Baroness Patricia Scotland, general secretary of the Commonwealth, complained to the Independent Press Standards Organization (IPSO) that Mail Online articles about her flat renovation contained inaccuracies. IPSO was correct in finding that the publication did not breach clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Publishers' Code of Conduct due to the language used, the offer of a right of reply and the timeliness of the articles. The original Mail Online article, published on 1 November 2016, was headlined: "The Head of the Commonwealth, Baroness Scotland's £450,000 renovation of her Mayfair flat included a new bathroom, £3,000 wallpaper and a £4,000 cupboard at taxpayers' expense" (Mail Online, 2017). The strongest evidence in support of Mail Online is the language used in the original story. Mail Online said the £450,000 figure for the refurbishment was an estimate and was based on leaked email correspondence between senior Commonwealth Secretariat staff in May 2016. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay The figure was based on the original cost of £264,000 to renovate Baroness Scotland's flat, “the project was £25,000 over budget and additions were recommended to the renovation which would cost £140,000 excluding VAT”. Mail Online has adopted as fact the figure of £450,000, although the author clarified that the figure had been derived from documents leaked. The article also stated that Baroness Scotland had declined comment. Mail Online said that, despite a request from its sister publication, The Daily Mail, Baroness Scotland refused to confirm. the actual cost of the renovation. Therefore, Mail Online quoted the £450,000 estimate used by the Daily Mail. After the article was published, the Scottish Baroness complained to IPSO that the overall cost of the renovation work was. actually £338,622, a figure which Mail Online did not dispute. Mail Online wrote in mid-November 2016 that the overall cost of the renovation would be £338,622, which is £70,000 more than the original budget. The author said in the article that it was unclear whether the project had been scaled back after the estimated cost reports emerged. The article was not inaccurate, as the final cost of renovating the apartment was still significantly over budget. Mail Online edited the articles weeks later to reflect the final overall cost, and the revised article contained a footnote of clarification and apology: “An earlier version of this article referred to the Baroness's £450,000 renovation Scotland of his apartment in Mayfair. Indeed, the overall cost of the refurbishment was later revealed to be £338,622. We are happy to clarify this and apologize for any confusion” (Mail Online, 2017). Mail Online wrote that the figure of £450,000 was an estimate more than once and, furthermore, they clarified the figure in a timely manner and made it clear to the reader that there was a clarification. Even so, the crux of the story remained intact: His office had spent taxpayer money on these renovations. At all times taxpayers' money, regardless of cost, should be disclosed to the public. Baroness Scotland also complained about the inaccuracies in a second Mail Online article, headlined “Downing Street REFUSES to trust.