02083-25 Williams-Key v express.co.uk

Summary of Complaint

1. Alan Williams-Key complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that express.co.uk breached Clause 1 of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Angela Rayner plots to restore pension ‘horror’ tax - takes 55% of your retirement savings”, published on 21 May 2025.

2. The article, which was published online only, appeared below the word “Comment” and the author’s prominent byline and image. The article set out the author’s views on a “pension ‘horror’ tax”, which Angela Rayner was “plot[ting] to restore”. It reported that the Lifetime Allowance (LTA) was “a 55% levy on people who’ve saved too much into their pension pots, through decades of hard work and careful planning.” It went on to give more details about the LTA: “The levy in question is the pensions lifetime allowance (LTA). It caps the total value of pension pots people can build across workplace and personal schemes.” It also reported that the “lifetime allowance previously only hit those with pension pots worth more than £1,073,100.” The article included hyperlinks to four previous articles about the LTA, published by the same publication between 2021 and 2023.

3. The complainant said that the headline was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 as it claimed the LTA “takes 55% of your retirement savings”, and that the article repeated the inaccuracy: “It’s a 55% levy on people who’ve saved too much into their pension pots”. He said this was inaccurate as the levy would only be applied to excess pension savings over a defined threshold – while the headline and article gave the impression that that the levy would be applied to the entirety of an individual’s savings pot. He said this was how the LTA had previously been applied.

4. The complainant also said the article was misleading as it omitted to mention that, before the LTA was abolished, the 55% rate only applied in cases where pension savings were taken as a lump sum. Otherwise, the LTA rate was 25%.

5. The publication did not accept a breach of the Code. It said readers would be familiar with details of the LTA, as it had been well-known and widely-reported before it was abolished. It said that the article linked to four previous articles which set out the terms of the LTA in more detail. Therefore, it considered that the article under complaint made clear that the 55% rate would only apply when pension income is taken as a lump sum. It said it was reasonable for the article to refer to the terms of the levy more briefly, given the details of the LTA were publicly available, had been widely published and would be commonly known by readers.

6. The publication also said the article made clear that, before it was abolished, the LTA only applied over a defined threshold. It said the article set this out where it reported in the text “The lifetime allowance previously only hit those with pension pots worth more than £1,073,100.” It said it was reasonable to report that the LTA “takes 55% of your retirement savings” and refer to the LTA as a “55% levy”. It said this was not inaccurate, and was supported by an HMRC policy paper on Pension Tax Limits from 2023. It provided this paper, which stated: "Where an individual’s pension saving exceeds their LTA, section 215(2) provides that the excess is taxed at […] 55% where the excess is taken as a lump sum".

7. The publication added that readers would be familiar with how the LTA is applied because of how marginal tax rates are reported: for example, income tax rates are commonly described as 20% and 40%, even though the percentages would only be payable above certain income thresholds.

8. As the publication did not accept that the article was significantly inaccurate or misleading on any of the points raised by the complainant, it did not offer any remedial action.

9. The complainant did not accept that the use of hyperlinks to other articles were sufficient to explain to readers how the LTA would function. He said the headline was not supported by the text and the use of hyperlinks directing readers to other articles did not negate the misleading nature of the headline or text, and therefore a correction was required.

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

10. The Committee first considered whether the headline was supported by the text of the article. Clause 1 (i) does not require a headline to give the full context of the story in question, but the article must support the headline – and an accurate article cannot be relied upon to correct an actively misleading headline. The Clause also requires publications to take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading, or distorted headlines.

11. The headline stated that - if re-introduced – the “’horror’ tax” would “take[…] 55% of your retirement savings”. The Committee noted that, before it was abolished in 2023, the LTA applied only to excess savings over a specific threshold, and the 55% rate only applied to lump sum withdrawals from pension pots.

12. The Committee considered the publication’s position that the headline was not misleading because it was supported by the text of the article: which made clear that, before it was abolished, the LTA was only payable if the pension pot in question was “worth more than £1,073,100.” However, the Committee considered that, as the headline reported that “the LTA takes 55% of your retirement savings”, this was contradicted by the text of the article: The article set out that “[t]he lifetime allowance previously only hit those with pension pots worth more than £1,073,100. It considered this to be the case as the headline referred to “55% of your retirement savings” – therefore creating the strong and misleading impression that the levy would be payable on the entirety of an individual’s savings.

13. The Committee also noted that, while the article acknowledged that threshold was £1,073,100 before the LTA was abolished, it nevertheless did not make clear that the levy only applied to pension savings in excess of this threshold – and that it was applied marginally. The Committee therefore considered that the headline was misleading and not supported by the text of the article – which contradicted the headline, rather than clarifying and supporting it.

14. The Committee then considered the complaint regarding the line: “it’s a 55% levy on people who’ve saved too much into their pension pots”. The Committee acknowledged that elsewhere the article stated ““[t]he lifetime allowance previously only hit those with pension pots worth more than £1,073,100”. It also noted that the sentence under dispute made clear that it applied to “people who’ve saved too much into their pension pots”, rather than all savers. However- the article did not acknowledge at any point that the 55% rate would only apply in the case of lump sum withdrawals. In such circumstances, the Committee also considered this sentence to be misleading, as it gave the strong impression that the 55% rate would be paid on all pension pots belonging to those “who’ve saved so much”, when this was not the case – the 55% rate only previously applied when withdrawals were made as lump sums.

15. The Committee noted the publication’s position that the LTA was well-known and was therefore already widely publicised. The publication had supported this claim by highlighting that the article included four embedded links to previous articles, which went into more detail about the LTA. However, the Committee noted that its role was to determine whether the article before it was inaccurate, misleading, or distorted – and it did not consider that the publication could rely on the existence of other, hyperlinked articles which explained the previous tax system to demonstrate that the article under complaint was accurate.

16. Full details of how the LTA applied before it was abolished were available to the publication – and, in fact, during IPSO’s investigation the publication had supplied a link to a HMRC policy paper which set out the terms of the LTA in full, which it said supported its reporting. However, the article did not accurately reflect the terms of the LTA as set out in this paper. The Committee considered that this constituted a failure to take care over the accuracy of the article, and this constituted a breach of Clause 1 (i).

17. The headline was significantly misleading, where it related to rates of taxation of pension funds – which could significantly impact an individual’s future financial planning. In addition, headlines are inherently prominent: they open articles, which are read in light of them, and will often appear on an online publication’s homepage. Given the greater prominence and weight afforded to headlines, misleading information within headlines will generally be significant. Similarly, the article was significantly misleading as it did not make clear that the 55% rate applied to lump sum withdrawals only. As such, a correction was required under the terms of Clause 1 (ii).

18. The Committee noted that no corrections were made or offered by the publication. Therefore, there was a breach of Clause 1 (ii) on this point.

Conclusions

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

Remedial action required

20. 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.

21. The Committee considered the headline, and the text of the article was misleading as it did not make clear that the LTA applied only to savings over a specific threshold and that the 55% applied only to lump sums. While the Committee considered this was significantly misleading, as it related to a matter of future financial planning and the misleading information appeared in the headline as well as in the text of the article, it noted that the article was distinguished as a comment piece which was indicated by the text “’Comment” above the journalist’s prominent byline and image. Therefore, it was presented as a subjective view on a potential policy rather than a straight news report, which served to somewhat mitigate the misleading information. Therefore, on balance, the Committee considered that a correction was the appropriate remedy.

22. The correction should acknowledge that it was misleading for the headline and article to claim that the LTA levy would take 55% of an individual’s ”pension pot”. It should also put the correct position on record, namely that the LTA levy previously only applied to savings over a specific threshold and that the 55% rate only applied to as a lump sum pension withdrawals.

23. The Committee then considered the placement of this correction.

24. As the misleading information appeared in the headline to the article – therefore giving it greater prominence and weight - the 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. In addition, if the publication intends to continue to publish the online article without amendment, a correction should be added to the article and published beneath the headline. If the article is amended, this correction should be published as a footnote.

25. The wording should be agreed with IPSO in advance and should make clear that it has been published following an upheld ruling by the Independent Press Standards Organisation.

Date complaint received: 22/05/2025

Date complaint closed: 30/09/2025