Resolution Statement – 03925-24 Stewart v mirror.co.uk

Summary of Complaint

1. Charles Stewart complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that mirror.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “EXCLUSIVE: Elon Musk's £60k Tesla tops the list for cars most likely to fail their MOT”, published on 25 May 2024.

2. The sub-headline of article reported that a “study of last year's MOT results showed almost 80% of Tesla's Model 3 Performance cars failed the roadworthiness test”. The article went on to report that “[n]early 20% of the Model 3 Performance cars failed the roadworthiness test, which cars must take annually from three years old. The study of last year’s MOT results also showed almost 80% of the £60,000 model’s failures were due to tyres”.

3. The complainant said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 because the sub-headline contradicted the article. The sub-headline stated that 80% of the models failed the roadworthiness test, but the text of the article reported that 20% of models failed the tests.

4. The publication accepted the article was inaccurate and amended the claim that “A study of last year's MOT results showed almost 80% of Tesla's Model 3 Performance cars failed the roadworthiness test - even though the car would set you back £60,000” to instead report that “A study of last year's MOT results found that nearly 20% of Tesla Model 3s failed the MOT. Of these, 80% were due to faulty tyres”. It also printed the following correction at the top of the article on 11 June 2024:

"A previous version of this article reported that 'A study of last year's MOT results showed almost 80% of Tesla's Model 3 Performance cars failed the roadworthiness test'. This was incorrect. In fact, the study found that nearly 20% of Tesla Model 3s failed

the MOT. Of these, 80% were due to faulty tyres. We are happy to clarify this and the article has been amended accordingly".

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

5. The complaint was not resolved through direct correspondence between the parties. IPSO therefore began an investigation into the matter.

6. During IPSO’s investigation the complainant said the correction published by the publication would resolve the matter to his satisfaction.

7. 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: 29/05/2024

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 23/07/2024