03672-25 Bain v birminghammail.co.uk

Summary of Complaint

1. Iona Bain 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 “State pensioners set to receive state pension for 'just three years of lifetime'”, published on 26 August 2025.

2. The article – which appeared online only – appeared beneath a sub-headline, which reported that a “benefits consulting leader” at an insurance broker had “issued a warning”. The article then opened: “State pensioners have been issued a warning over an ‘unfair’ change for people from one part of UK. [The broker] issued a warning over older people potentially having to wait until their 70s to claim their Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) payments.”

3. It then reported the broker had said: “’Increasing the state pension age to 70 may make sense for an analyst for an independent think tank in the South-East, but if you are in a manual occupation in Blackpool, where the average male life expectancy sits at 73 years – the lowest in the UK – a change to 70 wouldn’t be fair at all’”.

4. He was also quoted as having said:

"’In Denmark, the state pension age is set to increase to 70 by 2040. It is one of nine OECD countries to automatically link state pension ege [sic] to life expectancy.

“’However, Denmark and the United Kingdom are two very different economies, with two very different measures of quality of life.”

5. The article also included an image, which was captioned: “State pensioners set to receive state pension for 'just three years of lifetime'.”

6. The complainant said that the article breached Clause 1 because the headline was misleading, and unsupported by the text. She said the headline gave the impression a move to a state pension age of 70 had been officially announced. This was reinforced by the use of term “set to”. However, the text of the article reported one expert's view that the Government will need to take differing life expectancy across the UK into account when setting the state pension age, and that in Blackpool, where the average male life expectancy is 73, there was a risk that men will not get their full state pension if the state pension age were raised to 70.

7. Further, she said the headline made the issue seem universal, and applicable to all pensioners, not a subset of pensioners within Blackpool.

8. The publication did not accept a breach of the Editors’ Code. It said that headlines are not intended to be read in isolation, and must be read in the context of the accompanying article. It also said the headline did not report, as fact, that all state pensioners will only receive three years' worth of state pension – it did not use the word “all”, and presented the terms “just three years of lifetime” in inverted commas, which it said distinguished between comment, conjecture and fact. It added the article opened by reporting the warning issued by the broker and expert, making clear the group of people the headline related to.

9. Additionally, the publication said the headline did not report any official announcement has been made. It said the phrase “set to” was not definitive, but rather, presented a possibility of something happening, which the article then explained.

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. While articles should be read as a whole, the Committee was clear that an accurate article cannot be relied upon to correct a headline which is inaccurate, misleading, or distorted.

11. The text of the article explained that a broker had speculated that, were the Government to increase the state pension to age to 70, male pensioners in Blackpool may only enjoy three years of their pensions, given the average male life expectancy in Blackpool is 73.

12. However, the Committee considered that reporting that “state pensioners set to receive state pensions for ‘just three years’” would be taken by a reader to mean that a decision had been taken in regard to state pensions, due to the use of the words “set to”, which would result in some pensioners receiving their pension “for ‘just three years’”. This was then reinforced by the opening paragraph of the article which reported that state pensioners had been “issued a warning over an ‘unfair’ change”. Again, the Committee considered this suggested to a reader a decision had been taken by UK Government which would result in some pensioners only receiving a pension for three years. The Committee particularly considered this to be the case given the article’s reference to a “change”.

13. While the Committee noted the publication’s position that part of the headline had been placed in inverted commas, it did not consider that this was sufficient to distinguish the headline in its entirety as comment and conjecture.

14. Accordingly, the Committee considered that the headline was misleading and unsupported by the text of the article, as was the image caption. Their publication amounted to a failure to take care, and there was a breach of Clause 1 (i).

15. The misleading information suggested that pensioners may receive less of their state pensions. The Committee considered this significant – it is important readers are accurately informed on information which may affect their personal finances and long-term financial planning. The misleading information also appeared in the headline, increasing its prominence and visibility to a reader.

16. Due to these factors, the Committee considered the headline and image caption to be significantly misleading. They therefore required correction under the terms of Clause 1 (ii). A correction had not been offered, and there was a breach of Clause 1 (ii).

Conclusions

17. The complaint was upheld under Clause 1.

Remedial action required

18. 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.

19. The Committee considered that the headline of the article was misleading, and unsupported by the text of the article, in breach of Clause 1. The image caption was also misleading. It did recognise, however, that the article set out the correct position – while the headline was misleading, the correct position was on record. Therefore, on balance, the Committee considered that a correction was the appropriate remedy. The correction should acknowledge that the image caption and headline were misleading, because they inaccurately suggested to readers that pensioners may receive less of their state pensions, and the headline was unsupported by the text that followed. It should also restate the correct position – that no decision had been taken on the state pension age, but that a broker had speculated that, were the Government to increase the state pension to age to 70, male pensioners in Blackpool may only enjoy three years of their state pensions.

20. The Committee then considered the placement of this correction. As the misleading information appeared in the headline to the article, the correction should appear as a standalone correction, 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.

21. 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: 11/09/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 03/03/2026