 1), what are the outstanding payments you have offered to make and which account do they relate to.” [sic]

12. The publication did not receive a response.

13. On 17 March, following the publication of the article, the complainants complained directly to the publication. They subsequently emailed them again on 19 March, and 20 March. No response was received at that time and on 1 April, they complained to IPSO.

14. The complainants stated that the article was inaccurate, in breach of Clause 1, because it alleged that the nurses’ pensions were missing and had not been paid. They stated that this was not the case – both nurses’ pension contributions had been fully paid and, they said, the publication were aware of this prior to the publication of the article, given the emails exchanged. The complainants noted that the pension contributions may have not been allocated properly to the nurses pension accounts due to “technical reasons”, nevertheless, they had been paid and no amount was missing at any time.

15. In support of their position, the complainants supplied statements of NEST payments made from June 2023 – December 2023 for Nurse A. The statements showed monthly payments, the status of which was listed as “Payment received by NEST”. The complainants also supplied a 2022 Payments Summary, and a 2023 Payments Summary, for Nurse B, the status of which was also marked: “Payment received by NEST”.

16. The complainants noted that Nurse B had had an open tribunal claim against them on the basis of non-payment of pensions until February 2024. However, this had been withdrawn - they supplied an email dated 26 February, in which she stated: “Further to my submission requesting an employment tribunal for monies owing me, I am very happy to [say] they have now corrected their wrong doings and therefore I would like [to] cancel the request for an employment tribunal”. The complainants also added that it was aware Nurse A had last logged into her NEST account on 6 March. They said, therefore, that this demonstrated that both nurses would have known their pensions were up to date prior to the article’s publication on 12 March.

17. On 12 April, IPSO made the publication aware that the complaint raised a possible breach of the Editors’ Code. On the same day, the publication contacted the complainants, citing the complainants’ email of 19 March, sent directly to the publication.

18. The publication did not accept a breach of the Editors’ Code. It stated, firstly, that the article was reporting on an ongoing dispute between two parties, and was clearly based on the accounts of the nurses. It noted that the Editors’ Code requires publications to distinguish between comment, conjecture and fact, and said it was satisfied it had done so. It also said it was satisfied the article was accurate “based on the evidence provided to it”, and it noted that the complainants’ position was contained within the article.

19. Further, it stated that, prior to publication, the complainants had confirmed to its reporter that the pension contributions could not be paid to the nurses’ personal pension accounts due to an “account lock” being put in place.

20. Although the publication did not accept a breach of the Code, it offered to amend the following statement in the article from: “Two nurses say they were shocked to discover thousands of pounds had not been paid by their employer to their pensions provider”, to read: ““Two nurses say they were shocked to discover thousands of pounds had not been paid by their employer to their pensions accounts.” It also stated that it was happy to update the article to include the following footnote: “UPDATE: We understand that the pensions contributions have now been received by the nurses into their NEST accounts”.

21. On 18 April, the publication replied to IPSO, acknowledging it had received the complaint. It asked for confirmation that both complainants were pursuing a complaint via IPSO, and not via other means. It also reattached its response it had sent to the complainants directly, as set out above.

22. The complainants stated that both were pursuing an IPSO complaint, and replied in full on 22 April. They stated that the article conveyed a clear meaning, and was written as fact – that the publication had verified the authenticity of the nurses’ statements, and that their pensions had not been paid. They referred to their email of 4 March prior to the publication of the article which confirmed that the pensions had been paid to the pension provider. Additionally, it said the “lock” was placed on North Park’s NEST account, and was a reference to a temporary inability to access information due to an incoming pension provider – it was not related to matters of payment, just the ability to access information within the system.

23. Further, the complainants complained that the publication had not contacted TCG Medical Services prior to the article’s publication. They said the response the publication received prior was from the Medical Centre, and then from Mr Gordon – neither party were writing on behalf of TCG Medical Services, and they said it was wrong to “muddy the name of an organisation by using information from individuals that do not represent that organisation”.

24. Before responding, the publication wrote to the complainants, on 30 April, again asking for confirmation that both were pursuing the complaint through IPSO, and not via other means. Final confirmation was supplied on the same day, and on 2 May, the publication provided a substantive response.

25. The publication stated that the article did not report that TCG Medical Services had not paid the pension contributions – rather, it said, the article reported that the nurses had not received money into their “accounts”. It said the article referred, seven times, to the money not being paid into the nurses’ individual accounts. It noted one reference to the contributions not being paid to the “pension provider” and, on 2 May, it actioned the amendment to the article it had previously proposed to address this. On the same day it also added the following wording as a footnote to the article:

A previous version of this article stated in one sentence that two nurses said they were shocked to discover thousands of pounds had not been paid by their employer to their pensions provider. This sentence has now been amended to clarify that the nurses in fact stated that the money had not been paid into their pensions accounts, as detailed in the other references in the article. We also understand that the pensions contributions have now been received by the nurses into their NEST accounts.

26. Further, the publication noted that the article referred to a TCG Medical Services’ “representative”, who had supplied the comments reported in the article. It noted that Mr Gordon had replied to its initial email – Mr Gordon’s email had opened with: “Your email has been forwarded to me by [a named individual from TCG Medical Services] as I dealt with pensions for North Park Health Centre”. The publication said its journalist, therefore, had no reason to doubt that he was corresponding with the relevant individual from TCG Medical Services, and that the publication had been giving the complainants an appropriate right of reply. It also added that its journalist had requested further information from the complainants, in its email on 4 March, and this was not responded to – it could only, therefore, print the information it was supplied.

27. In response, the complainants maintained that the article was inaccurate, and also disputed the accuracy of the now-published footnote correction. They stated that the correction implied that the pension contributions were paid after the article was published, which they disputed, and said they had provided evidence in support of their version of events.

28. The complainants also maintained that both nurses knew the accounts were paid prior to publication. They supplied account closure emails they had received from NEST for each nurse, from 1 February and 1 March respectively, and stated that the nurses would have received similar emails, demonstrating that they knew their accounts were closed by 1 March.

29. During IPSO’s investigation, the publication supplied a number of documents it had received from the nurses. It also supplied extracts of its correspondence with the nurses who, it said, it had been in contact with for a number of weeks prior to the publication of the article.

30. Firstly, it provided three letters sent from NEST to Nurse A, which demonstrated NEST reporting TCG Medical Services to the Pensions Regulator for “non-payment” during the periods of 1 August – 31 August 2023, 1 October to 31 October 2023 and 1 November 2023 to 30 November 2023. It also supplied a screenshot from Nurse B’s NEST account, dated 21 February, which stated: “There have been no contributions between 21 January 2022 and 21 February 2024” (although it noted Nurse B was not employed by TCG Medical Services for the entirety of this period).

31. The publication supplied extracts of its correspondence with Nurse B. Regarding the complainants’ contention that her employment tribunal claim had been withdrawn, and her concerns resolved on 26 February, it supplied text messages between Nurse B and its reporter. Prior to the withdrawal of her claim, on 23 February, she texted the reporter stating that she had received a payment, but it did not match the money she believed she was owed.

32. On 29 February, after the withdrawal of her claim, she texted the reporter: “Just called Nest pensions to triple confirm if TCG have tried to set up account !! and guess what no! Apparently very easy to set up etc etc !!”. On 5 March, she texted the reporter: “so I’ve had nothing off them today and nil in pension”. On 6 March, she then texted the reporter saying that there was “no money in my pension today”. On 7 March, she texted saying “They’ve opened a new nest account despite already having one”, and then in a second message “Just spoke with nest nil in new account or showing as pending”. On 8 March, she stated: “Not a penny in. Apparently will be unable to see if anything if paid until 17.4.24” – which was after the publication of the article.

33. On 12 March, the same day albeit after the publication of the article, Nurse B texted the reporter a quote from an email she said she had sent to the complainants: “I understand from [Nurse A] that you have paid her missing pension and are able to prove it, can you please update me in the same respect as to how much you have paid to Nest and proof of date sent”. Finally, on 20 March, Nurse B texted the reporter: “yes the payments went in on the 12th March … although they are dated 8th March”.

34. The publication stated that it was unclear whether the contributions had been received before or after the exact hour of publication – nevertheless, it said, this was irrelevant; the money should have been paid monthly, and it was entitled to report a story of non-payment spanning several months.

35. The publication also supplied correspondence between its reporter and Nurse A. On 5 March, she received an account closure email from NEST. It stated: “You're no longer contributing to Nest through your employer TCG Group told us that there are no further contributions due from them”. Also on 5 March, she texted the reporter: “I have checked my NEST account today and there are no contributions from TCG”. Further, on 6 March, she stated: “I had two emails yesterday [from the complainants] said my money has been paid in but nothing has registered yet”. The following date, on 7 March, she texted the reporter: “I’ve check against this morning no money in my NEST account … I’m going to give NEST a call later to see if anything is pending”. She later texted: “I’ve rang NEST… there are no pending payments they can see”.

36. Finally, the publication disputed the complainants’ contention that the correction implied that the payment was corrected following the article’s publication. It said the footnote was correct and reported that the contributions had “now been received” which, it said, was not inaccurate, given the nurses’ claims, and subsequent messages demonstrating when they had received payment, which had been sent to the journalist after the article’s publication.

37. In response, the complainants stated that Mr Gordon had had issues accessing the North Park NEST account between September and December 2023 due to an incoming pension provider which had blocked his access. He had therefore created a new NEST account, and paid anything outstanding to said account. The complainants said, therefore, that the NEST emails reporting TCG Medical Services to The Pension Regulator pertained to the previous account and were auto generated, and that the nurses had needed to “wait until NEST had resolved the payments and correctly allocated them”.

38. Regarding the text messages sent by Nurse B on 6, 7 and 8 March, that following her withdrawal of her tribunal claim she had not been paid, the complainants stated that this was “false” information, and noted again her email withdrawing her tribunal claim, which predated these texts, as confirmation that her issues had been resolved.

39. Further, the complainants pointed to the text message in which Nurse B stated: “yes the payments went in on the 12th March … although they are dated 8th March”. They said that they assumed this message was sent on 12 March, and that this demonstrated that that the newspaper knew prior to publication that the matter had been resolved, and the article would therefore be false. They also added that Nurse A’s account closure email was “hard evidence” of all payments being complete because at this point – they said – all pensions would be allocated to the individual.

40. The complainants also stated that Mr Gordon never received the publication’s email on 4 March.

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

41. The Committee emphasised, firstly, that it was not making a finding as to whether the nurses had been paid their pension contributions. The article clearly formed part of an ongoing dispute between the two parties, and it was not its position to rule on the validity of the nurses’ claims against the complainants. Its role was to consider the article, the information provided to it, and decide whether there had been a breach of the Editors’ Code.

42. The Committee noted that the article clearly reported that the nurses claimed they had not received their pension contributions – it did not report, as fact, that they had not been paid their contributions. The Code is clear that comment and conjecture, and indeed the claims and statements of individuals, can be reported, provided they are distinguished as such. This was the case throughout, for example: “Nurses had money deducted from their payslips but say nothing has been paid into their pension accounts” and “Two nurses say they were shocked to discover thousands of pounds had not been paid”. It also reported direct quotes from the nurses, further making clear that the article was based on their claims. In light of this, the Committee was satisfied that the publication had presented the claims as such, in line with the requirements of Clause 1(iv).

43. However, the Committee was clear that distinguishing information as claims may not necessarily absolve a publication of its other obligations under Clause 1. The Committee therefore turned to whether the publication had taken care over the accuracy of the article, and whether, in reporting the nurses’ claims, it had reported any significantly inaccurate or misleading information. Bar one reference to the nurses’ “pensions provider”, the article otherwise reported that the contributions had not been paid to the nurses’ “pension accounts”.

44. The Committee took into account the information supplied by the complainants, including bank statements which covered a period of months, with a status marked as “Payment received by NEST”. However, in the Committee’s view, the bank statements did not demonstrate that the nurses had received their pension contributions into their personal pension accounts – they demonstrated that payments had been made by the complainant to the pension provider, from where they would then be allocated to the nurses. Indeed, the complainants themselves had noted that there may have been issues with the “allocation” of the contributions.

45. The Committee also took into account the correspondence between the publication and the nurses. The complainants had contended that, from this correspondence, the publication were aware prior to publication that the nurses’ contributions had now been received. The complainants had also stated that the nurses’ texts were “false” information, and that, from Nurse B withdrawing her tribunal claim and Nurse A’s account closure email – the nurses would have known their contributions had been paid.

46. The Committee did not accept this. The complainants were not in a position to state what the nurses did, or did not, know about the contributions. From the contemporaneous text messages, the publication had been informed that, while Nurse B had withdrawn her tribunal claim on 26 February, she had still not received payment until 12 March, which she informed the publication of on 20 March, after publication of the article.

47. Similarly, the publication was not alerted that Nurse A had been paid until Nurse B’s text on 12 March, which stated: “I understand from Nurse A that you have paid her missing pension”. It appeared, therefore, that the publication had not been informed until 12 March – the same day the article was published, albeit after publication - that one of the nurses had received their contributions. In any event, the Committee did not consider this material to the article’s accuracy; the thrust of the article reported the nurses’ claims that they had not received their contributions over a period of time. The article had also been updated to address this point.

48. The Committee understood the complainants’ view that the contributions had been paid. However, it recognised that the article was clearly based on an ongoing, complex dispute, and that the complainants accepted that there had been technical difficulties. It also recognised that the publication had given the complainants a right to reply, and the article made clear their position that one of the nurses’ concerns had been “resolved”, and, regarding the other, that: “I confirm that [Nurse A’s] pension contributions were all correctly returned and paid to the NEST account associated with North Park Health Centre”.

49. Taking all of the above into account, the Committee was satisfied that the publication had taken care over the accuracy of the article where it reported that the payments had not been made, or the contributions not paid into, the nurses’ “accounts”. The article made clear these were claims, it reported the complainants’ response, and, in the Committee’s view, the information put forward by both parties had not demonstrated, definitively, that the claims were inaccurate. There was no breach of Clause 1(i) or (ii) on this point.

50. However, the Committee did note that the article had, in one instance, reported that the contributions had not been paid to the “pension provider”. In the Committee’s view, this statement was inaccurate – the complainants had provided evidence that the pension contributions had, at the least, been received by NEST. The publication had therefore not taken due care over this statement, and this was a breach of Clause 1(i). Where the statement suggested the complainants could have failed their legal obligations as employers, and in light of the reputational implications such as statement could have, this was significantly inaccurate, and in need of correction as per the terms of Clause 1(ii).

51. First, the Committee considered whether the correction was offered with due promptness. The publication had offered to amend the article 26 days after the complainants had complained directly – it had not, however, offered a footnote correction addressing this amendment. Subsequently, it amended the article, and published a correction, another 20 days later.

52. This was 20 days after IPSO informed the publication that the complaint raised a possible breach of the Editors’ Code, and 46 days after the complainants’ initial direct complaint. However, the publication had written to the complainants to ensure that both were pursuing the complaint via IPSO’s process, and not via other methods - correspondence had been ongoing on this point. It received confirmation of this on 22 April, and again on 30 April, and the correction was published on 2 May.

53. In light of this, where 10 days passed between the publication receiving confirmation that both complainants were pursuing an IPSO complaint - on 22 April - and the correction being published on 2 May, and where the publication had initially offered an amendment and an update, albeit not a correction, the Committee were satisfied the correction was published with due promptness. Where the inaccuracy was removed from the text, and acknowledged via a footnote correction, the Committee was also satisfied that the correction was duly prominent.

54. It then turned to the wording of the correction. The Committee was satisfied that it corrected the record – it identified that the article had reported the nurses claimed the complainants had not paid their contributions to the “provider”, and corrected this to state that it had not been paid into their “accounts”. The Committee disagreed that the correction implied the complainants had paid the pension contributions following the article’s publication - it simply stated that the contributions have “now” been received, and it was not in dispute that the nurses had been paid contributions they had previously been missing. In all, the Committee was satisfied that the inaccuracy had been corrected in line with the publication’s requirements under Clause 1(ii); there was no breach of Clause 1(ii).

55. Further, the complainants had also expressed concerns that the article had inaccurately reported a statement from TCG Medical Services, which was made by an external party. The publication had contacted the complainants, and received a response from Mr Gordon – which opened: “Your email has been forwarded to me by [a named individual from TCG Medical Services] as I dealt with pensions for North Park Health Centre”. Mr Gordon had then gone on to respond to the publication’s questions, and provided information regarding the nurses’ pensions. In the Committee view, the article was not, therefore, inaccurate to report that a “representative” of TCG Medical Services had supplied comment. There was no breach of Clause 1.

Conclusions

56. The complaint was partly upheld.

Remedial action required

57. 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: 01/04/2024

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 30/08/2024