A council officer who objected to presss coverage of a propoased financial shake-up has had her complaints rejected by the newspaper industry watchdog.

In October last year the Hartlepool Mail revealed how plans to allow Hartlepool Borough Council’s director of community services to step down that would result in £200,000 of taxpayers’ money being paid into her pension fund.

The officer, Janet Barker, claimed the article was inaccurate and intrusive.

In the case of the accuracy claim, she said the Mail’s original article was misleading and readers might believe that she was to be paid a £200,000 lump sum.

The Press Complaints Commission said the Mail’s original article “could have been clearer” – but because the Mail later clarified this point, by publishing a letter saying that the payment was what the council had to pay into Mrs Barker’s pension fund if redundancy was agreed, it ruled no further action was necessary.

Mrs Barker’s claim that the Mail had not made it clear that the redundancy deal was actually only a proposal was also rejected.

The PCC said the paper had made it “very clear” that no decision had been made.

The Commission also said there had been no breach of privacy as Mrs Barker held a position of responsibility and public authority.

It ruled that it would have been misleading for the Mail not to identify Mrs Barker, due to the small number of directors at the council.

Deputy Editor Brian Nuttney said: “The Mail is more than satisfied with the findings of the PCC.

“We felt this story was a matter of public interest and this has been born out by the PCC’s findings and comments.

“These days people are prepared to challenge newspapers, either through the PCC or the courts, if they feel their rights have been infringed. It is therefore crucial that journalists are aware of their responsibilities when they approach every story, so they can give readers the full picture and not shy away from complex issues.

“The fact that the PCC has backed us over this story is a credit to the professionalism of the journalists involved.

“We will continue to tackle difficult issues which are important to our readers with the same thoroughness and fairness shown in this case.”