Following an article published in print on 23 January 2020 headlined “Time to give solar sellers the old Evo”, and online headlined “Beware offers of a free service on your home solar heating system”, the ESE Group and EVO Energy Solutions complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that the Daily Mirror breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice.

The article reported that the customer in the article had received “junk-mail” which had led to her paying “around twice the going rate” for a replacement battery and which a relative of the customer had claimed was second hand.

The article also named a solar association, the BTSA, and a company which the article said claimed to be one of its members, which it reported had sent out “similar mailings” to those which had been found to be in breach of the Renewable Energy Consumer Code. Both versions of the article contained a quote from the complainant saying that the order had been “cancelled”.

The complainant said the article was inaccurate: there had been no junk mail, but a personal telephone call which was part of the contract between the complainant and the customer; that the battery’s price was not twice the going rate; that it was misleading to discuss the BTSA and its member in the article to which it said it was unrelated; that the order had not been “cancelled” but the customer’s payment was on hold during IPSO’s investigation, and that they had offered to reinstall her old battery and that the battery was not second hand.

IPSO found it was significantly inaccurate to characterise a phone call, which the complainant was contractually obliged to make, as “junk mail”. It also found it was significantly inaccurate to state as fact that the battery had been sold at “around twice the going rate” when this was not a like-for-like comparison, without putting this to the complainant first for an opportunity to comment.

The Committee found that it was misleading to have referred to the mailings sent by the BTSA/its member in an article which reported on the experiences of one of the complainant’s customers without also including an explanation as to how the complainant was said to be connected to these two organisations.

It was also inaccurate to report that the customer’s order had been “cancelled” when in fact the customer’s complaint was on hold.

Finally, it was significantly misleading to print claims that the battery was second hand without printing the complainant’s denial of this.

IPSO found that the publication had failed to take care not to publish inaccurate information in breach of Clause 1.