Handling IPSO Complaints as a UK Editor

What is IPSO and who must comply?

The Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) is the UK's principal press regulator, established in 2014 following the Leveson Inquiry. It regulates the majority of national and regional newspapers, magazines, and their associated online platforms. Membership is voluntary but nearly universal among mainstream UK print publishers. Publishers who join IPSO agree to comply with the Editors' Code of Practice and with IPSO's Regulations, which govern the complaints process.

IMPRESS is a separate, Leveson-compliant regulator covering a smaller number of online-native and independent publishers. The complaints processes differ between the two bodies. This guide covers the IPSO process from the editor's perspective. For IMPRESS, see our companion guide on Handling IMPRESS Complaints.

Understanding the IPSO complaints process is not optional for editors at IPSO-regulated titles. Failing to engage with a complaint properly, missing the 7-day acknowledgement window, or publishing a correction in a non-prominent position can all constitute secondary breaches of the Editors' Code, independent of the original complaint.

The 7-day initial response requirement

When a complaint is received — whether by email, post, or via the IPSO online portal — the publisher must acknowledge it within 7 days. This is a minimum procedural requirement under IPSO's Regulations, not merely best practice.

• 1The acknowledgement must confirm receipt and indicate that the complaint is being reviewed. It does not need to resolve the complaint.
• 2Log the date of receipt immediately. The 7-day clock runs from when the complaint was received by the publisher, not from when it reaches the editor's desk.
• 3Assign the complaint to a named person. In larger newsrooms this is typically the legal or compliance team; in smaller outlets it is the editor directly.
• 4Assess urgency: if the complaint relates to an article that is currently live online, consider whether a temporary caveat or hold is appropriate pending review.
• 5Do not ignore or delay complaints in the hope that the complainant will not pursue the matter. IPSO tracks acknowledgement times and a failure to respond is itself a compliance issue.
• 6If the complaint is plainly outside IPSO's remit — for example, a commercial dispute rather than an editorial complaint — the publisher may decline to engage under IPSO's process, but must explain this clearly and promptly.

The Editor of the Day rota

IPSO's Regulations require larger publishers to maintain an “Editor of the Day” rota — a roster of senior editorial staff who are designated as the responsible contact for urgent complaints on each day of the year, including weekends and public holidays.

Investigating and responding to the complaint

After acknowledging the complaint, the editor must conduct a genuine internal review. The substantive response should address the specific clauses of the Editors' Code that the complainant has cited, or that the editor identifies as relevant, and reach a reasoned conclusion.

• ›Obtain the reporter's notes, sources, and any pre-publication fact-checking correspondence relating to the article.
• ›Identify which clause(s) of the Editors' Code are alleged to have been breached and assess each on its merits.
• ›If the complaint has substance — for example, a factual error is identified — consider whether a correction is warranted before the complaint proceeds further.
• ›Take legal advice early if the complaint touches on defamation, privacy, or contempt of court, or if a judicial review is threatened.
• ›Draft the response to address every substantive point raised by the complainant. IPSO adjudicators will scrutinise the publisher's response for gaps.
• ›If offering a correction or remedy, specify its form precisely: where it will be published, in what prominence, and by when.
• ›Retain all internal correspondence relating to the complaint. It may be requested by IPSO during the adjudication process.

Mediation: resolving complaints without adjudication

If the complainant is not satisfied with the publisher's response, they may escalate to IPSO. At this point, IPSO will ordinarily offer mediation before proceeding to formal adjudication. A significant proportion of IPSO complaints are resolved at the mediation stage.

Mediation is conducted by an IPSO complaints officer who acts as a neutral intermediary. The process is without prejudice — positions taken in mediation cannot ordinarily be relied upon in a subsequent adjudication. Either party can decline mediation or withdraw from it at any stage, but a publisher who unreasonably refuses to engage may be viewed unfavourably by an adjudication panel.

The adjudication panel process

If mediation fails or is not pursued, IPSO will refer the complaint to its Complaints Committee — a panel of lay and press members — for formal adjudication. The adjudication process is inquisitorial, not adversarial: the panel reviews written submissions from both sides and applies the Editors' Code to the facts.

• 1Both the complainant and the publisher are invited to make written representations. There is no oral hearing in standard complaints.
• 2The panel may ask follow-up questions of either party. Publishers must respond to these within the time specified by IPSO.
• 3The panel applies the Editors' Code to the facts as established by the written submissions. It does not conduct its own investigation.
• 4Adjudications are published on the IPSO website and in the Rulings and Resolution Statements database, which is publicly searchable.
• 5If a complaint is upheld, the publisher must publish the adjudication in the publication concerned. IPSO specifies the required prominence — for example, on the front page or at the top of the article online.
• 6The publisher has a right to request a review of the adjudication on procedural grounds, but this is not a re-hearing on the merits.

Costs, consequences and enforcement

IPSO does not impose financial penalties on publishers for individual complaint adjudications. The consequences of an upheld complaint are primarily reputational and procedural.

Challenging an adjudication: judicial review

A publisher who believes an IPSO adjudication is unlawful, procedurally unfair, or outside IPSO's remit may apply for judicial review in the Administrative Court of the High Court. Judicial review is not an appeal on the merits: it does not re-examine whether the original article was accurate or whether the Editors' Code was breached. It examines only whether IPSO acted lawfully and within its powers in reaching the adjudication.

• ›Time limits: judicial review applications must ordinarily be filed promptly and in any event within 3 months of the date of the decision being challenged. In media law matters, the courts may expect even faster action.
• ›Pre-action correspondence: before filing, the publisher should send a letter before claim to IPSO, setting out the grounds of challenge and giving IPSO an opportunity to respond.
• ›Grounds: the most common grounds are procedural unfairness (the publisher was not given a proper opportunity to respond), error of law (IPSO misapplied the Editors' Code), or irrationality (the decision was one no reasonable panel could have reached).
• ›Costs: judicial review is expensive. Publisher and respondent costs in contested cases can run to six figures. Permission is required from the court before the full review proceeds.
• ›Practical rarity: judicial review of IPSO adjudications is uncommon. Most publishers exhaust IPSO's internal review process before considering litigation.

Frequently asked questions