Corrections Policy

We welcome requests from:

• The person or business the entry is about
• Their solicitor or authorised representative
• Any other company or organisation named
• A source
• Anyone materially affected by what we published
• Any member of the public with relevant evidence
• Our own researchers, writers and reviewers

You do not need to be a Research Member to request a correction.

A request can concern any of the following:

Factual accuracy

A statement is incorrect, and the error is significant.

Mistaken identity

The record links something to the wrong person or business.

Source accuracy

A source has been misquoted, misdescribed or misunderstood.

Procedural status

The case has been dropped, settled, stayed, appealed, overturned or has otherwise moved on.

Subsequent evidence

Reliable new evidence materially changes the picture.

Omission of material context

The facts are right, but something missing makes them misleading.

Personal information

Personal details are inaccurate, unnecessary, excessive or legally protected.

We look at what a challenge actually says and what supports it.

If you dispute an official record, a court document or a regulator’s finding, send reliable material showing why our account is wrong or out of date. We may verify what you send independently, for example against the court or regulator’s own records.

Forged, altered or misleading documents may be rejected and dealt with under the law and our policies.

A request may be checked against:

Researchers, editors or lawyers make further checks where needed before a decision is taken.

Once we confirm that:

• charges were discontinued or no further action was taken;
• a person was acquitted;
• a conviction was quashed or a judgment overturned;
• a regulator withdrew a finding or a warning;
• a sanctions designation was revoked; or
• another significant decision changed,

the entry is reviewed, and the update is given prominence in proportion to the original reporting and the size of the change.

An acquittal is never left underneath an old accusation.

Settlements are described by what they actually say.

Where it matters, the entry records whether liability was admitted, denied, expressly not admitted or left unaddressed. We do not describe a settlement as an admission unless the documents support that.

Something accurate when published can be overtaken by events. In that case we may keep the history and add the later development where readers will see it:

The aim is to stop an older entry giving a false impression of where things stand today.

When a correction changes what an entry means, we may add a notice explaining:

• what we said before;
• what was wrong or missing;
• what we changed; and
• when we changed it.

Minor spelling, grammar, formatting or style fixes do not normally need a formal notice.

See the corrections log

As a matter develops, its grade can move. Three common examples:

A grade changes because the case or the evidence genuinely changed, never as a matter of editorial preference.

We may decline a request where the entry remains fairly and accurately supported by the evidence. A subject’s disagreement does not, on its own, make our reporting inaccurate.

Where credible evidence is genuinely contested, we may set out both positions rather than adopt either as fact.

Accurate reporting is not removed simply because it is:

Equally, nothing stays up just because it is negative. Removal or restriction may be considered where, for example:

• the wrong person was identified;
• information is materially false;
• a material claim can no longer be supported;
• a binding legal obligation applies;
• a reporting restriction applies;
• personal detail is disproportionate;
• a source was seriously mis-authenticated; or
• there is another compelling legal or editorial reason.

Each request is decided on its own facts.

There is no charge for correcting information we find to be materially wrong.

We accept no payment, gift, favour, membership fee or other benefit to hide or alter an otherwise accurate entry. Research Members may receive professional help preparing supporting material, but membership has no effect on the outcome.

The evidence decides. Nothing else does.

A correction here does not immediately change search caches, other databases, web archives, screenshots or copies made by others.

Where technically and legally appropriate, we may update our own metadata or ask search engines to re-index a page after a material correction. We cannot guarantee changes to content that others control.

Nobody is treated less favourably for requesting a correction, instructing a solicitor, disputing our reporting or exercising a legal right.

Equally, instructing a solicitor does not exempt an entry from review.

Depending on the facts, you may have legal rights about inaccurate personal data, privacy or reputation. Under the UK General Data Protection Regulation and the Data Protection Act 2018 these include the rights to rectification, to erasure and to object. You can complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ico.org.uk). Reputation is protected in England and Wales by the Defamation Act 2013, and in Scotland by the Defamation and Malicious Publication (Scotland) Act 2021.

Whether a particular right or exemption applies, including the exemption for journalism in the Data Protection Act 2018, depends on the circumstances. Nothing here limits any right or duty that the law does not allow us to exclude. Read more about your rights if you are named.

Solicitors and other representatives may make requests for their clients. We may ask for reasonable confirmation that they are authorised to act.

A letter of claim does not prove an error, and a solicitor’s involvement is never a reason to ignore credible evidence that a correction is due.

We may review an entry when:

• new evidence emerges;
• a case moves on;
• judgment is handed down;
• an appeal is decided;
• a regulator changes its position;
• a source is discredited;
• a subject sends significant documents; or
• we spot a possible error ourselves.

A published entry stays answerable to the evidence behind it.