Corrections policy

If you spot an error on any page published by the Association of County and City Councils, please email us through the contact page with the full URL of the article and a clear description of what needs to be fixed. Include enough detail that we can verify the mistake without needing to send multiple follow-up questions. The more context you provide, including the specific paragraph or section where the error appears, the faster we can review and correct it. We rely on readers, councillors, and local government officers to help us maintain accuracy across our resources.

Material corrections are noted directly on the affected article when the error is substantial enough to warrant public acknowledgment. A material correction includes mistakes such as citing the wrong statute number, misattributing a legal power to the wrong tier of local government, publishing a figure that was never accurate, or making a claim that reverses the practical meaning of a rule or procedure. These kinds of errors can mislead readers in ways that affect real decisions, so we append a dated correction notice at the top or bottom of the article explaining what was wrong and what has been changed. The original error is not hidden, because transparency about mistakes builds trust and helps readers understand how information evolves.

Typos, broken links, and formatting glitches are fixed quietly without a public correction notice. We do not append a formal acknowledgment every time we repair a misspelled word, fix a grammatical slip, or replace a dead URL with a working one. These are routine maintenance tasks that do not alter the meaning or substance of the content. If a link rots because a council has reorganised its website, we find the new location and update the reference. If a sentence is unclear because of a misplaced comma, we correct it. Readers should assume that minor fixes happen regularly and do not signal a factual error in the original reporting or analysis.

If an old article describes a legal process, funding rule, or administrative procedure that has since changed, we usually leave the original article as it was published and create a new guide reflecting the current position. The old piece remains available as a record of how things worked at that date, which can be useful for understanding the history of a policy or comparing past and present practice. A note at the top of the outdated article will direct readers to the newer explainer. This approach preserves the archive while ensuring that readers looking for current guidance find it easily. We do not rewrite history to make old articles match new rules.

We do not remove articles simply because they have become inconvenient, politically sensitive, or because a councillor regrets a vote or statement described in the text. The archive is the archive, and our role is to document how local government works, including decisions that later prove controversial. If an article contains a factual error, we will correct it. If it describes something that is no longer true because the law or policy has changed, we will add a note and link to updated guidance. But we do not delete accurate reporting because someone wishes it had not been published. Our credibility depends on readers knowing that we do not airbrush the record.

Anonymous correction requests are read, but they are often difficult to act on because we cannot ask follow-up questions or confirm details. If you want a reply or wish to be updated on whether we have made the correction, please include a return email address. If you are a councillor or council officer writing from a personal email account rather than an official one, please say so in your message. We will keep your name out of any public correction notice if you request confidentiality. We understand that people sometimes need to report errors without attracting attention, and we handle those messages with discretion.

Corrections are usually processed within one week of receipt. If the fix requires us to check primary legislation, statutory instruments, council minutes, or guidance from the Local Government Association or other authoritative sources, it may take longer. Complex corrections, especially those involving legal interpretation or conflicting sources, require careful review. We will acknowledge your email either way, even if we conclude that no correction is needed. If we disagree with your reading of the facts, we will explain why. If we agree and make the change, we will let you know once the article has been updated.

This policy applies only to factual errors, meaning statements that are objectively false or misleading. We do not litigate questions of tone, emphasis, or the editorial decision to cover one topic instead of another. Those are editorial choices, not mistakes. If you believe an article is unfair, unbalanced, or missing important context, you are welcome to say so, but we will not treat that feedback as a correction request. Our job is to be accurate, not to please every reader or reflect every possible perspective. We aim for fairness, but we do not pretend to be neutral on questions like transparency, accountability, and the public interest.