06021-24 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 “Flight of fancy: Reeves clobbers cattle class air travel with huge holiday tax hike”, published on 30 October 2024.

2. The article – which appeared online only – reported on upcoming changes to Air Passenger Duty (APD) following the autumn budget announcement. It included a sub-headline: “Air Passenger Duty rises announced yesterday will add nearly £200 to the cost of economy tickets to New York or Dubai”. The article also reported: “The APD rises announced yesterday will add nearly £200 to the cost of economy tickets to New York or Dubai.”

3. The article explained that, “[f]or passengers travelling in cattle class, [APD rates] are £7 for a domestic flight, £13 for a short-haul flight, and £88-£92 for a long-haul flight. Those in premium cabins are charged £14 for a domestic flight, £26 for a short-haul flight, and £194-£202 for a long-haul flight. Private jet passengers currently face an APD rate of £78 for domestic or short-haul flights, and £581-£607 for long-haul flights”.

4. The complainant said it was inaccurate, in breach of Clause 1, to report that the APD rises “will add nearly £200 to the cost of economy tickets to New York or Dubai". He said flights to Dubai and New York were in band B APD rate, so – according to a government website, setting out the different bands and updated APD charges, following the budget - the actual increase in price for one-way economy tickets to Dubai and New York would be £12 in 2026.

5. He said this was a small tax hike, which did not justify the term “clobbers” or amount to the £200 “hike” referred to prominently in the article.

6. In addition, the complainant said the article did not include the date when the increase would come into force. He said this gave the impression that the increase in prices would be immediate. He said the increase would only come into force in 2026, and omitting this information was misleading.

7. The publication said that, upon the budget announcement, the publication had sought comment from the Chief Executive of Airlines UK, and it was this comment that acted as the basis for the disputed claim. It provided his comments during IPSO’s investigation to support its position: “Travelling to New York for a romantic weekend? Or Dubai with your business partner? Even in economy class, APD will add nearly £200 to the cost of your tickets, even before the impact of today’s Budget.”

8. The publication noted the comment referred to the fact that “APD will add nearly £200 to the cost of your tickets"; it said it was reasonable for the publication to rely on and publish this information. It said the APD rise of £200 was correct when referring to an adult couple - and noted that the article referenced tickets, rather than a single ticket - and when considering the overall extra cost of APD on top of the basic ticket price flying from the UK. It gave the example of £102 per person from April 2026, up from £90 in April 2025.

9. The publication said the article did not suggest that the increase had already taken place, and used the future tense "will" to refer to the changes.

10. While the publication did not consider that the article was inaccurate, on 10 December – 20 days after having been made aware of the complaint - it offered to add an additional sentence to the article making clear that the figure of £200 related to a "couple of tickets” and to clarify that this would not come into effect until 1 April 2026.

11. The complainant accepted that the new APD would be around £204 for two tickets in the band B rate. However, he said that the increase due to the budget would only be about £24 as the existing duty was £180. Therefore, it was inaccurate to claim the APD rises announced in the budget would “add nearly £200”, as reported by the article.

12. The publication said it was a matter of semantics how the reader might understand the term “add” in the context of the article. However, on 2 January – 43 days after having been made aware of the complaint - it offered to amend the article as a gesture of goodwill to instead report: "Air Passenger Duty rises announced yesterday will add nearly £200 to the cost of a pair of economy tickets to New York or Dubai", as well as to add the following clarification to the top of the article:

“A previous version of this article reported that the ‘Air Passenger Duty rises announced yesterday will add nearly £200 to the cost of economy tickets to New York or Dubai". The article has been amended to make clear that the figure of £200 would be the total APD added to the cost of a pair of economy tickets to New York or Dubai, for example. We are also happy to make clear that this would not come into effect until 1 April 2026.”

13. The complainant said he was not concerned that the article did not make clear that it was referring to a pair of tickets, and so the correction did not resolve his concerns. He reiterated his position that the APD increase arising from the budget was only £24, and as the correction did not address this he did not consider his complaint had been resolved.

14. On 9 January the newspaper offered to amend the article further in the interest of resolving the complaint, to state: "Air Passenger Duty rises announced yesterday will add nearly £24 to the cost of a pair of economy tickets to New York or Dubai in March 2026 making the total APD nearly £200". It said it was still content to publish the correction previously offered.

15. The complainant said the correction was now accurate however it was not duly prominent as the inaccuracy has appeared in the headline – he therefore thought that the correction should appear in a more visible position.

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

16. The Committee noted that both parties appeared to accept that - following the changes announced in the budget - from 2026 a pair of tickets to New York or Dubai would cost an additional £24. The Committee further noted that the Chief Executive of Airlines UK – whose comments the publication said formed the basis for the claim - had said: “Even in economy class, APD will add nearly £200 to the cost of your tickets, even before the impact of today’s Budget”. The Committee considered this made clear APD made up nearly £200 to existing economy Band B tickets prior to the budget announcement. The publication appeared to have misunderstood the comment, and had instead reported that “Air Passenger Duty rises announced yesterday will add nearly £200 to the cost of economy tickets to New York or Dubai” – rather than that, before the budget, APD “add[e] nearly £200 to the cost of […] tickets”. The article was therefore inaccurate on this point, given it specifically linked the £200 “hike” to the budget, and – as this was contrary to the comment itself that had been provided and which formed the basis of the article - the publication had not taken care not to publish misleading information. and there was a breach of Clause 1 (i).

17. The Committee also noted that the complainant had raised concern about the accuracy of the headline which referred to “clobbers” and “huge holiday tax hike”. Given the headline was based on the inaccurate premise that the rises announced would add nearly £200 to the cost of economy tickets to New York or Dubai - when the figure was approximately £24 - the headline was also misleading. This represented a further breach of 1 (i), since – as noted above – the misleading headline had come about due to an apparent misunderstanding of a comment which had been provided to the publication.

18. The Committee next considered whether the headline and article were significantly inaccurate and misleading, and therefore in need of correction. It noted that the focus of the article, from the headline onwards, was on the impact the budget would have on airline prices and therefore had the potential to significantly mislead readers on the impact of the budget. As such, the headline, sub-headline and article required a correction in line with the terms of Clause 1 (ii).

19. On 2 January, the publication offered to amend the article and publish a correction at the top of the article. However, the Committee did not consider this was sufficiently prompt, given the publication had been made aware of the complainant’s concerns on 20 November - 43 days prior to the correction being offered.

20. The publication had offered to amend the article, and publish a clarification beneath the headline – however the Committee did not consider this to be sufficiently prominent where the significantly inaccurate claim had appeared in the headline and therefore was given more prominence. Further, it did not consider the wording of the correction to be sufficient where it did not make clear that the actual difference in price between a pre-budget pair of tickets and post-budget pair of tickets would be £24 – rather than £200. As such, there was a breach of Clause 1 (ii).

21. The Committee next considered the complainant’s concerns that the article did not make sufficiently clear the date of the increase. The Committee noted that the article did not refer to the increase in the present tense and referred to the increase as “will add” and referred to “rises announced yesterday” - it did not state they had come into effect. The Committee did not consider omitting the specific date of when the increase would take effect rendered the article inaccurate or misleading where the article had made sufficiently clear the changes would be happening in the future. As such, there was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

Conclusions

22. The complaint was upheld under Clause 1.

Remedial action required

23. 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.

24. The article inaccurately reported that the APD rises announced in the budget would “add nearly £200 to the cost of economy tickets to New York or Dubai” and the headline referred to “huge holiday tax hike” . In fact, an additional £24 would be payable following the budget changes coming into effect. The Committee considered these claims to be significant, given the fact the article focused on the rise, and that had the potential to mislead readers on the impact of the budget. However, the Committee also took into account the steps taken by the publication to resolve the complaint – albeit it had not done so promptly, prominently, or offered wording which the Committee considered satisfied the terms of Clause 1 (ii). Therefore, on balance, the Committee considered that a correction was the appropriate remedy. The correction should acknowledge the original inaccuracy, and set out the correct position, which is that the rise in APD following the budget coming into force will be £24 for a pair of tickets to Dubai or New York.

25. The Committee then considered the placement of this correction.

26. As the inaccuracy appeared in the headline to the article, 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 should be published as a footnote.

27. 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: 31/10/2024

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 11/03/2024

DRAFT CORRECTION FOR COMMITTEE’S APPROVAL:

Amended

A previous version of this article reported that “Reeves clobbers cattle class air travel with huge holiday tax hike”, and Air Passenger Duty rises announced as part of the autumn budget “will add nearly £200 to the cost of economy tickets to New York or Dubai”. This was inaccurate; the actual increase for these tickets due to Air Passenger Duty will be £24. This correction has been published following an upheld ruling by the Independent Press Standards Organisation.

Unamended

This article reports that that “Reeves clobbers cattle class air travel with huge holiday tax hike”, and Air Passenger Duty rises announced as part of the autumn budget “will add nearly £200 to the cost of economy tickets to New York or Dubai”. This is inaccurate; the actual increase for these tickets due to Air Passenger Duty will be £24. This correction has been published following an upheld ruling by the Independent Press Standards Organisation.

Standalone

An article headlined “Flight of fancy: Reeves clobbers cattle class air travel with huge holiday tax hike”, published on 30 October 2024. It reported that “Reeves clobbers cattle class air travel with huge holiday tax hike”, and Air Passenger Duty rises announced as part of the autumn budget “will add nearly £200 to the cost of economy tickets to New York or Dubai”. This was inaccurate; the actual increase for these tickets due to Air Passenger Duty will be £24. This correction has been published following an upheld ruling by the Independent Press Standards Organisation.