06633-24 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 “Millions of middle-class families face £8,000 tax raid under Labour next year”, published on 29 December 2024.

2. The article, which appeared online only, reported that “millions” of middle-class families faced paying nearly £8000 more in tax in 2025 due to a combination of the Labour government’s policy of introducing VAT on private school fees, and council tax rises. The article reported “A middle-class family with one child attending a private school would be hit by an extra £7,730 of taxation next year, an analysis has suggested.”

3. The complainant said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 as the number of pupils attending fee-paying schools in the UK was around 570,000, and the number of families with at least one child in private school was around 450,000. He said it was therefore inaccurate to claim that “millions” of middle-class families would be paying £8,000 more in tax in 2025 because of the introduction of VAT on private school fees.

4. The publication accepted that the article inaccurately reported that “millions of middle-class families” faced paying almost £8,000 more tax in 2025 and that the correct position was that “thousands” of families would face the tax increase.

5. The publication amended the headline of the article from “Millions of middle-class families face £8,000 tax raid under Labour next year”, to “Thousands of middle-class families face £8,000 tax raid under Labour next year”. It published a correction beneath the article’s headline which stated:

A previous headline of this article incorrectly reported that "Millions of middle-class families face £8,000 tax raid under Labour next year". In fact, the tax figure of £8,000 would apply to families with one child attending a private school, therefore it was inaccurate to report that this tax would affect "millions" of families. We are happy to clarify this and the article has been amended accordingly.

6. The publication also published a standalone correction. The correction was published on the publication’s Clarifications and Corrections page for an indefinite period. A link to the correction also appeared on the publication’s homepage, titled “£8,000 tax – A correction”. The wording of the correction read as follows:’

A previous headline of one of our articles incorrectly reported that "Millions of middle-class families face £8,000 tax raid under Labour next year". In fact, the tax figure of £8,000 would apply to families with one child attending a private school, therefore it was inaccurate to report that this tax would affect "millions" of families. We are happy to clarify this and the article has been amended accordingly, here.

7. The complainant did not accept the published correction as sufficient. He said it was not duly prominent as he considered the headline published on the homepage did not make sufficiently clear which article and claim were being corrected. He requested that the title of the correction be amended from “£8,000 tax – a correction” to "The Express previously reported that "Millions of middle-class families face £8,000 tax raid under Labour next year". In fact, the tax figure of £8,000 would apply to less than half a million."

8. The publication said that the correction published had corrected the inaccuracy and was duly prompt and prominent.

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.

Relevant IPSO Regulation

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.

Findings of the Committee

9. The publication requested that IPSO consider whether the remedial measures it had offered amounted to a satisfactory resolution of the complaint – in line with the provisions in Regulation 40 of IPSO’s Regulations – and whether the complaint could be closed. The Committee considers such requests on a case-by-case basis.

10. In this case, the Committee did not consider that the application of Regulation 40 was appropriate. In its view, there was a public interest in it considering the complaint fully and publishing a reasoned decision. It considered this to be the case as the inaccuracy appeared prominently in the headline and formed the basis of the article. The Committee noted that the publication of such decisions is an important element of IPSO’s regulatory function, and that any decision not to fully consider a complaint, and to close it as having been satisfactorily remedied, must be weighed carefully given the public interest in IPSO making a full and reasoned decision.

11. The publication accepted that the headline and text of the article were inaccurate where they referred to “millions” of families facing an £8,000 tax increase, and accepted that the correct position was that fewer than 500,000 families would be affected by the introduction of VAT on private school fees. The Committee considered that the article contained no basis for the claim that “millions” of middle-class families would face paying £8,000 more in tax in 2025. In light of this, and where the publication attributed the inaccuracy to human error but had not taken steps to verify the number of families in the UK with one child attending private school, the Committee did not consider that the publication had taken care not to publish inaccurate information on this point. As such, there was a breach of Clause 1 (i).

12. The Committee next considered whether the article was significantly inaccurate to require correction under the terms of Clause 1 (ii) which requires the correction of significantly inaccurate, misleading, or distorted information. The Committee noted that where the correct position was that fewer than 500,000 families would face paying £8,000 more in tax in 2025, the claim that this would affect “millions” of families was significantly different. It considered that the inaccurate information formed the basis of the article and featured prominently in the headline, and the text of the article itself. The error was therefore significant and in need of correction under Clause 1 (ii) of the Code.

13. 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.

14. The Committee considered the wording of the correction offered, noting the complainant’s concern that the title of the standalone correction, “£8000 tax – a correction” did not make sufficiently clear which article the correction related to. The Committee considered that the wording of the correction put the correct position on record - it made clear that it was inaccurate to state that “millions” of families would pay £8,000 more in tax in 2025 due to Labour government’s policy of introducing VAT on private school fees, and set out that only families with one child in private school would face paying £8,000 more in tax in 2025 under the policy. The updated article also made the specifics of this clear – it would affect “thousands” of families. It considered that where the standalone correction acknowledged the inaccurate claim and included a link to the article it was sufficiently clear which article was under correction.

15. The Committee considered the correction was sufficiently prompt as it was published one day after the publication was made aware of the complaint. The inaccuracy had appeared in the headline and text of the article and the correction had been published both directly under the headline and as a standalone correction, flagged on the express.co.uk homepage for 24 hours, the Committee considered that the correction was duly prominent. Therefore, there was no breach of Clause 1 (ii).

Conclusions

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

Remedial action required

17. The published correction put the correct position on record and was offered promptly and with due prominence. No further action was required.

Date complaint received: 29/12/2024

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 05/02/2025