The original Daily Mail story published on page 6 in December 2013

Throughout last year there were forecasts in several national newspapers that Britain was about to be inundated by migrants from Romania and Bulgaria. The reports became increasingly hysterical towards the end of 2013.

For example, The Sun carried this in November: "A tidal wave of Romanian and Bulgarian immigrants is threatening to swamp Britain". The following month, the Daily Express quoted an obscure "report" that "at least 385,000 Romanians and Bulgarians will flock to the UK." And the Daily Star reported that airlines were unable to cope with the demand from Romanians and Bulgarians trying to fly to Britain.

Similarly, on the final day of 2013, the Daily Mail ran a very specific story, "Sold out! Flights and buses full as Romanians head for the UK." It stated:

"Almost all flights from Romania to England are full – even though one airline doubled the number to meet demand – with one-way tickets selling for up to £3,000 each. And all tickets for seats on buses leaving the Bulgarian capital of Sofia until January 9 have been snapped up. Wizz Air, the low cost airline that serves Eastern Europe, has doubled the number of flights it is offering. However, because of the demand, even these no-frills flights are being sold at around £300 each... All seats on two British Airways flights from Sofia to London Heathrow next Sunday and Monday – each carrying more than 152 passengers – have been sold."

One named travel agent was quoted as saying: "Everything is booked until Thursday, January 9. There are no seats left."

Within days it became obvious that this report was not so much flawed as wholly inaccurate. There was no exodus from Romania and Bulgaria. Airline tickets had not been sold out. Buses did not arrive packed with would-be immigrants. No-one could discover anyone selling a £3,000 one-way ticket.

Unsurprisingly, with the facts contradicting the story, many people complained to the Press Complaints Commission. According this PCC summary, at least 83 people formally complained. These were third-party complaints and most did not cite the relevant clause in the editors' code of practice, namely the one about accuracy.

However, with so many complaints and given that they involved accuracy, the PCC followed its normal practice by selecting one of them - from a Mr William Galloway - as the lead complaint.

A process of mediation, also normal practice, followed between the complainant and the paper. The result was a "resolution" of the Galloway complaint in which the Mail agreed to publish a "clarification" in the paper and online.

The print version, published at the foot of page two on 24 February, stated:

"An article on December 31 reported information provided by local travel agents that there was limited availability on flights and buses to London from Romania and Bulgaria in January this year, despite one airline doubling the number of flights. We have since been made aware that some reasonably priced flights and seats on buses were available from Bucharest and Sofia at that time. We are also happy to clarify that some of the additional flights were put in place before January 1."

The Mail Online version, carried below the unamended story, was somewhat different. Billed as an "update", rather than a correction or clarification, it reads:

"Our reporters in Bucharest and Sofia were informed by travel agents and on websites within the countries that there was very limited availability on flights and buses to London at the start of the new year. We have since been made aware, however, that some readers were able to find a larger number of flights leaving Bucharest and Sofia at the beginning of January with availability, with fares starting from £122. We understand that some seats on buses bound for London were also available at the time. We are happy to clarify that some of the additional flights were put in place before January 1."

Both versions, however, amount to a complete climbdown by the Mail. Its story and headline were untrue. The paper had clearly breached the clause on accuracy.

Without wishing to be disrespectful to Mr Galloway, if he agreed to the Mail's clarification and update, he was far too easily pleased by accepting the PCC-negotiated compromise.

And what of the other 82 complainants? How do they feel about the way in which the Mail avoided an adjudication for its breach of the editors' code?

Well, one of the 82 is certainly not satisfied. Step forward Jon Danzig, an investigative journalist with a special interest in the European Union, who had submitted a substantial complaint listing 13 reasons why the Mail's story was inaccurate.

He thought the negotiated resolution was "totally inadequate" and emailed the PCC to ask why his own complaint had been ignored. He received a reply from the commission's complaints co-ordinator, Simon Yip, in which he restated that the selected complaint (by Galloway) had been "resolved to the satisfaction of the complainant."

Yip opened the door for Danzig to make a complaint about his own complaint not having been dealt with and Danzig immediately emailed back to request "a ruling by the PCC on my specific complaint." He explained:

"The reason I am requesting that the PCC specifically rule on my complaint is that your investigation into the 'lead complaint' by Mr William Galloway did not address my 13 serious complaints regarding inaccuracy in the Daily Mail's story... It is disappointing that my complaint wasn't investigated in January when I first submitted it. I cannot understand why 81 complaints about the Daily Mail story sent to the PCC during January 2014 – including mine – were discarded by the PCC and apparently rejected."

This is a very interesting case, coming as it does while the PCC's successor body, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (Ipso), is being created.

There is no doubt that the complaint by Danzig, who took the trouble to check every detail of the Mail's story, questions a system self-regulation built around mediation.

A regulator would surely have decided that the Mail had breached the code and ruled as such. If readers were able to read the "clarification" and "update" at the same time as the original article they would see just how false the story was.

The Mail, and not for the first time, has used the PCC's conflict resolution process to avoid a warranted rap over the knuckles.