06509-24 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 “Poundland boss blames Rachel Reeves's Budget as popular chain suffers £640m loss”, published on 10 December 2024.

2. The article, which appeared online only, reported that Poundland had made a “£640m loss” in the trading year September 2023 – 2024. It reported that "Rachel Reeves' Budget has been blamed for a £640million hit and falling sales by Poundland's owner." The article included a quote from the Chief Executive of Poundland’s owner, Pepco, which stated that the losses incurred were due to “significant decline in performance in 2023-24 and weaker outlook for profitability amid increasing competitive and cost challenges”. The article also reported that Pepco “said it was facing a ‘higher cost outlook in the UK following the recent Budget’, with the Chancellor having announced a bombshell hike to employers' National Insurance Contributions and a further increase in the minimum wage from next April, set to send employee costs surging.”

3. The complainant said the article was in breach of Clause 1 because it reported that Poundland’s “boss” had said the reduction in its profit was due to the Chancellor’s October 2024 budget. He said Poundland’s owner had stated it was facing “higher cost outlook in the UK following the recent Budget”, but that he had not attributed the reported loss to the Chancellor’s Budget. The complainant noted the budget had been announced after the period during which the loss was incurred – and so it could not have been responsible.

4. The complainant also said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 as it reported that Poundland had made a £640 million loss. He said that the difference in profit between the reported 2023 - 2024 the previous year was £640 million; the loss was £457 million.

5. The publication accepted that the article inaccurately reported that the CEO had “blamed” the Chancellor’s budget “for a £640million hit and falling sales. It said this inaccuracy had come about due to human error, and removed the article on 19 December 2024, seven days after it was made aware of the complaint. The publication also published a standalone correction on the same date; this appeared on the publication’s Clarifications and Corrections page, and the publication said it would remain here indefinitely. A link to the correction also appeared on the publication’s homepage for 24 hours, titled “Pepco – A correction”. The wording of the correction read as follows:

“On 10 December 2024, we published an article headlined ‘Poundland boss blames Rachel Reeves's Budget as popular chain suffers £640m loss’ which incorrectly reported that ‘Rachel Reeves' Budget has been blamed for a £640million hit and falling sales by Poundland's owner.’ In fact, although Pepco had said it was facing a ‘higher cost outlook in the UK following the recent Budget’ and cited a ‘weaker outlook for profitability amid increasing competitive and cost challenges’, the £640m loss was due to a ‘significant decline in performance in 2023-24’ before the Budget had been announced. We are happy to clarify this and apologise for the error.”

6. The Complainant did not accept the removal of the article and the published correction as sufficient to resolve his concerns. Firstly, the complainant said that the correction did not address his point of complaint that Poundland’s loss was £457 million rather than£640million. Secondly, he considered that the title of the correction -the only part to appear on the newspaper’s homepage - did not make sufficiently clear which article and claim the correction referred to. He suggested that the title of the correction should be amended to “The Express was wrong to attribute Poundland's £640m loss to Rachel Reeve's Budget”.

7. The publication accepted that the article was inaccurate to report that Poundland had “suffered a £640m loss”. It again said this inaccuracy had come about due to human error. In its first substantive response during IPSO’s investigation, it offered to amend the existing correction on its online corrections and clarifications webpage so that it would read as follows:

“On 10 December 2024, we published an article headlined “Poundland boss blames Rachel Reeves's Budget as popular chain suffers £640m loss" which incorrectly reported that ‘Rachel Reeves' Budget has been blamed for a £640million hit and falling sales by Poundland's owner.’ In fact, although Pepco had said it was facing a ‘higher cost outlook in the UK following the recent Budget’ and cited a ‘weaker outlook for profitability amid increasing competitive and cost challenges’, the £640m loss hit was due to a "significant decline in performance in 2023-24’ before the Budget had been announced. We also reported that the company suffered a £640 million loss, whereas the loss for trading year ending in 2024 was, in fact £457 million. This was a difference of £640 million in comparison to the previous trading year, in which the company made a £131 million profit. We are happy to clarify this and apologise for the error.”

8. The publication said that it considered the correction was duly prominent in line with the requirements of Clause 1 (ii). It did not accept the complainant’s position that the correction had not been duly prominent because the title of the correction on the homepage did not Refer to the specific inaccurate information.

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

9. The publication accepted that the headline and text of the article were inaccurate, as they reported that Pepco’s CEO had attributed the Poundland’s £640 million loss in 2023-2024 to the October 2024 budget. It attributed the inaccuracy to human error and was unable to provide any reasoning for the mistake, or any steps it had taken to verify the information. In light of this, and where the publication had not taken steps to ensure the accuracy of what it published, the Committee considered the publication had failed to take care not to publish inaccurate information on this point. As such, there was a breach of Clause 1 (i).

10. The publication also accepted that the headline and the text of the article inaccurately reported that Poundland had suffered a £640 million loss in September 2023-24. It accepted that the correct position was that Poundland had in fact reported a loss of £457 million. It attributed the inaccuracy to human error – and was unable to provide any reasoning for the mistake, or any steps it had taken to verify the information. Again, where the newspaper was unable to demonstrate it had taken care not to publish inaccurate information, there was a breach of Clause 1 (i).

11. The Committee next considered whether the article was significantly inaccurate and therefore required correction under the terms of Clause 1 (ii). The Committee noted that both points of inaccuracy had appeared in the headline. The first inaccuracy, the claim that Poundland’s owner had attributed its September 2023-2024 losses to Rachel Reeves’ October 2024 budget, formed the basis of the article. The second inaccuracy, the claim that Poundland had reported a loss of £640 million, suggested a significantly higher loss than the £457 million loss the company had actually incurred. The Committee therefore considered that the article was significantly inaccurate in relation to both points, in particular where the inaccuracies featured prominently both in the headline and the text of the article. Both inaccuracies were therefore significant and in need of correction under Clause 1 (ii) of the Code.

12. The Committee next considered whether the correction was sufficient to address the terms of Clause 1 (ii), which requires that significantly inaccurate information is corrected promptly and with due prominence.

13. The Committee considered the wording of the correction offered. In doing so, it also noted the complainant’s concern that the title of the standalone correction did not make sufficiently clear which article the correction related to. However, the Committee considered that the wording of the correction acknowledged that the claim that Pepco had attributed its losses to the budget, and that Poundland had suffered a £640m loss were inaccurate, and had put the correct position on the record – namely, the actual reasons the CEO had given for the loss, and the amount of the loss.

14. Where the text of the homepage made clear it was a correction, referenced the subject matter of the complaint, and linked to the correction which set out the relevant headline in full, the Committee was satisfied the wording of the correction – including the front-page headline - accorded with the terms of Clause 1 (ii).

15. With regards to the promptness of the correction, the Committee noted that the two claims under complaint had been corrected at different times. The first element of the correction – setting out the actual reasons given for the loss - had been published seven days after the publication was made aware of the complaint, which the Committee considered to be sufficiently prompt.

16. The second element of the correction, relating to the claim Poundland had made a loss of £640 million, was offered in the publication’s first substantive response to IPSO’s investigation. Where the inaccuracy had been deleted after seven days, and this element of the correction added in the publication’s next response during the IPSO process, the Committee therefore considered this part of the correction to also be sufficiently prompt, in accordance to the terms of Clause 1 (ii).

17. With regards to the correction’s prominence, both inaccuracies appeared in the headline and text of the article. The article had been removed by the publication, and a standalone correction had been published which appeared on the publication’s homepage for 24 hours. Similarly, the offered correction was also published as a standalone correction, in the publication’s usual online Corrections & Clarifications column. In these circumstances, and - provided the correction is again flagged on the homepage once the proposed changes have been made - the Committee considered that the correction would be duly prominent. Therefore, there was no breach of Clause 1 (ii).

Conclusions

18. The complaint was upheld under Clause 1 (i).

Remedial action required

19. The publication should now amend the standalone correction on its corrections and clarification page with the offered wording, and once amended, a link should be published on the homepage for 24 hours again.

Date complaint received: 11/12/2024

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 20/03/2025