01688-25 Jackson v examinerlive.co.uk

Summary of Complaint

1. Graham Jackson complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that examinerlive.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “DWP handing out £196 payments after 'recognising they are vital'”, published on 11 April 2025.

2. The article – which appeared online only - reported on the Department for Work and Pensions’ (DWP) “new Carer's Allowance rate”. It opened by reporting that “[t]he Department for Work and Pensions is distributing £196 to thousands of individuals as part of a new Carer's Allowance rate.” It then reported on a statement from a DWP minister, in which he said that “from April 2025, the Government is boosting the Carer's Allowance earnings threshold by £45 a week to £196, benefitting more than 60,000 carers by 2029/30”.

3. The complainant said the headline of the article was inaccurate, as it said that the “DWP [was] handing out £196 payments”. He said that £196 was instead the maximum amount that a person who was claiming Carer’s Allowance could earn while working. The complainant said the article suggested the £196 was a “handout” which he did not consider to be the case.

4. During direct correspondence with the complainant, the publication accepted the article was inaccurate. It removed the article, and published the following wording as a standalone correction on 25 April 2025 - 9 days after the publication received the complaint, a link to which appeared on its homepage for 24 hours:

“DWP ‘£196 handout’ - A correction

An article published on 11 April was incorrectly headlined ‘DWP handing out £196 payments after 'recognising they are vital'’. We would like to make clear that £196 is in fact the highest amount carers can now earn per week in order to still receive the Carer’s Allowance Weekly Payment of £83.30, after DWP (Department for Work and Pensions) increased the weekly earnings limit for Carer’s Allowance. It was incorrect to report that this figure was a ‘handout. We are happy to clarify this and apologise for the error. The article has since been removed.”

5. The publication, on the question of the prominence of the correction, said it was not possible to publish full corrections on its homepage, due to technical limitations.

6. The complainant did not consider the action taken by the publication to be satisfactory; he said the correction was not duly prominent, and this therefore meant the inaccuracy was not sufficiently highlighted to the wider public or media community – particularly as he said the headline claim had been picked up and published elsewhere. The complainant believed that the correction should also be printed in the newspaper to remedy this.

7. During IPSO’s investigation, the publication acknowledged that the inaccuracy within the headline was significant. It said that prior to the publication of the article, it had relied on the following Carer’s UK press release:

“From 7 April 2025, working carers can earn up to £196 per week after certain deductions, the equivalent of 16 hours at the National Living Wage, and continue to claim Carer’s Allowance. This is an increase of £45 compared to the previous earnings threshold of £151”.

8. The publication said that the error within the headline was a “human error” and believed this to be a misunderstanding of the figures. It had no further explanation for how this error had occurred.

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

9. The Committee first considered whether it was inaccurate to report that the “DWP [was] handing out £196 payments”. Both parties accepted that this claim was inaccurate, as this figure was the maximum amount that a person who was claiming Carer’s Allowance could earn while working. Therefore, this was not an additional payment, or a “handout” as had been reported by the article. As the article was inaccurate on this point, the Committee turned next to the question of whether the inaccuracy had arisen due to a lack of care taken prior to publication of the article.

10. The Committee noted that the publication had relied on the Carers UK press release, which said that “working carers can earn up to £196 per week after certain deductions”. The press release did not at any point say that payments of £196 were being made to carers, and clearly set out that it was reporting on an increase in the Carer’s Allowance Threshold rate. In addition, the headline and article’s opening were contradicted by the statement from the DWP minister included in the article, which clearly set out that there would be an increase in the threshold rate. Given that the publication had sight of the press release prior to publication of the article, the press release clearly contradicted the publication’s headline, and the article itself was clearly inconsistent, the Committee did not consider the publication had taken care not to publish inaccurate information. Therefore, there was a breach of Clause 1 (i).

11. The Committee considered that the inaccuracy had the clear potential to mislead readers on a matter of public importance – additional payments made to people who receive Carer’s Allowance. The Committee therefore considered the article to be significantly inaccurate on this point, and a correction was required under Clause 1 (ii).

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

13. The correction was published on 25 April, and was a standalone correction, that was linked to on the publication’s homepage for 24 hours. The Committee was mindful of the complainant’s position regarding the inaccuracy not being sufficiently highlighted to the wider public or media community due to the placement of the correction.

14. While the Committee did not consider that it would be proportionate to require the newspaper to publish the correction in print – given the original inaccuracy had not been published in print – it was mindful of the significantly inaccurate nature of the headline, and the fact that it related to a matter in the public interest: additional payments made to those who receive Carer’s Allowance. It considered, therefore, that there was a public interest in ensuring that the correction was published in as visible a location as was reasonably possible. In addition, the Committee noted that the publication had not been able to set out any steps it had taken to ensure its coverage – which was on a matter of public interest and debate - was accurate. Taking into account both the public interest in remedying the breach, and the facts of the case that had led to the breach, the Committee did not consider that simply linking to the correction on the home page – and not taking any further steps to ensure its visibility and prominence - was duly prominent. There was therefore a breach of 1 (ii) in relation to the prominence of the correction.

15. Notwithstanding this, the Committee wished to be clear that it was satisfied with the wording of the published correction and the promptness of its publication. The Committee considered the wording sufficiently addressed the inaccuracy in relation to the DWP “handing out” payments of £196 to carers – it had set out the original inaccuracy as well as the correct position. The correction had been published on 25 April, 9 days after it had received the complaint – which the Committee deemed sufficiently prompt. Overall, there was a breach of Clause 1 (ii) regarding the prominence of the correction.

Conclusions

16. The complaint was upheld under Clause 1 (i) and Clause 1 (ii).

Remedial action required

17. 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.

18. The Committee considered that the headline was significantly inaccurate– carers were not receiving “handouts” of £196. The Committee was mindful that the article had appeared online only and that this had since been removed, and that a correction had already been published. The Committee was also mindful that the publication had said it would not be possible to publish the full correction wording on the homepage itself..

19. However, the claim had appeared prominently within the headline, and the publication was not able to set out how the error had occurred. In addition, the Committee considered there was a public interest in the correction being published in a visible location as reasonably possible. Therefore, the Committee reached the decision that the newspaper should republish the link to the correction on the publication’s home-page, under a new title which makes clear that the publication has been required to publish a correction following an upheld IPSO complaint.

20. The Committee then considered the placement of this link.

21. In light of the factors listed above, a link to the correction should be published on the top-half homepage for 24 hours before being archived in the usual way.

Date complaint received: 12/04/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 27/06/2025