Resolution Statement – 03873-25 Whitehouse v Daily Mail

Summary of Complaint

1. David Whitehouse complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that Daily Mail breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “How millions with illnesses like arthritis or asthma can get £30,000 FREE for home improvements”, published on 17 September 2025.

2. The article – which appeared on page 31 - opened by reporting: “MILLIONS of homeowners and their families with common chronic health conditions such as arthritis and asthma could claim up to £30,000 towards upgrades to make their homes warmer, Money Mail can reveal. But few of those who are eligible know about it because it is so poorly advertised by energy suppliers”.

3. It went on to report that only one of the “websites of the six biggest energy suppliers” advertises that there is special support available for those with common health conditions. It then reported: “This grant scheme, known as ECO4, is provided by energy firms at the behest of the Government. If you meet the criteria you can apply simply by visiting your GP and asking for a letter confirming your health condition”.

4. The article referred to the scheme as the ECO4, or the ECO4 scheme, on multiple occasions.

5. The article also reported: “The energy regulator Ofgem states doctors can participate in the ECO4 on behalf of homeowners when ‘sure their patient is suffering from severe or long-term ill health and that their health is adversely affected by living in a cold home’” – and “It is at the sole discretion of the doctor to decide if someone might qualify, so even if you feel your condition might not be severe it is worth asking a GP for a referral. Energy companies rarely ask for further information. But you must own your own home or have permission from your landlord to carry out the eco-upgrades”.

6. The article also appeared online in substantially the same format under the headline “How millions with illnesses like arthritis or asthma can get £30,000 FREE for home improvements”.

7. The complainant said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 because it omitted to report that the ECO4 scheme is means tested, and applicants have to be in receipt of benefits as well as one of the medical conditions listed in the article.

8. The publication did not accept a breach of the Editors’ Code. It said that the ECO4 rules make clear that an applicant is not required to be on benefits or on a low income. While this is the most publicised route, applicants can also receive assistance if they have a long-term health condition that is adversely affected by living in a cold home, or if they get a referral from a doctor.

9. In support of its position, it pointed to guidance for the ECO Flex scheme from Ofgem, which listed four referral routes, including “route three: medical referrals”. The publication pointed to the following extracts:

‘Households with a person suffering from a severe or long-term health condition, which is adversely affected by living in a cold home, are eligible via Flex Route 3.’

[…] ‘The person’s severe or long-term health condition must be due to: A cardiovascular condition, a respiratory disease, limited mobility, immunosuppression.’

10. It said that the article pointed out that the public are generally not aware of this, as energy providers are not actively promoting it.

11. In response, the complainant accepted there was an ECO4 Flex scheme - an extension of the main Energy Company Obligation (ECO4) scheme – which allows local authorities to refer households not meeting the standard criteria. He said, for this to happen, an individual’s local authority must be participating in the scheme and have a published Statement of Intent. He also said that large energy suppliers are obligated to fund the scheme - it is not a government or council-funded grant, though local authorities are key to its administration.

12. Owing to the above, the complainant maintained that the article was misleading – he also said it contained no reference to the Flex scheme by name.

13. In response, the publication said it did not consider the alleged omissions represented significant inaccuracies – the article revealed that there is a little-known scheme by which people can potentially access funding. It also said the article explained that people will need to meet various criteria.

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

14. During IPSO’s investigation on 4 December, while disputing that the article was inaccurate, the publication offered to amend the online version to address the complainant’s concerns.

15. Where the article had previously referred to the ECO4 scheme, it proposed to amend these references to the “ECO4 Flex” scheme. It also proposed to introduce the following extract to the article: “Your local authority will also need to be a participant in the scheme and have a published Statement of Intent.”

16. Further, the publication proposed amending the following: “The energy regulator Ofgem states doctors can participate in the ECO4 on behalf of homeowners”, to read: “The energy regulator Ofgem states doctors in participating local authorities can take part in the ECO4 Flex on behalf of homeowners.”

17. It also proposed amending the following: “you must own your own home or have permission from your landlord to carry out the eco-upgrades” to read: “As well as being a resident in a participating local authority area, you must own your own home or have permission from your landlord to carry out the eco-upgrades.”

18. The complainant confirmed that the proposed amendments would resolve his complaint, and on 5 December, the publication confirmed that the online article had been amended as agreed.

19. 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: 20/09/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 05/12/2025