05749-25 Unwin v plymouthherald.co.uk

Summary of Complaint

1. Thomas Unwin complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that plymouthherald.co.uk breached Clause 1 of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “DWP confirms state pension means-testing plans as UK faces major change”, published on 29 October 2025.

2. The article – which appeared online only - included a sub-headline which read: “The Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary has confirmed the plans of the Labour Government”.

3. The article opened by reporting: “The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has affirmed that the Labour Government has no intention to means-test the State Pension.”

4. The article also reported: “Millions of pensioners are set for a substantial State Pension increase next April following the completion of the Triple Lock calculation by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) last week”. It went on to report: “The Consumer Price Index (CPI) figure for September stood at 3.8 per cent, meaning the New and Basic State Pensions will increase according to the earnings growth measure of 4.8 per cent”.

5. The complainant said that the headline was not supported by the text of the article, in breach of Clause 1, as he said it gave a clear indication that the plan was to means test pensions, which was not the case. He said that the correct position – that pensions were not due to be means-tested – did not appear until partway through the article.

6. The publication did not accept that the headline was significantly misleading. It said that the headline was supported and clarified by the opening paragraph, which it said made clear that there were to be no changes to the current pension system, and that therefore pensions would not be means tested.

7. The publication also said that there had previously been speculation about plans to means-test the state pension. It said it was therefore, in the public interest for this issue to be confirmed and reported on.

8. The publication also said that the basis for the headline’s reference to “major change” reported on in the headline was provided within the article which reported on the expected 4.8% growth in the state pension.

9. Though the publication did not accept that the headline was significantly misleading and in need of correction, it did offer to amend the headline of the article so that it instead read: “DWP confirms state pension means-testing plans status as UK faces major change”

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. The Committee noted that articles should be read as a whole – neither the headline, nor the text, should be considered in complete isolation from the other. It also recognised that the article under complaint did make clear that the government had confirmed that there were no plans to implement means testing for the state pension.

11. However, an accurate article cannot be relied upon to support an inaccurate or misleading headline. The Committee therefore first considered whether the headline, in and of itself, was inaccurate, distorted, or misleading.

12. The Committee acknowledged the publication’s position that the headline was reporting on the status of the government's plans to means testing pensions following speculation – rather than reporting that there were plans to means-test the pension. However, the Committee was of the view that the headline suggested, in a misleading manner, that specific plans to means-test pensions had been proposed; the true position, which is that there were no such plans, was made clear only in the text of the article.

13. In light of this, the article did not support the headline, which was actively misleading. Therefore, the newspaper had not taken care not to publish misleading information, and there was a breach of Clause 1 (i)

14. As the misleading information appeared in the headline, which gave it greater weight and significance. In addition, the misleading information related to a matter of public debate: the provision of universal pensions in the UK. For these reasons, the headline was significantly misleading and required correction under Clause 1 (ii). Given the publication had not published a correction, nor proposed to publish one, there was a breach of Clause 1 (ii).

Conclusions

15. The complaint was upheld under Clause 1 (i) and Clause 1 (ii).

Remedial action required

16. 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.

17. The Committee considered that the headline of the article was significantly misleading and unsupported by the text of the article, in breach of Clause 1. However, it recognised that the article reported the correct position. Therefore, on balance, the Committee considered that a correction was the appropriate remedy. The correction should acknowledge the original misleading information – that there were plans to means-test pensions – and the correct position, which was that the government had confirmed there were no such plans.

18. The Committee then considered the placement of this correction. As the misleading information appeared in the headline, the correction should appear as a standalone correction, in the publication’s online Corrections and Clarifications column, 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 may be published as a footnote.

19. 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: 30/10/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 24/02/2026