02252-25 Think Signs Ltd v bournemouthecho.co.uk

Summary of Complaint

1. Think Signs Ltd complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that bournemouthecho.co.uk breached Clause 1 of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Two businesses named and shamed for not paying minimum wage”, published 4 June 2025.

2. The article reported that two businesses had been named by HMRC for failing to pay the minimum wage. Beneath the headline was a photograph of the exterior of two businesses, located next door to one another – Think Wraps and Think Signs Ltd. The article reported that “[e]mployers were investigated by HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) for breaches between 2015 and 2022 and now face financial penalties. Among those named are Think Wraps Ltd, a specialist design company located in Poole, and Spectrum Energy Ltd, a construction firm in Bournemouth.”

3. A link to the article was published on the publication’s Facebook page, both as a post and as a story. These posts included the photograph of Think Wraps Ltd and Think Signs Ltd, accompanied by the caption: “Two businesses named and shamed for not paying minimum wage”. These were also published on 4 June 2025.

4. The article also appeared in print. However, this version of the article was not under complaint.

5. The complainant said that the online article, Facebook post, and Facebook story were inaccurate and misleading in breach of Clause 1. It said this was the case as all three gave the impression that Think Signs Ltd was one of the two businesses that had been “named and shamed for not paying minimum wage”. They said this was the case as the article and posts included a photograph which showed the building where its business was based. It said that, whilst it was located next door to Think Wraps Ltd, it was a separate company.

6. The publication did not accept a breach of the Code. It said that the article did not identify Think Signs Ltd as one of the companies which had been named by HMRC for failing to pay the minimum wage. Therefore, it said readers - upon reading the article as a whole - would not have been misled by the photograph. It noted that Think Signs Ltd has a very similar name to Think Wraps Ltd, and that the two businesses are located next door to one another and share the same owners.

7. The publication said that – when the complainant had approached it directly - on the day that the article and posts were published, it had removed the photograph which showed Think Signs Ltd from the article and Facebook post. It had also removed the Facebook story.

8. Six days into IPSO’s investigation, the publication also offered to add a clarification at the bottom of the online article, specifying that Think Signs Ltd was not the subject of the article.

9. The complainant noted that the text of the article, which clarified which two businesses had been named by HMRC, appeared behind a paywall and was therefore only visible to readers with a subscription to the publication. It said that a clarification behind a paywall at the bottom of the article would not be visible to many readers who had seen the image on Facebook, where no clarification had been added.

10. In light of the complainant’s concerns that the offered clarification at the bottom of the article would appear only behind a paywall, during IPSO’s investigation the publication offered to remove the paywall on the article.

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

11. The Committee first considered the online article. Clause 1(i) of the Editor’s Code stipulates that the press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information or images, including headlines not supported by the text. This does not mean that headlines and images should be considered in isolation, or that they are required to give the full context of the article – headlines and images should be read in conjunction with the article as a whole. This consideration also applies in cases where only a portion of an article may be visible to non-subscribing readers.

12. Considering the photograph in conjunction with the article as a whole, the Committee considered that the article was clear that the complainant was not one of the two business “named and shamed”. The online article was not inaccurate, and there was no breach of Clause 1.

13. The Committee then turned to the Facebook post and Facebook story which linked to the article. These social media posts also included the photograph of the complainant’s business, accompanied by the caption “Two businesses named and shamed for not paying minimum wage”. The Committee noted that the posts themselves did not make clear that the two pictured business were not the same two that had been “named and shamed” for failing to pay minimum wage. The social media posts both therefore gave the misleading impression that Think Signs Ltd had failed to pay minimum wage.

14. In light of this, the Committee considered that the publication had not taken sufficient care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information in relation to the social media content under complaint. This was a breach of Clause 1 (i).

15. Next, the Committee turned to the whether the social media posts were significantly misleading and in need of correction. It considered that the posts could have led to significant reputational damage for the company and misled the public on a matter of public interest – whether a local company had complied with its legal obligations. The inaccuracy was therefore significant and in need of a correction under the terms of Clause 1 (ii).

16. The publication had promptly removed the photograph from its Facebook post and removed the Facebook story - having done so on the day of the posts’ initial publication. However, where significantly misleading information has been published, amending or removing it without a correction is not sufficient under the terms of Clause 1 (ii) to correct the record. While the publication had offered to add a footnote clarification to the text of the article, it had not an any point offered to publish a correction on it Facebook page. Where no correction to the Facebook post or story had been proposed or published, this was a breach of Clause 1 (ii).

Conclusions

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

Remedial action required

18. Having partly 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.

19. The Committee considered that the publication – on the publication’s Facebook page and Facebook Stories - of a photograph of the complainant’s premises, in conjunction with the caption “Two businesses named and shamed for not paying minimum wage”, was significantly misleading. However, it noted that the publication had promptly taken steps to remove the photograph from the Facebook post and story – albeit it had not published a correction. On balance, and taking into account the publication’s prompt action to seek to resolve the complainant’s concerns, the Committee considered that the publication of two corrections - to remedy the misleading Facebook post and Facebook story – was the appropriate remedy. The corrections should acknowledge the original misleading photograph, and put the correct position on record: that HMRC had not said that Think Signs Ltd had failed to pay the minimum wage.

20. The Committee then considered the placement of these corrections.

21. As the inaccuracy appeared on the publication’s Facebook page as a post and a story, the correction should be published as a Facebook post and a Facebook story, on the publication’s Facebook account. The Facebook post correction should also remain on the publication’s Facebook feed indefinitely.

22. 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: 05/06/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 02/12/2025