Purpose and scope
ConsumerWise is an independent consumer-information website and editorial publication. It operates as a public-interest project and is not a regulator, ombudsman, law firm or registered charity.
ConsumerWise exists to help people understand their rights, examine how organisations exercise their responsibilities and challenge decisions through clear evidence and reasoned analysis.
This policy applies to editorial content across ConsumerWise, including news articles, analysis, commentary, case studies, guides, templates and explanatory material. The particular checks required depend on the nature of the content, the seriousness of any allegations and the circumstances of publication.
ConsumerWise takes a consumer-focused approach. That does not mean accepting a consumer’s account without scrutiny or assuming that an organisation is wrong. Our conclusions should reflect what the available evidence can reasonably support.
Editorial control and independence
ConsumerWise retains final editorial control over content published on the website. This includes decisions concerning subjects, sources, wording, headlines, presentation, conclusions, publication, updates and corrections. Editorial decisions are made on behalf of ConsumerWise and in accordance with this policy.
Organisations and individuals featured in ConsumerWise reporting do not acquire editorial control by providing information, responding to questions or objecting to an article. An opportunity to comment does not confer a right to approve the article, require a favourable conclusion or prevent publication.
Editorial decisions remain subject to applicable law and the standards set out in this policy. Editorial independence does not remove the need to consider relevant evidence, correct material errors or treat the subjects of reporting fairly.
Commercial relationships must not determine substantive editorial conclusions. Any sponsorship, paid placement, affiliate arrangement or other material commercial connection relevant to published content should be clearly disclosed.
Research, sources and verification
Significant factual statements should have an identifiable evidential basis. Depending on the subject, that may include original correspondence, decisions, contemporaneous records, contracts, legislation, judgments, official guidance, published policies, interviews or other reliable sources.
Verification involves examining what a source actually establishes, its context, its date and any limitations. An official document may reliably establish what an organisation said or decided without proving that its account or reasoning was correct.
Where practicable and proportionate, important claims are checked against other relevant material. Evidence that contradicts or weakens a proposed conclusion should be considered alongside evidence supporting it.
ConsumerWise does not apply a mechanical rule that every fact requires two sources. A single authentic document may establish a particular fact, while several accounts repeating the same unsupported claim may not.
Sources should be linked or identified where useful and appropriate. Information may be withheld or redacted where disclosure would create a privacy, confidentiality, source-protection or other legitimate concern.
Private, internal and case-specific material
Private documents, internal process material and real complaint files can be valuable for understanding how a dispute may arise, what records might exist or which operational questions a consumer should ask. They are not automatically authoritative statements of current law or current provider policy.
ConsumerWise may use that material as research intelligence, then generalise the useful concept and independently check the current public legal or regulatory position. Confidential material should not be reproduced publicly merely because it informed the research.
Facts, allegations and editorial analysis
Content should distinguish between:
- facts supported by the available evidence;
- statements or allegations made by an identified party;
- matters that remain disputed or unverified;
- inferences drawn from the evidence;
- opinion, commentary and editorial judgment.
Reporting that someone made an allegation is not the same as establishing that the allegation is true. Similarly, identifying a contradiction does not, without further evidence, establish dishonesty or motive.
Analysis may reach a firm or critical conclusion. The factual basis and reasoning should be sufficiently clear for readers to understand how that conclusion was reached.
Headlines, summaries, images and captions should accurately reflect the substance of the content and should not suggest a stronger finding than the evidence supports.
Evidence, chronology and missing records
Case-based reporting should distinguish the date of an event from the date on which it was recorded or subsequently described.
Documents should be assessed in context, including their authorship, purpose, completeness and consistency with other records. Quotations and extracts should preserve the meaning of the original material. Omissions must not create a misleading impression.
Missing records may justify questions or qualified conclusions, but absence alone does not automatically prove that an event did not happen. Where accounts conflict, reporting should explain the material disagreement and any limits on resolving it.
Relevant research records, source material and correspondence should be retained securely for verification and the handling of editorial queries, subject to appropriate retention and data-protection requirements.
Fair reporting and opportunities to respond
Before publishing significant criticism or allegations about an identifiable organisation or individual, ConsumerWise will normally provide a meaningful opportunity to respond.
An approach for comment should explain the substance of the proposed criticism and ask sufficiently specific questions to allow an informed response. It should identify the response deadline and, where appropriate, the intended publication timeframe.
The time allowed will reflect the complexity and seriousness of the issues, the material provided, previous opportunities to address them and any genuine urgency. Reasonable requests for additional time will be considered.
An opportunity to respond will not necessarily involve supplying the complete draft, disclosing confidential sources or providing every document held. Sufficient information should nevertheless be given to make the opportunity meaningful.
Where an approach is not made before publication, there should be a specific editorial reason, such as a credible risk to a source or genuine urgency. The reason should be recorded.
How responses are considered
Relevant responses will be assessed before publication where received in time. New evidence may require further checks, a change to the proposed article or a decision not to publish.
ConsumerWise may quote, summarise or contextualise a response. Responses need not be reproduced in full, but editing should preserve their substance and fairly represent material explanations, denials and qualifications.
A failure to respond does not establish that an allegation is true. Where relevant, the article may state accurately that no response was received by the deadline, that comment was declined or that particular questions were not answered.
ConsumerWise may proceed with publication after a reasonable opportunity to respond. Material information received later will be assessed and may lead to an update, clarification or correction.
Correspondence labelled confidential, off the record or subject to an embargo will be assessed in light of any agreement, the circumstances and applicable obligations. Such labels should not be treated as either automatically binding or automatically irrelevant.
Personal involvement and conflicts of interest
ConsumerWise may publish reporting or analysis arising from the experiences, complaints or disputes of people involved in its editorial work.
Where an author, contributor or editor has material personal involvement in the subject of an article, that involvement should be disclosed clearly enough for readers to understand the author’s position. The reporting must not present a personally involved contributor as an independent observer.
Personal involvement does not reduce the standards required for evidence, accuracy or fairness. Relevant adverse evidence, the organisation’s position and the status of any unresolved proceedings should be addressed where material.
An individual experience may illustrate or expose a wider issue, but it does not, without further evidence, establish how frequently that issue occurs or prove the existence of a general pattern.
Editorial decisions must remain separate from requests for personal redress. Publication, amendment or non-publication must not be offered in exchange for payment, a favourable complaint outcome or another personal concession.
Public interest, privacy and sensitive information
Reporting should have an identifiable purpose, such as explaining consumer rights, scrutinising decision-making, identifying misleading practices or examining matters of public accountability.
ConsumerWise considers whether identifying an individual or publishing private information is necessary and proportionate to that purpose. Unnecessary personal details should be removed, with particular care for health information, financial information, children and vulnerable people.
Possession of a document does not automatically justify publishing it. Confidentiality, copyright, data protection, reporting restrictions and other applicable obligations must be considered where relevant.
Anonymisation should take account of whether a person could still be identified from the surrounding details. ConsumerWise should not promise anonymity or confidentiality beyond what it can reasonably protect.
Legal and regulatory accuracy
Content should distinguish legislation, regulatory rules, judgments, guidance, industry codes, contractual terms and an organisation’s own procedures. These sources do not all have the same legal status.
Material legal and regulatory statements should be checked against current authoritative sources, with the relevant jurisdiction and significant exceptions identified.
Historical rules or policies should be described as historical. A disputed legal interpretation should not be presented as an established judicial finding.
Guides and practical resources provide general information. Their scope and limitations should be clear, particularly where the appropriate course depends on individual circumstances.
Corrections, updates and editorial complaints
ConsumerWise will assess specific concerns about accuracy, fairness, attribution, privacy or compliance with this policy.
A useful report identifies the page, the passage or issue concerned, the reason for the objection and any supporting evidence. Reports can be submitted through the contact page.
Established material errors should be corrected promptly. A significant correction should include a clear explanation of what changed, with prominence proportionate to the error. Related content should be checked where the same issue may recur.
Updates reflecting later developments should be distinguished from corrections to information that was wrong when published. Minor spelling or formatting changes will not normally require a correction notice.
Disagreement with an article’s conclusions does not, by itself, establish an error. ConsumerWise will nevertheless consider whether the objection identifies missing evidence, a misleading impression or reasoning that requires revision.
Requests for removal will be assessed on their merits. Available responses include clarification, correction, additional context, redaction or removal where justified. Editorial independence does not prevent reconsideration.
Editorial complaints are assessed through ConsumerWise’s internal editorial process and should be submitted through the published contact or corrections route. This is an internal editorial review process and is not presented as independent adjudication or external dispute resolution.
Review and accountability
This policy describes the standards ConsumerWise expects its editorial work to meet. It should be read alongside the source policy, evidence methodology and reviews and corrections policy.
The policy will be reviewed as ConsumerWise’s publishing activities develop. Material revisions should be dated, and any identified departure from these standards should be assessed and addressed.
A published policy is only useful if it is reflected in the work itself. ConsumerWise should be able to explain the evidence, reasoning and editorial decisions behind what it publishes.