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.

The Sentinel
Anna Taylor of Staffordshire complained that a comment piece, on a recent case in which two gay foster parents were found guilty of sexual abuse against minors, was offensive and homophobic and made an inaccurate connection between homosexuality and paedophilia. (Clauses 1, 12)
Resolution: The complaint was resolved when the newspaper published a letter from the complainant.

Malvern Gazette & Ledbury Reporter
Wendy Hands of Worcestershire complained that an article incorrectly reported the projected cost of the Public Private Partnership Primary Care new building as £3.3m rather than the correct figure of £5.2m. (Clause 1)
Resolution: The complaint was resolved when the newspaper published the following correction: An article in the Malvern Gazette in June described "Upton's new £3.3m medical centre". We have been asked to point out the total project cost will be about £5.2m, which includes building work, equipment, all professional fees and the cost of roadworks. The £3.3m figure only included building costs.

Banbury Cake
Kathleen McAdam of Newark complained that an article had reported the inaccurate comments of Chris Cousins, who had claimed that the previous owners of a house in Chatsworth Drive had 'adopted' common land. In fact, the complainant explained that the entire house and land had belonged to her and her husband. (Clause 1)
Resolution: The complaint was resolved when the newspaper published the following statement: In a report in the Banbury Cake of May 18, 'Uproar over house plan', we quoted one neighbour in Chatsworth Drive, Banbury, as questioning the developers' right to build on common land that was 'adopted' by the previous owner. The previous owners, Mr and Mrs McAdam, have pointed out that the whole of the house and land in question was legally theirs and none of it had been adopted. We apologise for any distress or embarrassment this statement caused.

Paisley Daily Express
George Dickson of Paisley complained that a series of articles had misrepresented Elderslie Care Home and its staff. He explained that his wife was a resident of the care home, and that – contrary to the articles – the staff were excellent, the menus were varied, and the hygiene standards were high. (Clause 1)
Resolution: The complaint was resolved when the editor of the newspaper visited Elderslie Care Home and spoke to its staff and the complainant. The editor's impression was that the home was clean, modern and professionally staffed, and was enjoyed by residents and their families. He indicated that he had encouraged the manager of the home to continue to send information about events at the home in the future.

South Woodham and Maldon Weekly News
Dr John Cormack of Greenwood Surgery complained that an article had inaccurately claimed that in 2004 he had given the Maldon and South Chelmsford Primary Care Trust one month’s notice to quit the surgery. In fact, Dr Cormack had repeatedly offered the PCT the opportunity to continue an NHS service at the surgery – and Dr Cormack at present runs an NHS practice from Greenwood Surgery. (Clause 1)
Resolution: The complaint was resolved when the newspaper published a front page apology, with a link to a letter from the complainant, in which he set out his views on South Woodham Ferrers’ new medical centre in more detail.

Milton Keynes Citizen
Christine Robinson of Milton Keynes explained that her husband had died in a tragic accident involving the collapse of scaffolding. She complained that an article reporting that a new hotel would open in the place where the accident took place insensitively stated that ‘some good at least will emerge from the tragedy’. The complainant was further distressed when the newspaper published a follow-up apology which referred to her husband as ‘the dead man’ rather than ‘the deceased’.
The complainant said she did not mind the newspaper writing about her husband or his death but found the wording used in the article and subsequent apology very upsetting.
The editor of the newspaper stood by the article but offered the complainant a full and unequivocal apology if the words had caused her family further upset. (Clause 5)
Resolution: The complaint was resolved when a statement of the complainant's concerns was published on the PCC website.