01847-25 Tice v dailyrecord.co.uk

Summary of Complaint

1. Richard Tice complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that dailyrecord.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in: an article headlined “British Steel closed North East site after rent hike threat from Richard Tice's company”, published on 12 April 2025; and an accompanying X post which read: “British Steel closed North East site after rent hike threat from Richard Tice’s company”.

2. The article – which appeared online only - reported on the complainant’s company, Quidnet Reit Ltd, and its relationship to British Steel. It reported: “British Steel has scaled back its presence in the North East following threats from Reform UK’s Richard Tice’s company to raise the rent at their site.” It added: “[r]ecently, the Boston and Skegness MP has been a vocal proponent of government intervention for British Steel, advocating for the nationalisation of the struggling Scunthorpe plant.” It then reported:

“However, the deputy leader of Reform is also serving as a director of Quidnet REIT, which acquired the British Steel site in Darlington in 2022. The property firm noted the acquisition as an ‘opportunity to improve the rental income for this asset’. Moreover, the company indicated that the purchase of the 7.48-acre site could pave the way ‘either to relet British Steel at a higher rent, or to refurbish and reprofile into much smaller units to let at much higher rents’. Following these developments, British Steel announced the subsequent year its decision to relocate to Skinningrove”.

3. The article also said: “British Steel clarified at the time that all employees from the Darlington site would be offered positions at Skinningrove, stressing the firm’s intention to enhance efficiency by reducing material transportation between the two locations. They declared: ‘The new Skinningrove facility will replace the services currently offered at the company’s site in Darlington, which stores and cuts profiles to customer requirements.’”

4. The article closed by stating that the complainant had ”dismissed certain claims, adding: ‘It’s completely untrue that the site shut down because of rent’”.

5. The complainant complained to the newspaper on 13 April.

6. On 13 April the publication removed the article and X post while it investigated the complainant’s concerns.

7. The complainant said that the article and X post were inaccurate in breach of Clause 1, as they claimed he had caused the closure of British Steel's Darlington premises due to "threats" his company had made to increase the rent.

8. The complainant said there was never any threat by him or his company to raise the rent of the Darlington site. He said British Steel had, in 2021, publicly taken the decision to vacate the Darlington site in favour of a new site being developed at Skinningrove – and it had reached the decision before the complainant’s company had acquired the Darlington site in 2022. He said that omitting the date the decision to move had been reached rendered the headline and article inaccurate, given the decision had been made prior to the complainant’s company acquiring the site.

9. The complainant provided a link to an announcement British Steel had made in 2021. It said: "The new Skinningrove facility will replace the services currently offered at the company’s site in Darlington, which stores and cuts profiles to customer requirements. […] Moving our operations from Darlington to Skinningrove and expanding our processing capabilities brings logistical, cost and environmental benefits as we’ll no longer be transporting material between these 2 locations’".

10. The complainant said that - at the time the Darlington premises was acquired by Quidnet Reit in Spring 2022 – British Steel were planning to vacate either at the end of their lease in February 2025, or earlier in February 2024 if their new premises at Skinningrove were ready. He said British Steel ultimately chose to leave in February 2024. Further, under the lease, the rent was fixed until its expiry. He said there was never any discussion or suggestion of a new lease beyond February 2025, and therefore no discussion about new rent rates.

11. The complainant said the journalist approached his office for comment via WhatsApp, prior to the article’s publication. He said the reporter was told unequivocally that the claim about the rent was false and the reasons why.

12. The complainant provided the correspondence to IPSO. In this correspondence, the journalist put the following claims to the complainant:

• Quidnet REIT acquired British Steel’s site in Darlington in 2022;

• It was an opportunity “either to relet to British Steel at a higher rent, or to refurbish and reprofile into much smaller units to let at much higher rents”;

• It was “let to British Steel for just under three years, with a break clause a year earlier” and that options for the property included to “relet to British Steel at a higher rent”;

• A year later, British Steel shut down the facility “streamlining” their operations to make “efficiencies” – and moving operations to the existing site in Skinningrove.

The complainant responded as follows, with the link to British Steel’s announcement from 2021:

“It’s completely untrue that the site shut down because of rent. British Steel decided to invest elsewhere with a brand new facility at one of their existing facilities in Skillingrove – enabling them to achieve full integration with their upstream and downstream processes.”

13. The complainant said his denial of the allegation, which was included at the end of the article, did not remedy the inaccurate information. He said that the denial would be taken “with a pinch of salt”, given the confident manner in which the headline and “rent hike threat” claims were made, and the fact that the denial came at the very end of the article. The complainant added that the X post would likely have been seen in isolation by many readers, who would not have clicked through to the article – and therefore would only have had sight of the inaccurate headline. This, he said, would likely have caused serious harm to his reputation.

14. The complainant added that the article implied he was a hypocrite by reporting that he championed the interests of British Steel and criticised the Government, while also being personally responsible for the closure of British Steel’s Darlington site and any resulting job losses.

15. On 30 May – 47 days after it was first made aware of the complainant’s concerns, and 17 days after IPSO made it aware of the complaint – the publication said that the headlines may have suggested that the British Steel site closed because of a threatened rent hike. It published the following standalone correction which was linked to on the homepage for 24 hours:

“In an article titled ‘British Steel closed North East site after rent hike threat from Richard Tice's company’ published on 12 April 2025, we stated that the Darlington site closed after Mr Tice’s firm threatened to increase rent for the site. We would like to clarify that British Steel had announced the relocation of operations from that site to Skinningrove in 2021, before the firm became the landlord at Darlington. We apologise for the confusion and are happy to set the record straight.”

It also confirmed it had published a link to the standalone correction on X.

15. The publication did not contact British Steel for its comment prior to the article’s publication. However, it said that a reporter contacted the complainant’s office for comment – as detailed above - and his rebuttal was published in the article.

16. The publication did not consider the article suggested the complainant was a hypocrite. It said the complainant was not an MP at the time Quidnet Reit threatened the rent increase, and that his position as a company director prior was not comparable to his position as an MP. It also said the article reported he had taken positive steps to support the saving of Scunthorpe British Steel.

17. The publication said the article did not claim that there was a causal link between the complainant’s acquisition of the Darlington site and the decision by British Steel to close it. It said the article did not state that the site closed “because of” or “due to” the threat of the rent hike, but rather that it closed “after” the threat, which the publication said was chronologically accurate. It said this phrasing was a conscious editorial choice, taking into account the rebuttal provided by the complainant’s assistant. It also noted that the article and X post had been removed, and corrections published on 30 May, as it accepted that the headlines may have suggested that the British Steel site closed because of the threat of a rent hike.

18. In support of the article’s characterisation of a “rent hike threat”, the publication provided a trading update from Quidnet Reit in March 2022. It stated:

“[T]he Company has exchanged to buy a large property of 7.48 acres with 156,319sq ft, let to British Steel for just under three years, with a break clause a year earlier. There are multiple options for the property, either to relet to British Steel at a higher rent, or to refurbish and reprofile into much smaller units to let at much higher rents. It could also be suitable for residential redevelopment, since it already had an existing consent in 2013 which was allowed to lapse in 2016.”

19. The complainant did not consider the correction to be adequate. He first pointed out that it did not apologise to him directly. He also considered the corrections did not go far enough in acknowledging that the headline was inaccurate. He said the headlines clearly claimed that the rent hike was the cause of the closure.

20. The complainant said the publication’s claim that the site’s closure followed the “threat” in chronological terms had no basis in fact. He said the March 2022 trading update did not constitute a threat towards British Steel – it was a statement made to its own company's investors. At any rate, the option or reletting to British Steel at a higher rent never arose because British Steel did not renew the lease – having announced it was moving operations to Skinningrove and that the Darlington site would close. He said the publication’s reliance on the update did not excuse the lack of research after being told the true position by his office.

21. The publication said it was satisfied that announcing publicly to the market that the company wanted to raise the rent could be described as a “rent hike threat”. It said a “threat” could be described as an “unwanted possibility”, which would have been the case in this instance.

22. The publication said the standalone corrections were published to clarify the headline, rather than to correct a significant, damaging error. It therefore considered the published apology sufficient, albeit it was not directed specifically towards the complainant.

23. During IPSO’s investigation, the complainant said that the publication appeared to be aware of the reporting in 2021 regarding British Steel’s position as the article included the following: ”The new Skinningrove facility will replace the services currently offered at the company's site in Darlington which stores and cuts profiles to customer requirements". It said this was a similar phrasing to an article published in 2021. Therefore, he said that the newspaper had researched previous reporting on the subject and therefore knew the correct position. He speculated that the reporter intentionally published inaccurate information.

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

24. The Committee first considered the claim – made in both the headline and the X post – that “British Steel closed [the] site after rent hike threat from Richard Tice's company”. The publication had argued the headline was chronologically accurate – the site had closed after British Steel had threatened a rent hike. It had also said it did not accept that the article reported there was a causal link between Quidnet Reit’s acquisition of the Darlington site and the decision by British Steel to close.

25. The Committee first considered the term “threat”, and whether its use was inaccurate, misleading, or distorted. It noted that Quidnet Reit had publicly stated in 2022 - after acquiring the premises – that “[t]here are multiple options for the property” including “to relet to British Steel at a higher rent”. While the complainant disputed that this could be characterised as a threat, the Committee was content this characterisation was not inaccurate, particularly where the article quoted directly from Quidnet Reit public report – “the company indicated that the purchase of the 7.48-acre site could pave the way ‘either to relet British Steel at a higher rent’” - therefore making clear the basis upon which the characterisation was made.

26. However, the Committee noted that British Steel had announced the closure of the site and its move to Skinningrove in 2021 - which predated the “threat”. By stating that British Steel had closed the Darlington site after a rent hike threat, the Committee was of the view that this created the misleading impression that there was a causal link between the two.

27. The Committee also did not consider the inclusion of the complainant’s comment in the article was sufficient to negate such an impression – given the inaccuracy appeared prominently in the headline and X post and where the denial appeared at the very end of the article. The publication had therefore not taken care not to publish misleading information, given it was aware of the complainant’s denial and the correct position ahead of publication, and this was not reflected in the headline, opening of the article, and the X post. As such, there was a breach of Clause 1 (i) on this point.

28. The next question for the Committee was whether this was significantly misleading and therefore in need of a correction under the terms of Clause 1 (ii). The Committee considered that the article had attributed blame for the closure of the site to Quidnet Reit, and by extension the complainant. The Committee considered this to be a serious claim, given the closure could perhaps result in the loss of many jobs. The article had also stated the complainant had been “a vocal proponent of government intervention for British Steel, advocating for the nationalisation of the struggling Scunthorpe plant” which the complainant said portrayed him as hypocritical. The Committee considered the article gave the impression that the complainant had conflicting interests: on the one hand, a proponent for Government intervention to save the plant, and on the other having owned company which the article headline linked to its closure. As such, and taking into account the prominence of the misleading information, the Committee considered the inaccuracy was significant and required correction.

29. As the publication had published a correction, the next question for the Committee was whether it met the terms of Clause 1 (ii). The Committee was content that the wording of the correction corrected the record by setting out the correct position: that British Steel had announced the relocation of operations from that site to Skinningrove in 2021, before the complainant’s firm became the landlord at Darlington.

30. When considering whether the correction needed to apologise to the complainant directly, the Committee noted that the misleading information could potentially have a damaging impact on the complainant’s reputation – which may, in some circumstances, merit an apology, directed towards the affected party, in a correction. However, where the complainant’s denial was included in the article, the Committee was of the view that this served to mitigate the effect of the misleading information in the headline and article. For this reason, it did not consider the publication of an apology to the complainant was required. In any event, it noted that the published correction apologised for any confusion caused.

31. The article had been removed, and therefore the publication had published a standalone correction, which was linked on the homepage for 24 hours. The Committee was satisfied that the online correction was sufficiently prominent, given the original claim had appeared in the headline – therefore, a homepage link to the standalone correction was required.

32. The Committee next turned to the X post, and whether this had been corrected. The publication had removed the original misleading X post and published a link to the correction in a new X post. However, as the inaccurate claim had appeared in the X post itself, posting a link on X to a correction published elsewhere did not meet the requirements of due prominence. Given the original misleading information appeared on the publication’s X page, the Committee considered that the full wording of the correction should also appear on the X page, to meet Clause 1 (ii)’s requirement for due prominence.

33. Further, the corrections had been offered on 30 May, 47 days after the publication had been made aware of the alleged inaccuracies via a complaint. The Committee did not consider this was sufficiently prompt, particularly given the publication did not need to take any further steps to verify the information provided by the complainant. As such given the corrections were not offered with due promptness, and the inaccurate X post was not corrected in a duly prominent location - there was a breach of Clause 1 (ii).

Conclusions

34. The complaint was partly upheld under Clause 1.

Remedial action required

35. 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.

36. The Committee considered the headline of the article was significantly misleading. The misleading information had also appeared in an X post. It noted that the publication removed the article and X post the day it received the complaint. Further, the article had included the complainant’s position which made clear: “It’s completely untrue that the site shut down because of rent”. Therefore, on balance, the Committee considered that the publication of two corrections – addressing both the article and the X post - was the appropriate remedy.

37. The Committee then considered the placement of these correction. As the misleading information appeared in the headline to the article, the web correction should appear as a standalone correction in the publication’s online Corrections and Clarifications column, and a link should be published on the homepage for 24 hours before being archived in the usual way.

38. The publication should also publish an X post, setting out the original inaccuracy and the correct position. This should be published on the same account as the original post, and remain on the publication’s X feed indefinitely.

39. The wording of the publication’s original correction set out the misleading information, and set out the correct position: that British Steel had announced the relocation of operations from that site to Skinningrove in 2021, before the complainant’s firm became the landlord at Darlington. Given the Committee was satisfied with the wording of the original web correction, the Committee was satisfied this wording could be reused for the additional corrections – however, the additional corrections should also made clear that the corrections have been published following an upheld ruling by the Independent Press Standards Organisation. Should the publication wish to make any changes to its original correction wording, any changes should be agreed with IPSO in advance.

Date complaint received: 30/04/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 13/10/2025