Satisfactory Remedy – 06549-25 Williams-Key v thesun.co.uk

Summary of Complaint

1. Alan Williams-Key complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that thesun.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code in an article headlined: “POLL OF THE DAY Have you had less to spend this Christmas because of the state of the economy? VOTE NOW”, published on 20 December 2025.

2. The article – which appeared online only - reported on a poll for readers, which posed the question: “Have you had less cash to spend this Christmas”. The article reported:

“Chancellor Rachel Reeves has been accused of ruining the festive period for struggling retailers as her Budget drives shoppers away from high streets. Customers have been left potless by last month’s £30billion tax raid, figures show.”

3. The complainant said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 as it referred to customers being “left potless by last month’s £30billion tax raid”. He stated that none of the taxes announced in the Budget would take effect until April 2026 – customers could not therefore be “potless” due to the Budget.

4. The publication did not accept a breach of the Editors’ Code. It accepted that most of the tax rises announced in the Chancellor's November budget would not come into force until April. However, it said that some had – notably, tobacco duty. It said that, given the article made no claim for any particular tax rise being responsible for consumers' 'being left potless', the article was not inaccurate.

5. Despite this, on the same day it was made aware of the complaint, it offered to publish a footnote to its article. Two days later, it offered to publish the following wording – which was suggested by the complainant - as both a footnote to the article, and a standalone correction, to resolve the complainant’s concerns:

“Most of the £30 billion tax rises referenced in this article come into force in April 2026, though tobacco duty did so immediately in November. We are happy to clarify that the 2025 Budget did not significantly cause customers to be potless.”

6. The complainant did not accept the proposal as a resolution to the complaint – he said the inaccuracy was serious, and had been published gratuitously and without any foundation. He also said that without the disputed sentence, there would have been no justification for the headline, or the article as a whole. Due to this, he did not consider the publication’s corrections to be duly prominent.

7. The corrections were later published on 6 February. The standalone correction appeared beneath the headline: “Poll of the Day: A clarification”, and was added to the publication’s Corrections and Clarifications page.

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)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.

v)A publication must report fairly and accurately the outcome of an action for defamation to which it has been a party, unless an agreed settlement states otherwise, or an agreed statement is published.

Relevant IPSO Regulations

40. If a Regulated Entity offers a remedial measure to a complainant which the Regulator or, if applicable, the Complaints Committee considers to be a satisfactory resolution of the complaint, but such measure is rejected by the complainant, the Regulator or, if applicable, the Complaints Committee shall notify the complainant of the same and that, subject to fulfilment of the offer by the Regulated Entity, it considers the complaint to be closed and a summary of the outcome shall be published on the Regulator's website

Outcome

8. The publication requested that IPSO consider whether the remedial measures it had offered to the complainant amounted to a satisfactory resolution of the complaint such that, subject to fulfilment of the offer, the complaint could be closed.

9. The publication had published a footnote correction to the article, and a standalone correction. IPSO considered the footnote correction a sufficiently prominent position for the clarification when read in the context of the article.

10. The publication had also published a standalone correction. This also represented due prominence, as the separate correction would draw greater visibility to the matter. It also appeared in the publication’s Corrections and Clarifications page, which is where a reader would expect to find it.

11. The publication had first offered a correction the same day it was notified that the complaint raised a possible breach of the Code, and offered the standalone correction two days later – this was sufficiently prompt. The complainant also did not dispute that the correction set out the correct information; indeed, he had suggested its wording.

12. Having taken into account the nature of the complaint and the publication’s remedial actions in response, IPSO concluded that the remedial measures offered by the publication were a satisfactory resolution to the complaint which, following the publication of the corrections, was closed.

Date complaint received: 21/12/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 06/02/2026