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.

Dumfried and Galloway Standard
The Dumfries and Galloway Housing Partnership complained through solicitors Harper Macleod that an article inaccurately suggested that it had left elderly tenants without facilities for three days. The Housing Partnership raised further concerns that a follow-up article inaccurately suggested that it had accepted and apologised for its mistake, rather than reflecting the true position that it had apologised if the tenants had been distressed. (Clause 1)
Resolution: The complaint was resolved when the newspaper published the following clarification: Further to an article published on 26 May headlined "Apologies for blunder" – reporting that the Dumfries and Galloway Housing Partnership (DGHP) had apologised to an elderly couple – we have been asked to clarify that although the DGHP apologised to the tenants if they were caused any distress by the installation of their kitchen, the Housing Partnership do not accept that the tenants were left without heating, water or electricity for three days. We are happy to clarify the position.

Huddersfield Daily Examiner
Donna Letremy, partner of the late Michael Francois, complained that an article which reported the sentencing of Marcus Rhoden for the attempted murder of a police officer contained inaccuracies. (Clause 1)
Resolution: The complaint was resolved when the newspaper published the following correction: In a report on October 14 about the jailing of Marcus Rhoden for the attempted murder of a Huddersfield police officer, we stated that Rhoden had fired shots at a car he claimed was carrying Michael Francois. This was incorrect. It should have said that Rhoden claimed that he thought Michael's brother was in the car. We are sorry for any distress caused by this error, which was contained in a report supplied by a news agency. The report also stated that a feud between Rhoden and Michael Francois was linked to drugs. We have been asked to point out that although the judge suggested drugs appeared to be part of the feud, no evidence to support this was presented in court.