06605-24 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 “Popular schemes offering households hundreds of pounds to help with heating this winter”, published on 21 December 2024.

2. A link to the article appeared on the homepage, under the headline “Households will get £450 towards heating costs this winter”. The article itself reported on schemes to help individuals pay their energy bills, and did not refer to any schemes which would provide £450 towards heating bills.

3. The complainant said the headline which appeared on the homepage - “Households will get £450 towards heating costs this winter” – was not supported by the text of the article. The complainant said it implied all households would get £450, however only some would receive this.

4. The publication was made aware of the complaint on 2 January 2025. It accepted that an incorrect homepage headline was used for the article, and that it was inaccurate to say that “households will get £450 towards heating costs this winter”. It said it was not able to demonstrate how it had taken care not to publish inaccurate information in relation to this homepage headline.

5. On 31 January, the publication contacted the complainant and confirmed a correction had been added to the online article – directly beneath the headline - as well as a standalone correction, which was linked on the homepage for 24 hours. The correction read:

“The original version of our article ‘Popular schemes offering households hundreds of pounds to help with heating this winter’, 21 December, was incorrectly linked under a post on the homepage headlined ‘Households will get £450 towards heating costs this winter’. We would like to make clear that this article does not make any reference to households receiving £450, but in fact lists the top searched for government-run schemes that offer financial help with winter bills. We are happy to clarify this and apologies for the error.”

6. The complainant said that the correction was not duly prominent as it had not appeared, in full, on the homepage. Rather, what appeared on the homepage was the newspaper’s logo accompanied by the caption “’£450’ heating scheme – A correction. A correction from Express.co.uk”. He said the link should have read: “An article on 21 December, was incorrectly linked under a post on the homepage headlined ‘Households will get £450 towards heating costs this winter’. Follow the link for full details".

7. The publication said the headline the complainant had suggested for the standalone correction was too long and did not follow its style of standalone corrections. It said the standalone article set out the original inaccuracy and clarified the correct position in full - and it was not the purpose of the headline of a standalone correction to correct the inaccuracy and was not possible given the space limitations. It said it was satisfied the standalone correction satisfied the IPSO’s due prominence requirements.

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

8. The newspaper accepted that the wording of the homepage link to the article was inaccurate, and that it had not taken care over the accuracy of this link. The article did not include a basis for the claim that “Households will get £450 towards heating costs this winter”, and it was not in dispute that the homepage headline was not supported by the text of the article. As such, the publication had not taken care not to publish inaccurate information and there was a breach of Clause 1 (i).

9. 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 that the headline “Households will get £450 towards heating costs this winter” had appeared in a prominent location: the publication’s homepage. In addition, the inaccurate information related to a matter of public concern, namely government assistance available to those who pay energy bills. In these circumstances, the inaccuracy was significant and in need of correction under Clause 1 (ii) of the Code.

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

11. The Committee considered the wording of the correction offered, and whether it was sufficient to correct the record. It noted the complainant’s concern that the title of the standalone correction –“’£450’ heating scheme – A correction” – did not make sufficiently clear what inaccurate information was being corrected, and the correct position. The Committee noted that Clause 1 does not require a headline of a standalone correction to correct an inaccuracy, but instead this is a requirement of the standalone correction it links to. It was content that the standalone article was linked from the homepage for 24 hours and that the standalone correction explained the homepage headline had incorrectly linked to the article under complaint and that the article did not make any reference to households receiving £450, but in fact listed schemes that offer financial help with energy bills. It considered that the standalone correction corrected the record and that it was duly prominent. It further noted that the correction which appeared below the headline on the article also corrected the record as above and was duly prominent where the unsupported headline has appeared on the homepage only.

12. However, where the publication took 29 days to offer and publish the corrections, it did not consider this was sufficiently prompt. This was because the correct position was apparent from the newspaper’s own article, and no further research or verification was required by the publication to establish the correct position. In addition, the publication had not explained why there had been a delay when proposing its corrections. As such, there was a breach of Clause 1 (ii).

Conclusions

13. The complaint was upheld under Clause 1.

Remedial action required

14. 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.

15. The Committee considered that the homepage headline was significantly inaccurate and not supported by the article as there were no government schemes which offered £450 towards energy bills, and no such scheme was referenced in the article. This was significant given its prominence and the fact that it related to a matter of great public concern: government assistance with paying energy bills. However, where the article itself – including the headline which accompanied the article – were accurate, and the newspaper had published a standalone correction during direct correspondence. Therefore, on balance, the Committee considered that the re-publication of a correction, acknowledging that it has been published following an upheld IPSO ruling, was the appropriate remedy. The correction should acknowledge that the homepage headline was not supported by the article, and that households would not receive £450.

16. The Committee then considered the placement of this correction. As the homepage headline was not supported by 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. The correction on the article itself should be amended to make clear it has been published following an upheld complaint.

17. The Committee was content with the wording of the correction, however it should now be re-published to make clear it has been published following an upheld ruling by the Independent Press Standards Organisation.

Date complaint received: 22/12/2024

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 15/04/2025