The majority of complaints made to the Press Complaints Commission, which raise a possible breach of the Code of Practice, are resolved directly between the Commission's staff, editors and complainants.

These are either settled to the express satisfaction of the complainant following some remedial action by the editor or are not pursued by complainants following an explanation or other response from the publication.

Below are summaries of the latest complaints involving the regional press which fall into the first category.

Western Morning News
David Owen, from Exmouth, complained about an article – on the subject of David Cameron's failure to achieve the withdrawal of Conservative MEPs from the European Peoples Party Group in the European Parliament – written by an activist for the UK Independence Party. He was concerned that the newspaper had failed to make clear the author's political affiliations, referring to him as a "Westcountry writer". (Clause 1)
Resolution: The complaint was resolved when the newspaper published a letter from the complainant.

Perthshire Advertiser
John Lewis, of Auchterarder, complained that an article had inaccurately claimed that his partner had set up the website businessperthshire.com and that she owned the company Sundial Creative. (Clause 1)
Resolution: The complaint was resolved when the newspaper published a clarification containing the complainant's denial with the following wording: Further to articles published on the 04 October 2004 and 24 May 2006, John Lewis of Auchterarder has asked us to point out that his partner Jayne Shenstone is neither the owner of, or responsible for, Sundial Creative or the website businessperthshire.com. We should also point out that John Lewis does own Sundial Creative but not Businessperthshire.com

The Journal
Tom Brennan, Regional Secretary of the GMB Northern Region, complained that an article inaccurately reported the details of an Employment Tribunal which had been brought against the Union. (Clause 1)
Resolution: The complaint was resolved when the newspaper published the following correction: In a report of 23 June 2006, regarding the successful claim for unfair dismissal brought by Jane Brown against GMB Union, it implied that Mrs Brown won her claim because she had been bullied out of her job by Tom Brennan. In fact the Tribunal states that they were not asked to make a judgement on the reasonableness or otherwise of Mr Brennan's decision to take from Mrs Brown her political duties.
The tribunal also decided that in any event Mr Brennan's conduct was not the reason for the resignation. She succeeded because the GMB failed to progress her grievance, not because she had been bullied. We are happy to make the position clear and have apologised to Mr Brennan for the errors contained in the report.

Sunday Mercury
David Rickelsford complained that an article reporting that he had been banned from his own home had contained a number of inaccuracies with reference to his dispute with his neighbours. The complainant was particularly concerned that the article had reported matters which had not been confirmed in court as fact. He also contended that the newspaper had intruded into his privacy. (Clauses 1, 3)
Resolution: The complaint was resolved when the newspaper undertook to interview the complainant at the conclusion of his current court case in order to put across his side of the story.

Gloucestershire Echo
Gary Waugh complained through his solicitors Knight Polson that an article had contained a number of inaccuracies in relation to his trial, the charges he was sentenced for, and his role in the credit card scam. (Clause 1)
Resolution: The complaint was resolved when the newspaper published the following clarification: In an article published in the Echo on June 13, 2006, it was stated that Gary Waugh, of Station Road, Gloucester, was jailed for seven years for masterminding an £870,000 credit card scam. We have been asked to point out that Waugh was sentenced to 24 months for two offences of handling goods valued at £24,000, 12-24 months for five proceeds of crime offences and five years consecutive for drug supply offences. Further, the article stated that Waugh's gang told Royal Mail worker Ali Dahir to take the cards posted by Oberthur or he and his family would be hurt. No evidence of this was opened to the court. It was accepted by the Crown Counsel that Waugh was not directly related with such threats. The article implied that Waugh was substantially involved in relation to the £870,000. No facts were presented to the court to suggest Mr Waugh was linked to the full extent of the scam. No evidence was presented to the court to suggest that Waugh had a gang that was making money, or could make money, from the Oberthur cards. No evidence was placed before the court to suggest that Mr Waugh was the 'kingpin', a term used by a police officer after the court hearing, or that a gang run by Mr Waugh used more than 3,000 cards to buy £870,000 worth of goods.

The Citizen
Gary Waugh complained through his solicitors Knight Polson that an article had contained a number of inaccuracies in relation to his trial, the charges he was sentenced for, and his role in the credit card scam. (Clause 1)
Resolution: The complaint was resolved when the newspaper published the following clarification: In an article published in the Citizen on June 13, 2006, it was stated that Gary Waugh, of Station Road, Gloucester, was jailed for seven years for masterminding an £870,000 credit card scam. We have been asked to point out that Waugh was sentenced to 24 months for two offences of handling goods valued at £24,000, 12-24 months for five proceeds of crime offences and five years consecutive for drug supply offences. Further, the article stated that Waugh's gang told Royal Mail worker Ali Dahir to take the cards posted by Oberthur or he and his family would be hurt. No evidence of this was opened to the court. It was accepted by the Crown Counsel that Waugh was not directly related with such threats. The article implied that Waugh was substantially involved in relation to the £870,000. No facts were presented to the court to suggest Mr Waugh was linked to the full extent of the scam. No evidence was presented to the court to suggest that Waugh had a gang that was making money, or could make money, from the Oberthur cards. No evidence was placed before the court to suggest that Mr Waugh was the 'kingpin', a term used by a police officer after the court hearing, or that a gang run by Mr Waugh used more than 3,000 cards to buy £870,000 worth of goods.