No. If you would like help in lodging a complaint, the Commission’s staff will be happy to assist wherever possible. Complaints involving solicitors tend to take longer to be concluded, without noticeable improvement in the result.

It depends on how complex the issues are. It may only take a few days but the average time is around 35 working days.

4. What might the Commission consider is a reasonable way for the editor to offer to resolve my complaint?

Complaints officers seek to negotiate a resolution that is, primarily, satisfactory to the complainant. Complainants will be given the opportunity to make clear what action they are seeking as a means of resolving their complaint. These may include: the publication of a correction, apology, follow-up piece or letter from you; a private letter of apology from the editor; an undertaking as to future conduct by the newspaper; the annotation of the publication’s records to ensure that an error is not repeated, and so on.

The PCC will seek to resolve complaints that raise a possible breach of the Code. If a complaint appears, on prima facie grounds, not to raise a breach of the Code, it will be placed before the Commission at an initial stage. Should Commissioners consider that the complaint should be investigated further, this will be done and its resolution attempted.

If the Commission cannot resolve your complaint, it will come to a decision under the Code of Practice. If the Commission considers there to have been an unresolved breach of the Code, it will uphold the complaint against the publication. The publication will then have to publish the wording in full on its own pages, with a headline reference to the PCC. The Commission publishes all of its adjudications here on this website [click here].

However, if the Commission considers that a publication's offer to resolve the complaint represents sufficient remedial action in the circumstances, it would not consider that any further action would be necessary. There would be no outstanding breach of the Code and the complaint would not be upheld as a result.

The Commission can formally consider complaints about most (around 97%) commercially available UK newspapers and magazines. On the rare occasions that a newspaper or magazine does not fall under the PCC’s jurisdiction, the Commission will still seek – where possible – informally to resolve complaints against it.

The Commission has no formal powers to negotiate compensation on behalf of complainants. If you are seeking money you will need to take legal advice.

No. The Commission cannot instruct newspapers and magazines to withhold publication of an article; if it had that power it would clearly infringe the newspaper or magazine’s right to freedom of expression.

If you believe that an article is likely to breach the Code, you can contact the editor directly to make your concerns known. The PCC is happy to give advice on how best to frame your concerns under the terms of the Code or to pass on messages to editors, where appropriate.

The PCC will take complaints about the on-line versions of newspaper and magazines, provided that the publication subscribes to the Code of Practice and the material is something that is covered by the terms of the Code.

Generally speaking the PCC does not deal with the following issues:

12. The Commission says it won’t accept 'unduly delayed' complaints. What does the Commission consider to be ‘unduly delayed'?

Generally the Commission will not accept complaints more than two months after publication of the article or two months after the close of correspondence with the editor (providing that such correspondence was entered into immediately after publication and has been continuous since publication of the article) unless there are special circumstances. It will, however, always give the complainant the opportunity to argue why a delayed complaint should be entertained.

The Commission has regarded downloading an article as republication. Therefore, material that is freely available on a newspaper’s website can generally be complained about, even if the piece was not originally published within the last two months.

However, the Commission will have regard for the length of time that has elapsed between the original publication of the article and the complaint. It considers that complaints are most appropriately investigated while circumstances remain fresh in the minds of those involved. Indeed supporting evidence – such as reporters’ notes – is less likely to be available when it relates to a matter that took place a long time before a complaint has been lodged.

A long delay will therefore have an impact on the extent to which the Commission can reach a finding on the merits of the case. It will also affect the possible action necessary from a publication to resolve the complaint appropriately. The Commission will take into consideration the circumstances accounting for the delay being lodged (including whether a complaint was possible at the time of original publication).

[back to top]

13. I am not the person directly involved in the report that I want to complain about. Can the PCC still help?

The PCC does not generally accept complaints from third parties about cases involving named individuals without the signed authorisation of the person concerned. This is for a number of reasons:

In regard to complaints about matters of general fact under Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Code – where there are no obvious first parties cited in the article, who might complain – the Commission can, and regularly does, investigate complaints from any concerned reader.

In addition the PCC has an absolute discretion about whether or not to investigate any complaint. If, therefore, there appeared to be an exceptional public interest in accepting a complaint from a third party concerning a named individual, then it would do so – but the arguments set out above mean that it is a high threshold to cross and in practice it happens very rarely.

If you wish to raise a complaint, and are unsure whether you might be classed as a third party to it, do contact us for advice.

The Code of Practice does not deal with matters of taste or offensiveness. The Commission does not want to act as a censor but will – if you wish – forward a copy of your letter to the editor so that they are aware of your views. The Commission will, of course, consider complaints about controversial articles and cartoons that have been framed under the terms of the Code.

The issue of material already existing in the public domain is, generally, relevant in regard to two areas of complaint.

The Commission would urge people always to make complaints about material or conduct that they feel breaches the Code of Practice. A failure to complain previously about something will not ever prevent the possibility for a later complaint, but may limit the scope of a resolution negotiated by the Commission.

Generally speaking, the principle of open justice is such that newspapers and magazines are entitled to report on what is revealed in court, providing that there are no court-imposed restrictions. However, the Code goes further than the courts in two important respects:

Clause 12 (Discrimination) is designed to prevent named individuals from being subject to discriminatory reference. The Code was changed in 2004 to refer to ‘an individual’s race, colour, religion, sex, sexual orientation or to any physical or mental illness or disability’ to make this especially clear.

The Code does not prohibit discriminatory references to groups of people. To do so would – arguably – interfere with a basic principle of freedom of expression. The Code was designed to protect the individual, which it does in its current form.

However, the Commission has often been able to refocus people’s concerns about the reporting of groups of people into a complaint under Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Code: if you feel that an article has made unfair references to a particular group, you may be able to argue that those references are inaccurate or misleading in breach of Clause 1.

The Code of Practice [click here] does include rules relating to photographs. Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Code prohibits the publication of “inaccurate, misleading or distorted material”, which include pictures.

Indeed, the Commission has ruled specifically on the digital distortion of images, in an adjudication against a local newspaper [click here], in which it took the opportunity to remind editors that they must make clear to readers when they have altered photographs in any material way. If they are unsure about whether their changes are significant they should incline towards transparency and declare that the image has been altered or artificially assembled.

Clause 3 (Privacy) relates generally to “respect for private and family life, home, health and correspondence” and states that “it is unacceptable to photograph individuals in private places without their consent”. Clause 4 (Harassment) states that “journalists and photographers must neither obtain nor seek to obtain information or pictures through intimidation, harassment or persistent pursuit”. The Clauses that seek to protect vulnerable groups of people – in particular those relating to children (Clause 6) and hospitals (Clause 8) – include provisions on the actions of photographers as well as reporters, as does Clause 10 (Clandestine devices and subterfuge).

19. Does the Code of Practice still apply to the reporting of war or are there other regulations placed on newspapers and magazines at those times?

The Code applies at all times - including war. However, there may be further obligations placed upon newspapers during a conflict, which would come from the Defence, Press and Broadcasting Advisory Committee [click here].

The PCC strives to be as accessible as possible – including to those with any form of disability. Consequently, we operate a Textphone for people with impaired hearing and make the Code of Practice available in large print format and on tape for those who have difficulty reading. If you are not able to set your complaint down in writing – and cannot be assisted by a friend or relative – we can take details of your concern over the telephone.

Although we publish our complaints literature in a number of languages, in order to assist those for whom English is not their first language, we are not able to accept complaints made in other languages. We can, of course, accept a complaint from somebody acting on your behalf if you are not able to write it down yourself.

The Commission publishes specific guidance on areas of the Code of Practice, including on Clause 4, which relates to Harassment. This guidance can be seen on-line [click here]. During office hours our experienced case officers are available at all times to offer practical suggestions as to how to react if you feel you are being harassed by journalists. Out of office hours, the PCC – uniquely for such a regulatory organisation – runs an emergency advice line from which you can obtain immediate assistance 24 hours a day. If you call 07659 152656 and leave a message we will contact you as soon as possible to offer help and guidance. It should be stressed, however, that this number is exclusively for emergency situations.

You can contact the Commission at any time by using our 24 hour emergency advice line (07659 152565), although general enquiries should only be made between 9.00-5.30 by calling our helpline on 0845 600 2757. (Details of our Scottish and Welsh helplines are available here). Our 24 hour service operates at weekends and on public holidays.

For journalists we operate a 24 hour press office on 07659 158536. We can assist with press queries at any time.

Yes. To go to our online complaints form please click here. As soon as we receive your email we shall log your complaint onto our database. However, we are not able to process the case until we receive a copy of the relevant article – so it’s helpful if you can send that in electronic form too. We try to deal with complaints as quickly as possible since that is obviously in everybody’s best interests – any assistance you can give us in that respect is, therefore, greatly appreciated.

The Commission’s news service emails go out to over 2,000 interested parties. If you would like to subscribe to this service free of charge please [click here].

Our latest Annual Review is now available. This contains a detailed statistical breakdown of the trends in complaints, analysis of the major issues the Commission has dealt with in the past year and an assessment of press self-regulation in an international context. [click here] To be placed on our mailing list to receive a copy, or to get copies from previous years, please email your request to pcc@pcc.org.uk

For a more in depth study of the Commission’s inception in 1991, its history and the status of self-regulation ten years on, a limited number of copies of Professor Richard Shannon’s book A Press Free and Responsible: Self-regulation and the Press Complaints Commission 1991-2001 are available from the Commission. Please email your request to pcc@pcc.org.uk. Finally, if you want more information about Press Councils world-wide, please [click here]

The positions of public, or lay, members are openly advertised in a variety of national and regional publications. A short list of candidates are then prepared by an independent panel for the Appointments Commission to consider. The Appointments Commission is comprised predominantly of public members, including the Chairman of the PCC, with only one member connected to the industry.

Editorial representatives on the Commission are proposed by the various publishing bodies. One member will always be from a Scottish newspaper. The candidates are then approved by the Appointments Commission.
The Chairman of the PCC is appointed by the industry.

If a newspaper or magazine is found to have acted in breach of the Code, the editor is obliged to publish the Commission’s criticisms in full and with due prominence. If the breach is particularly serious, the Commission can then refer the editor to his or her publisher to address the areas of concern. As many editors have adherence to the PCC Code written into his or her contract, a serious breach can have consequences in regard to their future employment.

The Commission has consistently made clear that it is always willing to reconsider its decisions, on appeal, if there is any suggestion that it has significantly misunderstood any aspect of the complaint or if new evidence comes to light.

If you feel – at the end of your complaint – that there have been failings in the manner in which it was handled, you can write to the independent Charter Commissioner [click here] with your concerns. The Charter Commissioner can only consider appeals over the handling of the complaint, rather than the substance of the decision. However, in some cases, his recommendations have led to a decision being changed by the Commission, and further remedial action being offered by newspapers.

The Code of Practice is the responsibility of the Code of Practice Committee, which is a committee of newspaper and magazine representatives (for details of the committee’s membership click here). It is not written by the Commission – although the PCC does ratify any changes that are made. It is, of course, one of the core parts of the whole self-regulatory system that the rules, overseen by the PCC as an independent body, are actually produced by the industry to which they relate. Self-imposed codes carry more moral authority within the industry than those set down from outside.

The Code – like the Commission – is constantly evolving and numerous changes have been made over the years (click here for more details). Anyone, whether a member of the PCC, a journalist, a politician or member of the public can propose amendments to the Code. It is then for the Code of Practice Committee to decide whether to implement those suggestions when it conducts its annual audit of the Code. Any ideas on how the Code could usefully be amended can be sent to the Secretary of the Code Committee, PO Box 235, Stonehouse, GL10 3UF.

The PCC will take complaints about the on-line versions of newspapers and magazines, provided that the publication subscribes to the Code of Practice and the material is something that is covered by the terms of the Code.

The PCC will be able to handle complaints about audio-visual and audio material that appears on a publication’s website. The industry has issued a guidance note on the subject.

Ordinary PCC complaints processes will apply to such complaints. They would have to be made within two months of the final publication of the material. A complainant would have to specify the complaint under the terms of the Code and provide – where possible – a verifiable copy of the item under complaint. This may be in the form of a transcript. As with all cases, PCC staff will be available to assist in the lodging of any AV complaint.

The test for the PCC is whether the material concerned is subject to editorial control within the terms of the Code of Practice. Comments posted by users in chatrooms or in the form of unedited blogs would generally fall outside the jurisdiction of the PCC.

1. Why doesn't the PCC impose fines? Isn't the publication of adjudications a fairly weak response to what are quite often serious complaints?

As a non-statutory body the Commission does not have the power to impose fines, which would inevitably entail lawyers for complainants and legal powers for the complaints handling body. The PCC would have to be given legal powers by statute with all the drawbacks – such as costs, delay and risk – inherent in that, as well as the implications for press freedom. In any case, it is doubtful that fines would be at all effective. Evidence from overseas suggests that where fines do exist (for example in France) editors risk publishing intrusive stories – and then pay the damages – because the increase in sales more than compensates for the cost of the fine. Awards by the European Court of Human Rights for breaches of privacy limit payouts to around £10,000, which is a fairly small sum for large, successful newspapers.

On the other hand, critical adjudications of the PCC must be published in full and with due prominence, meaning that editors have to publicise to their staff, rivals and readers that they have broken the rules agreed by all editors. Such a sanction – which calls into question an editor's professional judgement – is a far greater deterrent than fines. Adjudications can run to a full newspaper or magazine page, which has its own financial implications resulting from the loss of potential advertising space. Furthermore, most editors have adherence to the Code written into their contracts of employment – meaning that, in cases of a serious breach, the Commission can draw the attention of the editor's employer to an adjudication. Breaches of the Code can therefore be a disciplinary matter within newspapers.

To illustrate the effectiveness of the sanction, the Commission draws attention to the fact that very few breaches of the Code have to be adjudicated. Editors will go out of their way to resolve complaints to the satisfaction of the complainant if they think there is any danger that they will lose an adjudication. In 2006, in cases where there was a possible breach of the Code, editors made appropriate offers in 98% of complaints; 78% of those complaints were resolved to the complainant’s satisfaction. This means that complainants get very quick and effective redress – far quicker and more useful than any legal system could deliver, and far quicker than would be the case if the process was diverted by haggling over the level of any fine. It is interesting to note that complaints made through lawyers – a foretaste of what any statutory system would be like – take up to 150% longer to deal with than complaints made directly to the Commission.

There are considerable advantages to the PCC, in comparison to the courts:

3. If the Code is written by the industry and self-regulation, including the running of the PCC, is funded by the industry, how can the PCC be impartial?

Briefly, it is essential to the workings of self-regulation and to the power of adjudication that, if found against, the editor of a publication must admit publicly that the rules to which they have contributed and by which they have agreed to abide have been broken. Similarly, the fact that the industry funds the PCC ensures that not only is no financial burden placed upon the taxpayer or complainants, but that each newspaper group is committed to the ideal of self-regulation.

However, the make-up of the Commission [click here] reflects the fact that, while it is supported by the industry, it is also – crucially – independent from it. The Chairman of the PCC is always a figure from outside the world of journalism and the Commission itself has a clear majority of lay members (10 out of a total 17), themselves independently appointed [click here]. These are respected people from a variety of other industries, who bring not only wide-ranging experience of different walks of life but also are removed from the daily workings of the industry itself. The minority of editors on the Commission bring with them an industry perspective essential to the decision-making process, but they can never dominate proceedings.

The PCC has also established the role of the Charter Commissioner, an independent figure unconnected to the newspaper industry, to hear concerns about the handling of complaints. An independent body called the Charter Compliance Panel examines random samples of PCC cases in order to ensure that proper practice is being observed.

4. Critical adjudications, as well as corrections and apologies in cases of significant inaccuracy, must be published with due prominence. What do you mean by due prominence?

The Commission does not instruct editors where to publish apologies or adjudications, but the requirement in the Code for due prominence means that the Commission expects them to be published somewhere that is proportionate to the original breach of the Code. This does not mean necessarily on the same page, and will depend on a number of factors: the gravity of the error; the speed with which it has been addressed by the publication; the proportion of the original story that was in breach of the Code; whether the newspaper has a designated correction column, and so on.

Ultimately, the PCC is a dispute resolution service and seeks to resolve all complaints to the satisfaction of the complainant. The precise location of a published correction or apology can therefore be negotiated as part of this process.

Since 2005, the PCC has surveyed the location of published corrections, clarifications and apologies in newspapers and magazines on an annual basis. In 2008, for example, the majority of corrections, apologies and clarifications (85%) appeared on the same page or further forward than the original item under complaint, or in a dedicated corrections column.

5. Would it not be better if print and broadcast media all came under the same Code and the same authority?

The print media is fundamentally different from other media in the manner that it is transmitted and received and it is, therefore, vitally important for it to have a separate regulating body equipped to deal with the particular issues relevant to it. Most importantly, whereas companies require a license from government to broadcast and therefore are subject to statutory control, newspapers guarantee freedom of expression away from governmental interference and therefore require an independent form of self-regulation – which the PCC provides. This was a point acknowledged by the Government when it amended the Human Rights Act 1998 (in what became Clause 12 of the Act) to protect the position of self regulation as a manifestation of freedom of expression.

It is universally recognised that a free press is an essential part of a democratic society. The PCC similarly recognises that newspapers must have editorial freedom to publish what they choose so long as the rights of individuals are not compromised by their content. Therefore, provided the stringent terms of the industry's own Code of Practice – designed especially to protect the individual – are not breached, the PCC cannot, and would not wish, to place any limits on editorial selection. If the PCC were to make the very subjective judgment as to whether material is 'tasteless' or 'offensive', it would be assuming the role of moral arbiter, which is ultimately to say censor. Instead, most editors are aware of what is and is not acceptable to their readership and, if miscalculations are made on this score, market forces will generally dictate they are not repeated.

This is an example of why the PCC is different from other media regulators. Advertising billboards, and to a lesser extent television programmes, contain information disseminated on an extremely wide scale, the consumption of which cannot necessarily be controlled. For example, as anyone can look at an advert, it is necessary to ensure that all advertisements do not break basic standards of decency and taste. Newspapers are actively purchased and therefore need not be subject to the same restrictions.

7. Why isn't the PCC pro-active? Should it not be prepared to take up breaches of the Code without waiting for complaints?

The PCC is often unfairly accused of not being pro-active. In fact, its pro-activity as an organisation is apparent in a number of ways:

However, it would be impossible to administer a wider system of initiating our own complaints without monitoring the whole of the British press – which would not be desirable or practical.

The reasons noted above in relation to third party complaints may also militate against the PCC launching investigations proactively even where no complaint has been received. Nonetheless, as with third party complaints the PCC has an absolute discretion about whether or not to investigate a complaint. If it appeared to the Commission that there was a particular public interest in raising its own complaint then it could do so – but only in very exceptional situations

Quite the contrary. The PCC is specifically designed to help members of the public who find themselves – often through no fault of their own – involved in news stories. To this end, the PCC provides a free and accessible service, which requires no legal expertise, and includes: a Helpline to assist members of the public in making complaints; the publication of literature in a range of minority languages – including Welsh, Urdu, Bengali, Gaelic, Arabic, Somali and Chinese; this Internet site so that information is available 24 hours a day; a Textphone to assist deaf or hard of hearing persons with enquiries; and a 24-hour paging service to ensure that personal advice is available around the clock for all those who need it. In 2007 over 95% of all complainants were ordinary members of the public.

Far from it. In fact, the overwhelming majority of media ethics bodies in Europe are self regulatory.

Some of the self regulatory bodies have long-established roots (the Swedish Press Council for instance is over eighty-five years old) while others have been more recently set up (a Press Council in Bosnia & Herzegovina was established just five years ago and a similar body in Bulgaria started operations in 2006). Moreover, different bodies have slightly different remits and functions - which, given that they are set against different cultural and political backgrounds, is quite proper. Nevertheless, there are around twenty self-regulatory councils around the continent, all of which seek to maintain press freedom while ensuring press responsibility.

These bodies meet annually and form a loose knit grouping known as the Alliance of Independent Press Councils of Europe in which the PCC plays a full part. Delegates are able to find out which issues are facing their counterparts in other countries, give and receive advice and ensure that they are providing the best possible service to the public.

There are also many Press Councils and similar self-regulatory bodies further afield - many of which have been established after seeking advice and help from the PCC. More details can be found at www.aipce.net

The Commission has worked hard in recent times to listen to the views of people outside London. To this end, although our small staff remains based in London, the PCC has initiated a programme of Open Days to be held around the United Kingdom. At these, anybody can come along to discuss the Commission’s work, to express any concerns they might have and to quiz both staff and Commissioners in a question & answer session. So far, the PCC has visited Manchester, Edinburgh, Cardiff, Belfast, Newcastle, Liverpool, Glasgow, Birmingham and Oxford with events planned in Leeds.

In addition to these formal occasions, the Commission has engaged in numerous meetings, conferences, seminars and workshops around England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Our aim is to spread knowledge about our activities and to learn from people across the country about which aspects of our service they like and which can be improved. If you would like a meeting with our external affairs manager or would like to book a talk with one of our representatives please click here. We are happy to help whenever we can.

There is no need for separate PCCs for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Newspapers from all four countries in the UK circulate across borders and are often owned by the same companies. Separate PCCs would lead to confusion, a duplication of responsibilities, and a lack of consistency. Neither are there sufficient cultural differences to merit it.