03158-25 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 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Exact date all state pensioners will start paying tax after triple lock change”, published on 31 July 2025.

2. The article – which appeared online only - reported that ”[a]ll state pensioners will have to start paying income tax on a specific date in the future even if they have no other income, thanks to triple lock changes which increase the amount everyone on the state pension will get.” It then reported that “according” to “a partner at [a] pensions firm […] the state pension is guaranteed to pass the personal allowance income tax threshold from April 2027 […] April 6, when the new tax year starts. Even if a pensioner in receipt of the benefit had no other income, part of their state pension would be taxable”.  

3. It then reported:

“Every year, the government is mandated to increase the amount it pays out in pensions thanks to a fiscal apparatus known as the triple lock. While controversial to some due to the burden of the high cost to the state, it remains in place for the foreseeable future, locked in as a Labour manifesto promise. It means that state pension payouts must be increased in line with one of three metrics: wage growth, inflation, or a flat 2.5 percent, whichever of these three is highest, every April.”

4. The article also reported that, “[c]urrently, the state pension will pay out a total of £11,973 per year to state pensioners on the full new state pension […]. The current income tax personal allowance threshold is £12,570, so state pensioners who have no other income will just sneak under threshold on income tax in 2025-2026 by £597.”  

5. The article then reported: “Although the tax would be extremely low […] it still means being taxed by HMRC and the amount will increase each year, unless the government makes changes to the thresholds.”

6. The complainant said that the headline was not supported by the text of the article, in breach of Clause 1. He noted that the headline referred to the “date all state pensioners will start paying tax”, but the article reported only on when pensioners on “the full new state pension” would start paying tax – it did not reference the remainder of pensioners who were on the old state pension.

7. The complainant also said the headline breached Clause 1 as it referenced a “triple lock change”. The complainant said this was inaccurate and unsupported by the text of the article, which explained that there were no changes to the triple lock system itself.

8. The publication accepted that the article did not specify the date by which pensioners on the old state pension could expect to pay tax. Three days after first being made aware of the complainant’s concerns, it added the following paragraphs to the article:

"For basic state pensioners, the date is further into the future. The pre-2016 basic state pension currently pays out £174.45 per week, maximum. Of course, there are ways to boost this, such as if you are entitled to the Pre-1997 additional state pension - this week we reported on a basic state pensioner who is already paying tax to HMRC due to this.  

But for a basic state pensioner with no other income, no taxable savings, and no other benefits, on the full £174.45 per week only, they could expect to make it until April 6, 2038 before paying tax on their state pension income alone.  

The triple lock is guaranteed to change the amount pensioners are paid every year, by an absolute minimum of 2.5%. Often, the actual number is higher - this year it was 4.1% due to wage growth.  

But taking the absolute minimum, a basic state pensioner getting a 2.5% annual triple lock change would reach £242.17 per week starting from April 6, 2038, or £12,592.84 per year. That is over the £12,570 Personal Allowance Income Tax threshold and therefore part of the income would be taxable."  

9. On the same date, it also confirmed it had added the following correction to the top of the article, directly beneath the headline:

“A previous version of this article did not give the exact date that basic state pensioners would also start to pay tax. We would like to make clear that basic state pensioners with no other income and the minimum triple lock increase would be over the tax threshold by April 6, 2038. We are happy to clarify this and the article has been amended accordingly.”

10. The publication did not consider that the headline breached Clause 1 by referencing a “triple lock change”. It said that the “change” referenced in the headline was the change in the amount pensioners would receive per-year due to the triple lock, rather than a change to the triple lock system.

11. The complainant sad that the article now dealt “more completely” with the state pension, but he still did not consider the amended article to be sufficiently clear. This, he said, was because the publication’s calculated date for when the old state pension would begin attracting income tax was based on several assumptions, including that the tax-free personal allowance would rise in line with CPI after 2027. He said the article omitted to reference this assumption which had been made in reaching its calculated date, and this rendered it misleading.

12. The publication said it was satisfied that the amended article made clear that its calculated date was what date old state pensioners “could expect to make it to” based on the assumptions set out in the article. This, it said, made clear that the date was a hypothetical and could change.

13. It also noted that the article made clear that the amount paid in tax would increase year-on-year “unless the government makes changes to the thresholds”, while the amended article set out: “the triple lock is guaranteed to change the amount pensioners are paid every year, by an absolute minimum of 2.5%. Often, the actual number is higher - this year it was 4.1% due to wage growth."

14. Taking into account the above, the publication said the article made clear that its calculated date for when old state pension recipients would begin paying tax on their pensions was the most conservative estimate based on the minimum mandatory rises under the triple lock.

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

15. The headline of the article referenced the “exact date all state pensioners will start paying tax” – however, the original article reported only on the date pensioners in receipt of the new state pension were projected to begin paying tax. The headline, therefore, was misleading and unsupported by the text of the article, which did not report on the date “all state pensioners” would pay tax. The Committee considered that referring to all pensioners in the headline represented a failure to take care to ensure that the headline was not misleading, and that it was supported by the text of the article. There was, therefore, a breach of Clause 1 (i) on this point.

16. Given the misleading information appeared in the headline, the Committee considered this gave it greater weight and prominence than had it solely appeared in the text of the article. This was because the article would be read in light of the misleading headline, and therefore gave the misleading impression that the original article reported on the date by which all pensioners would have to pay tax – which was not the case. In addition, the Committee noted that the misleading information related to a matter of public debate and interest: the taxation of pensions and the implications of the triple lock. Taking these factors into account, the Committee considered that the headline was significantly misleading, and therefore in need of correction under the terms of Clause 1 (ii) of the Editors’ Code.

17. Clause 1 (ii) requires that significantly misleading information is corrected promptly and with the due prominence. The Committee therefore turned to the question of whether the correction published by the publication addressed the terms of this sub-Clause.

18. The correction clarified the date by which basic state pensioners would “expect” to start paying tax. The Committee considered that this sufficiently corrected the original misleading information, by making clear that the article had originally omitted to reference the date when some pensioners would begin paying tax, and giving this date. The correction was published 3 days after the publication was made aware of the original complaint, which the Committee considered to be prompt.

19. The Committee next considered whether the correction was duly prominent. It noted that the correction appeared directly beneath the headline, and that the article would therefore be read in light of it.

20. In deciding whether this location was duly prominent, the Committee noted that the headline was misleading because the article which it accompanied did not contain all of the information which the headline purported it would; namely, the date by which all pensioners would pay tax on their pension. It was not a headline which, when read in isolation, had the potential to mislead.  

21. Taking this into account, the Committee was satisfied that publishing the correction beneath the headline and above the text of the article represented due prominence. As the significantly misleading information had been corrected promptly and with due prominence, there was no breach of Clause 1 (ii).

22. The complainant had said that the headline breached Clause 1 by referring to a “triple lock changes”, as there was no change to the triple lock. The Committee noted that the headline was ambiguous: it could be understood to be referencing changes to the triple lock system, or changes to the amount received as a pension due to the triple lock system. However, the Committee did not consider that this ambiguity meant the headline was inaccurate, misleading, or distorted: it was not inaccurate to reference “triple lock changes”, given this could reasonably be understood as a reference to changes brought about by the triple lock. Any ambiguity was resolved by the article, which clarified what kind of change it was referencing – as it referred to “triple lock changes which increase the amount everyone on the state pension will get”. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

23. The complainant had said that the amended article was inaccurate, as it was based on the assumption that the tax-free personal allowance would rise in line with CPI after 2027, and this was omitted from the article.

24. The Committee, however, noted that the amended article made clear that the calculated date was a projected one, as it reported that a “basic state pensioner […] could expect to make it until April 6, 2038 before paying tax on their state pension income alone”. The Committee noted that Clause 1 (iv) of the Editors’ Code allows publications to publish conjecture, provided it is distinguished as such and from fact, and the Committee was satisfied that this claim was duly distinguished as the publication’s conjecture as to when basic state pensioners would “expect” to start paying tax on their state pension.  

25. Given that the article clearly distinguished the projected date as conjecture, the Committee did not consider that omitting to set out the precise way this calculation had been reached – and the assumptions that had been made in reaching this calculation – rendered the article inaccurate. Given the claim was distinguished as conjecture, it would be clear to readers that this date was subject to change, and the omission of the precise calculations used did not therefore render the article inaccurate or misleading. There was, therefore, no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

Conclusions

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

Remedial action required

27. 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: 31/07/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 30/10/2025