02269-25 A man v birminghammail.co.uk

Summary of Complaint

1. A man complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that birminghammail.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined ‘’Drivers with cruise control urged to press button or face £73 charge in June’’, published on 5 June 2025.”

2. The article – which appeared online only - reported in its sub-headline that “[m]otorists with cruise control can activate it to reduce their fuel consumption - thus ensuring they are creating more gaps between having to fill up their tanks.” The article opened by reporting:

“Drivers with cruise control buttons in their car have been urged to press their dashboard to escape a £73 charge in the UK. A full petrol fill-up is now £72.74 while diesel is £76.13, according to new figures released by the RAC this week. But motorists with cruise control can activate it to reduce their fuel consumption - thus ensuring they are creating more gaps between having to fill up their tanks.”

3. The complainant the article was inaccurate and misleading as it warned readers of a “£73 charge in June”. The complainant said that – while the headline mentioned this charge – the article contained no reference to it. He said the headline claim, appeared to be “tenuously linked” to the current average fuel rates, and the amount drivers could save. However, he did not consider that this constituted a “£73 charge”.

4. During direct correspondence with the complainant, the publication accepted that the headline reference to a “£73 charge” was misleading, as drivers were not “fac[ing]” such a “charge”. It amended the headline to report: “Drivers with cruise control could save up to £73 with button on dashboard”.

5. One 17 June, seven days after the publication had first been made aware of the complaint, it published the following wording as a correction:  

“A previous headline of our article incorrectly reported that "Drivers with cruise control urged to press button or face £73 charge in June". In fact, the £73 figure related to the cost of filling up a tank of petrol, and therefore drivers using cruise control could reduce their fuel consumption and ultimately save up to £73. There is no "£73 charge". We are happy to clarify this and apologise for the error. The article has been amended and can be found here.”

6. This correction was published at the top of the online article, and as a standalone correction on its Corrections and Clarification page. A link to the standalone correction appeared on the publication's homepage for 24 hours after it was initially published.

7. During IPSO’s investigation, the publication was twice asked how it had taken care not to publish inaccurate information, under Clause 1 (i) of the Editors’ Code. The publication said it had accepted the headline was misleading, and that it had no further information to provide.

8. The publication considered that this was sufficient remedial action under the Editors’ Code. It requested that IPSO close the complaint under the terms of Regulation 40 of IPSO’s Regulations, which allow for complaints to be closed in circumstances where IPSO considers any alleged breach has been satisfactorily remedied.

9. The complainant did not consider the published correction was a satisfactory remedy to the complaint – he said the headline had been written to be “deliberately misleading and expressed concern about the newspaper’s publisher’s “egregious use of clickbait tactics to mislead and scare viewers into clicking links.”

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.

Relevant IPSO Regulation

40. If a Regulated Entity offers a remedial measure to a complainant which the Regulator or, if applicable, the Complaints Committee considers to be a satisfactory resolution of the complaint, but such measure is rejected by the complainant, the Regulator or, if applicable, the Complaints Committee shall notify the complainant of the same and that, subject to fulfilment of the offer by the Regulated Entity, it considers the complaint to be closed and a summary of the outcome shall be published on the Regulator's website.

Findings of the Committee

10. The publication requested that IPSO consider whether the remedial measures it had offered amounted to a satisfactory resolution of the complaint – in line with the provisions in Regulation 40 of IPSO’s Regulations – and whether the complaint could be closed. The Committee considers such requests on a case-by-case basis.

11. The Committee noted that the publication of decisions is an important element of IPSO’s regulatory function, and that any decision not to fully consider a complaint, and to close it as having been satisfactorily remedied, must be weighed carefully against the public interest in IPSO making a full and reasoned decision.

12. In this case, having carefully considered the factors before it, the Committee did not consider that the application of Regulation 40 was appropriate. This was because the publication had not, during the IPSO process, given any explanation as to how the alleged inaccuracy had come about, or what care it had taken over the accuracy of its headline. Absent this explanation, the Committee did not consider closing the complaint prior to the Committee making a fully reasoned decision would serve IPSO’s regulatory function in ensuring that concerns about the publication of inaccurate information – and what care is taken to ensure such information is not published - are duly ventilated and considered.

13. The Committee therefore considered whether the headline breached Clause 1.

14. The headline reported that “drivers with cruise control had been “urged to press button face £73 charge in June”. Both parties accepted that this was inaccurate; drivers were not facing a “£73 charge”. Rather, as the article set out, drivers with cruise control could save money if they used the function.

15. The Committee noted that the publication had not been able to explain how the inaccurate headline had come about, and what processes it had in place to prevent the publication of inaccurate or misleading headlines. It also noted that the publication had twice declined to set out what care it had taken over the accuracy of its headline when asked. Given the headline was inaccurate, and the publication had declined to comment on how it had taken care to ensure it was not inaccurate, there was a breach of Clause 1 (i).  

16. 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, inaccurate information within headlines will generally be significant. In addition, the Committee considered that headline had the clear potential to mislead on a matter of clear interest and concern to the public: charges faced by motorists. As such, a correction was required under the terms of Clause 1 (ii).

17. The Committee went on to consider 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.

18. The Committee considered that publishing the correction as a standalone article on its Corrections and Clarifications page and on the website homepage for 24 hours, as well as the top of the article, constituted due prominence.

19. It also considered that publishing the correction within a week of the complaint being brought to the publication’s attention represented due promptness.

20. The Committee then considered the wording of the published correction. It noted that the published correction had acknowledged that it was inaccurate to report that drivers faced a “£73 charge”. It also put the correct position on record: namely, that the £73 figure related instead to the cost of filling up a tank of petrol. In such circumstances, the correction satisfied the terms of the Clause and there was no breach of Clause 1 (ii) in relation to this point.

Conclusions

21. The complaint was partly upheld under Clause 1 (i).

Remedial action required

22. 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: 08/06/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 12/11/2025