Ruling

Resolution Statement – 03148-25 Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit v dailymail.co.uk

  • Complaint Summary

    Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that dailymail.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Critics demand Labour to scrap its £700m taxpayer-funded electric car grant as EVs fail to sell and transport minister admits she doesn't own one”, published on 14 July 2025.

    • Published date

      5th March 2026

    • Outcome

      Resolved - IPSO mediation

    • Code provisions

      1 Accuracy

Summary of Complaint

1. Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that dailymail.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Critics demand Labour to scrap its £700m taxpayer-funded electric car grant as EVs fail to sell and transport minister admits she doesn't own one”, published on 14 July 2025.

2. The article opened by reporting: “Critics have called for Labour to scrap a taxpayer-funded £700million pot of funding for electric vehicles ahead of the measures being unveiled this week. Heidi Alexander, the Transport Secretary, will announce grants for drivers to cover the cost of a new EV, as well as more money for charging points.”

3. It went on to report: “Many drivers have been put off by the price of electric cars, which average around £50,000, more than double the cost of a petrol car at around £22,000, according to NimbleFins.”

4. The complainant said that the article was misleading, in breach of Clause 1, to report the average price of an electric car was “around “£50,000, more than double the cost of a petrol car at around £22,000”. It said this was based on a flawed comparison.

5. The complainant referred to an extract of the NimbleFins website, as cited in the article, which stated: “The average cost to buy an electric car in the UK is around £46,000, with EV prices ranging from £14,995 (Dacia Spring Electric) up to £333,000 (Rolls-Royce Spectre)”. It said this therefore encompassed all manner of electric vehicle. However, a separate page on the same website referred to the average price of a “small car” as £22,022, the average price of a “popular medium-sized car” was £27,168, and the average price of a “popular SUV model” as £35,005.

6. As such, the complainant considered that the disputed statement misleadingly compared the average price of a “small” petrol car, specifically, against the average price of an average electric car. It also stated that the figures were inaccurate in and of themselves – it referred to a BBC article, itself citing Autotrader, which stated: “the average price of a new battery electric car was £49,790 in June 2025 […] The equivalent for a petrol car was £34,225.”

7. IPSO’s Complaints Team initially rejected the complaint, considering that it did not raise a possible breach of the Editors’ Code.

8. The complainant, in line with IPSO’s usual procedures, requested that this decision be reviewed by IPSO’s Complaints Committee. As part of its review, it submitted polling data it had collected which, it said, demonstrated that the majority of readers would be misled into believing the average cost of a petrol car was around £22,000.

9. On review, the Complaints Committee identified a possible breach of the Editors’ Code and re-opened the complaint.

10. The publication accepted that the article had inadvertently conflated the source of the information – it had referred to Nimblefins, whereas the reported figures actually originated from a blog by the Electric Car Scheme, which stated: “While electric vehicles have higher upfront costs (£48,000-£50,873 average) compared to petrol cars (£21,964 average) […]”. Given this, it maintained that the figures were accurate. It also supplied this blog as part of its response.

11. To resolve the complainant’s concerns, it offered to either amend the text of the article to correctly cite the Electric Car Scheme, and clarify that the disputed £22,000 figure referred to an average medium-sized car – or, alternatively, amend the article to reflect a previous article it had published, which reported the figures from both sources.

12. The publication later added, in response to IPSO’s investigation, that while the error was regrettable, it was not significant – the reported figures correlated with information from the Electric Car Scheme, albeit it had misreported the source of this information. It also added that there was no compelling reason it should prefer the complainant’s figures, and that there would naturally be varying positions on the correct figure.

13. In response, the complainant noted that the figures no longer appeared in the Electric Car Scheme blog – it appeared they had been removed. It also noted that the article had since been updated, which the publication had not addressed – it now reported: “Many drivers have been put off by the price of electric cars, which average around £50,000, nearly double the cost of a petrol car at around £32,000, according to NimbleFins”. A footnote correction had also been added attesting to this amendment.

14. The publication clarified that it had been contacted, seemingly by the Electric Car Scheme, who had advised that the figure had changed. A reporter had amended the article in response, unaware the complaint was under IPSO investigation, and the correct position disputed.

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.

Mediated Outcome

15. The publication suggested, to resolve the complaint, it amend the article to accommodate for both its position and the complainant’s. It proposed updating the disputed extract to read as follows:

“Many drivers have been put off by the price of electric cars, which average around £50,000, more than double the cost of an average medium-sized petrol car at around £22,000, according to the Electric Car Scheme.

Personal finance research website NimbleFins has similar figures - putting the average cost of a new electric car at £46,000. It adds that the cost of a new small car starts from £18,500 to £26,000, while a medium-sized car will be from £25,200 to £28,500.

Autotrader also has the average EV coming in at just under £50,000, though it says petrol cars cost on average £34,225.”

16. The complainant welcomed the publication’s proposed amendment, but requested that the article also include a footnote reference that the Electric Car Scheme had since updated their figure for the average price of a petrol car to £32,000.

17. The publication agreed to the complainant’s request. On 17 December, it updated the article with the wording set out above. It also updated the article to include the following wording beneath the headline, in bold:

“Update: since publication, Electric Car Scheme has revised its figure of £22,000 to £32,000”.

18. As the complaint was successfully mediated, the Complaints Committee did not make a determination as to whether there had been any breach of the Code.



Date complaint received: 30/07/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 17/12/2025